Schwarzenegger and California Misgovernance

Sometimes I find an analysis that states the points I have been trying to make so well that I simply marvel. I found such a piece by Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik in the paper's May 21 edition. You can go to the original and read it here. Written the day after the crushing defeats of the budget propositions Governor Schwarzenegger helped broker through the legislature, Hiltzik's piece details the lies that have brought the state's fortunes to their current point and the opportunity the governor had to fix things but squandered. Hiltzik's opening is right on the money:

Schwarzenegger had the kind of voter support in 2003 that would have allowed him to tell the voters the harsh but necessary truths about California governance and force real reforms down their throats. Instead, he uttered the same lies about state government and proposed many of the same nostrums as many of his predecessors: Californians are overtaxed and underserved, the budget can be balanced by cutting waste, fraud and abuse, etc. Like everyone else who has made these claims, he never delivered on his promise. His cut on the car tax cost the state $3.6 billion per year, making him directly responsible for pretty much all of today's $21 billion deficit.

He then goes on to demolish the, "lie that Californians are burdened by the highest state taxes in the nation." He cites U.S. Census figures from 2006 to show the state ranks 18th, and that, despite continual bleating from the Chamber of Commerce, Schwarzenegger and others, the burden on the rich is extremely light. "The top 1 percent of California income earners (average 2007 income $2.3 million) paid 7.4 percent of their income in various state taxes, counting the federal deduction for state taxes." In contrast, "the highest rate was paid by the poorest residents. Those earning $20,000 or less, with average income of $12,600, forked over 10.2 percent of their income."

As rational observers (including me) have long noted, "California's voters have been trained for too long to think they can have roads, schools, universities, clean air and other amenities without paying their true cost." Afraid to tax people as much as it would take, yet afraid to cut the services they expect and demand, politicians have refused to level with the people or make the realistic tough choices involved. So services deteriorate, especially at the local level, and "Voters get more cynical, more convinced that government is expensive and useless. It's a vicious cycle." By virtue of his early popularity, Schwarzenegger had a "golden opportunity" to correct these sophistries, but chickened out and failed to live up to his action hero image. He turned out to be a "girly man" himself.

Hiltzik's remedies are some of the same ones you have been reading here for quite some time: 1) "Eliminate, or at least seriously loosen the two-thirds legislative requirement to pass a budget or raise taxes." It gives the extremists at both ends the balance of power. 2) "Remove legislative term limits." They ensure inexperienced legislators. As Hiltzik asks of the years since 1995, "You want to tell me that government in Sacramento has improved since then?" 3) "Revise Proposition 13." It makes it impossible for localities to control their own revenue and leaves them at the mercy of Sacramento, which robs them to fund itself.

Schwarzenegger has lost his chance, his reputation now tattered beyond repair. It remains to be seen if anyone in the current crop of hopefuls will have the intestinal fortitude to tell the people how it really is. Or for that matter, if the electorate, fed on placating fairy tales for so long, will be able to accept the truth if someone ever does give it to them.