Monday morning saw the true relaunch of Gov. Jerry Brown, and some of us streaming his press conference from Sacramento grasped pretty quickly what the recent change in regime would entail. Brown was unveiling his proposed 2011-12 state budget, which is a horrifying thing. In the face of a $28 billion budget shortfall, Brown is proposing massive cuts to higher education, slashed funding for the medical care of the poor, salary reductions of 10 percent for all non-unionized state employees, state park closures, shuttered redevelopment agencies, decimation of the welfare-to-work program and the forcible handoff of a grab bag of responsibilities from the state to local governments. It is, as KQED reporter John Myers noted, a “Schwarzenegger budget.”
The substance was familiar, in other words. It was the style that had changed. Once upon a time, Schwarzenegger would have dived into this material with his usual hammy pitchmanship. There would have been emotional pleas, maybe tears. Now would be the time for all good Culliphoneyans to come together for Culliphoneya, so that the great Culliphoneya dream might continue to blah, blah, blah, etc. Then the debate moved to the legislature, and great knife battles ensued.
Brown, on the other hand, delivered his bad news with a detached, ironic cool. Look, he seemed to say — this is how it is. You could believe him or not, and he didn’t really seem to care one way or the other. Just his affect, in this regard, lends an air of inevitability to the things that are about to come. The new governor has promised no gimmicks, none of the budgetary sleights-of-hand that have plagued the process for the last decade, and he seems mostly to have delivered. The legislative members from Brown’s Democratic Party seem mostly ready to swallow the pill. California is so monumentally broken that this rapid dismantling of great swaths of infrastructure and services does indeed seem like the only politically feasible fix.
A recent Brookings Institution report on the budgetary problems of four Western states, including California, highlighted their hamstrung budgetary powers, especially on the revenue side. In California, of course, this is a legacy of 1978’s Proposition 13, which locked up property tax revenues forever. But Prop. 13 is the no-fly-zone of state politics, and no one seriously dares to bring up potential reforms to the system it has bequeathed us, even while the state burns. Brown — who was governor back when the initiative was approved — is no exception.
Indeed, Republican legislators have already vowed to block a special election that would extend the term of certain existing taxes and fees — a cornerstone of the Brown budget. What happens if there is no election and the taxes expire, a reporter asked Brown Monday. Or what happens if the voters don’t pass it?
The governor was nonplussed. He pointed back to the charts that outlined his huge cuts and said something like: Well, you can just take that and double it.
County Administrative Officer Phillip Smith-Hanes delivered a summary of the situation to the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors Tuesday morning. He and his colleagues tried to summarize all the county programs that would be affected by the Brown budget — law enforcement budgets, fire services, mental health services, the protection of agricultural land, assistance to the needy. On and on and on.
Supervisor Clif Clendenen closed out his comments with an appeal for people to double and redouble their contributions to charities that care for the poor. No doubt government will soon flood us with such bleak requests — won’t you please give, so your neighbors don’t die? — and it brings to mind Oscar Wilde’s 1891 essay “The Soul of Man Under Socialism.” Wilde’s main thrust is painfully dated, but in the years to come his opening sentence should be remembered: “The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others which, in the present condition of things, presses so hardly upon almost everybody.”
Well, that would be a nice idea. But it seems that in getting government off our backs, we have all somehow tacitly agreed to shoulder a much heavier burden. So. With last weekend’s deep freeze in mind, give a thought to contributing to Coats for the Cold.
Every January for the last four years, this organization — founded by local resident Robert Lohn — has conducted a coat drive to benefit children and adults who need help to stay warm. If you’d like to donate a new or lightly used coat, go to coatsforthecold.org and find one of the 35 businesses, countywide, that set up dropoff boxes.
This article appears in The Council that Kicked the Hornets’ Nest.
I think Wilde’s quote is as apt as ever. Shoulder too much of Compassion’s burdens on to a bloated and remote government, or even a smaller and at hand one, and we let each of us off the hook.
I don’t even own a home so Prop 13 doesn’t benefit me (directly) but I won’t pay any more taxes. PERIOD. Figure out another way to revenue enhance, including private charity. Especially private charity! In a state with one-eighth of the nation’s population, the highest taxes, and the biggest deficit, we’ve still ended up with one-third of the country’s welfare cases, and a crumbling infrastructure, while so-called leaders con folks with fanciful train schemes and interest group crapola. Like a strike-slip fault, something’s gotta give. Big time.
We gotta question why bigger ain’t better in the helpin’ folks arena. We have to try seriously different solutions, not pound more sand down the same ratholes.
However, those who want smaller government do thusly have an obligation to shoulder the resulting burden. Let efficient charities take it on and give generously to them with what’s left of your income and your time.
Kudos to Jerry Brown for blunt honesty after decades of bullshit.
Kudos to the Dandy for the above link. Start there.
Funny but the way you describe Brown’s approach to the budget is exactly how I percieved Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s (governor…arnold…schwarzenegger…and people think the whole game is real?). I remember during one speach Arnold even said something like ‘look, the money just isn’t there’. They’re both federal puppets either way. No governor has is or will make waves, they’ve got their own fortune’s futures to look after. As a puppet, arnold was a clear plastic bag. Brown is more of a…brown bag. The feds cometh, the feds taketh away. The population grows (a “mere” two percent annually…exponentially…) dilluting everything even further. The rich get richer, the poor drop off the map in the dark somewhere as always.
“I don’t even own a home so Prop 13 doesn’t benefit me.” No, but Prop 13 costs us all, unless we happen to be one of the lucky beneficiaries (mostly trusts and corporations at this late date).
So, Joel, what are you saying? Get rid of Prop 13 so our property taxes can go sky high, too? We spend too much already! too much of the people’s money, filtered through the inefficient pachinko machine of government. Ya all wanna take care of the poor? Then take care of em! Send * your* money to charity ( or, write a personal check to the social services dept and drop it by); set an example for others.
Ken, what do you do for a living? You say you won’t pay more taxes, period. Oh yes you will. You will bend over as much and as often as the government wants to dip into the wallet in your back pocket. Why categorize yourself with the wealthy, and exclusive, elite?
California, by the way, has the opposite of a crumbling infrastructure. You want to talk about wasted money, WHOOO BOY!!! And if what you say is true, that california has 1/8the population and 1/3 the poverty, this will only make matters worse.
Honestly, when the government…the same one you’re complaining about…dumps over half of our tax dollars into corporate bailouts and the neverending war machine, it reeks really bad to complain about the poorest people who have the least of all to do with it. We pay taxes too, ya know. We make your coffee in the morning and serve it up with a smile while you pull up to drive-thru in your new car. We fix your car. We ring up your groceries.
I don’t think that Mr. Malcomson has any understanding of what Prop 13 has done to California. He might be happier in a teabagger state like Arizona, where taxes will never be raised.
No kidding, joel…what percent of the US population calls Texas home (whether they live there or not) and what portion of the nation’s WEALTH claims to reside there? And how much tax to they pay again? To complain about California’s poor is bad character.
Wow, so many errors, assumptions, and wacky accusations, so little time for a truck driver on his lunch break to refute.
Ok, first, you both SUCK! Oh, wait, sorry. I thought this was YouTube Comments. No, actually you don’t suck but we definitely disagree, though maybe not as much as you might think. My overly fast scribbling left the impression that I refuse to pay taxes. NOT true. I’ll pay my share. I’ll pay the current rate. Just no more. Please, do not raise my rate. And I don’t think we need to raise anyone else’s. I don’t see how feeding this bloated beast is going to benefit the economy.
Ideally, I think the vast majority of us can benefit from a significantly smaller government–say 5 to 6 %? But I know that’s asking way too much from the Statists of America who relate to Govt as a quasi-religion that can solve all of society’s ills if we just have enough faith in it. More is always better in their world view, no matter how wasteful or obviously ineffective. So, just keep it the same cost, make it pay for itself–no deficits, no borrowing to pay the light bill–and fufill the mission with the highest eye toward economy. Jerry’s cell phone recall was a nice step in the right direction. How many folks in the private sector get their mobiles paid for by their company?
As for Prop 13, Joel, I have a great understanding of what Prop 13 has done. It has forced government to limit itself. And excellent idea. And I’m sure even in your most demonic moments you don’t want granny thrown out of her home because her fixed income didn’t keep up with the tax increases. My self-employed Dad lives in Washington. His assessment went up continuously all through the 90’s, far in excess of what local realtors told him his house was worth. His taxes tripled in 5 years. No Prop 13 for him. Blue state spending, however, almost ran him out of his home of 20+ years.
Coin, you are right! I will be bent over and pay whatever the Man tells me to, ultimately, if neccessary, at the point of a gun. The government’s gun. So I pay. And though I do occassion the coffee place’s drive thru I’m just a truck driver, driving a 4 year old compact. Hope that’s not too rich for you!
As for the rich, I’m no suck-up to those that dodge their legal share. If you have a significant income and you don’t pay your share, you really do suck, even if you spend your money on the local social justice organization, or use it for Law School.
Sorry to disappoint you about my status as a lowly middle class peon. As I mentioned elsewhere, if you guys think you care more about the poor than I do, then give them your money. I give thousands to the state and feds. Why is the poverty rate still the same that it was 50 years ago, according to the very same federal govt?
“I have a great understanding of what Prop 13 has done.”
I see no evidence to support the boast.
Huh. It would be nice if these debate responses had facts or references instead of just rhetoric. I looked over some seemingly unbiased and quite detiled assessments of Prop 13 and I admit, I might support some changes when it comes to commercial properties. But this debate wasn’t really about 13 (from my perspective), it’s about starving the beast before it overwhelms society and productivity any further.
But it’s always touchy when you mess with people’s religious beliefs!
Do mere opinions and anecdotes about relatives somehow qualify as “facts or references”?
The immortal corporations that benefit in perpetuity and at our expense from Prop 13 are not the only problem. There are the legal instruments of “trusts,” which are also also immortal, and more often than not, benefit the wealthy classes.
I welcome the idea that Mr. Malcomson “might support some changes,” but we need not be concerned, because “starving the beast” seems to be a much more popular notion nowadays than schooling our children and paving our roads.
If only all they did was pave our roads and school our kids…but they can’t even do that!
The Mad River Bridge was obsolete in 1970 but doesn’t get replaced until now? CalTrans stated unequivocally that the eastern span of the Oakland Bay Bridge (the nation’s 2nd busiest bridge!) will go down–WILL go down–in the next 7.0 earthquake, yet 24 years after the last 7.0 quake they’re still working on it. HSU has about 50 people making base salaries over $100 K per year (according to the Sac Bee, not my Uncle), along with all the perks, yet we keep making education less affordable for the actual students. We don’t get the basics taken care of in this state in a timely and economical fashion, if at all, yet there is always a mewling chorus that decries the businesses that employ most of us as “greedy” and screams murder when someone suggests funding for certain relatively generous (compared with, uh, 49 other states) state programs be scaled back to, uh, 2004 levels in light of the fiscal emergency. Maybe you are right about some trusts benefitting a bit from Prop 13. What the hell does that really have to do with the question that we have run out of other people’s money and the days of reckoning have arrived? This state ran a one time, $12 billion dollar surplus in 2000, thanks to the tech/dotcom bubble, which was in that year bursting. Rather than save that money (never mind refunding it to the people who paid it), Gray Davis and the Democrats spent all of it, including $8 Billion on new programs that would have to be funded each year. The result? 2001 had a great big deficit, and we’ve had one every year since. Look how much the state budget has grown relative to population since then! Enormous. And the profligate waste. One cell phone for every 2.4 state workers? Tip of the iceberg but very enlightening.
The “popular notion” of paying for what you spend, and no more than that, is loooong overdue, Mr Mielke. The people might support some changes, and do.
Hey Same Coin!
We scare you off? 🙂
Democrats and Republicans, eh, Ken? Damn Democrats! Damn Republicans! You’re not worth talking to, ken, sorry. You’re not looking at a bigger picture over a longer timeline, let alone projecting into the future…connecting the dots. You will take that as an offense or whatever but I don’t even give a care. You either get it or you don’t. You don’t and won’t. You see the waste yet say it’s best to cut off the poor who do all the actual work. They don’t call things like tax write offs “helping the rich” but when the guy who made your lunch breaks his leg and misses a week of work, they call his medical reimbursement “helping the poor”. Did the guy who made your lunch today ask you to cut him a personal check? Has anybody, ever?
Caltrans also said the bay bridge would be toll free…over a decade ago.
“The people might support some changes…”
Sure they do. A credulous public supports most of the changes that are promoted by the Republican noise machine. Prop 13 won’t change though, and that’s a goddamned shame.
Joel Mielke, shut your carpetbagging mouth