Political-Commentary.com

Proposition 55 -- An Example of What is Wrong with California

One measure on Tuesday's California ballot has received little attention from the press or the commentators. That measure is Proposition 55, which is a $12.3 billion bond measure for educational facilities (roughly, $500 for each man, woman, and child in California). The lack of attention is mysterious, since Proposition 55 typifies why California is in its present fiscal mess. On the one hand, voters like to pass propositions that drastically increase state spending. On the other hand, they continue to elect politicians who refuse to raise taxes to pay for any of these measures. Not surprisingly, we have ended up with a severe imbalance between spending and taxes.

It makes little sense to vote for Prop 57 -- which, we are told, is a way to cover past spending excesses so we can go forward into a new era of fiscal responsibility -- while also voting for Prop 55, which is a "business as usual" measure that only contributes to the state's fiscal problems.

California Election

How should we vote in the California election on Tuesday, March 2, 2004? For me, the easiest vote is on Proposition 56, which would reduce from 2/3 to 55% the vote needed to pass a budget. This proposition would help fix the anomaly that the Legislature needs only a 50% vote to reduce taxes, but a 2/3 vote to increase them. At present, it is a lot easier for the Legislature to reduce taxes in times of prosperity than to increase them in times of fiscal crisis. This probably is part of the reason why we are in such a mess today. "Yes" on 56.

Proposition 55 is a $12,300,000,000 (yes, that is 12.3 billion, not 12.3 million) bond measure for educational facilities. An analysis of this measure ties in well with the analysis above of Proposition 56. The Legislature needs a 2/3 vote to raise taxes to pay for the interest on the Proposition 55 bonds, yet the voters can approve Proposition 55 by a 50% vote. No wonder California has problems! It doesn't help that the voters seem rather clueness, continuing to approve measures like this while expressing outrage that they might have to pay taxes to fund them. Proposition 55 might be a good measure if it required, say, a slight increase in the sales tax to service the debt (or a small income tax surcharge), but it is the wrong measure when it has no funding mechanism.

Next is Proposition 57, which would issue a $15,000,000 bond to pay off the General Fund deficit. First, it may be noted that about 1/3 of that deficit is due to Schwarzenegger's reduction in the car tax. Thus, we would be issuing bonds to cover a tax reduction. That is a crazy way to conduct fiscal policy! We are told that there will be dire financial consequences if the voters do not approve this bond. But such dire consequences are due almost entirely to the Legislature's and the Governor's refusal to even consider a tax increase (which, of course, would require a 2/3 vote). I recommend a "no" vote on Proposition 57 -- we need to hit the Legislature and the governor over the head with a 2 x 4 to bring them to their senses. If Proposition 57 is defeated, and Proposition 56 is enacted, there is at least some chance that the Legislature will do the responsible thing, and increase taxes (just as Republicans Ronald Reagan and Pete Wilson did when faced with similar situations).

Finally, there is Proposition 58, the California Balanced Budget Act. If this measure fails, Proposition 57 also will fail (even if it gets a majority vote). I recommend a "no" vote to help assure the defeat of Proposition 57. Anyway, Proposition 57 is a bad idea -- there is no reason for the budget to be in balance very year, and you can be sure that the politicians will come up with creative ways to get around the provisions of this proposition.

Bush and the National Guard

What is the significance of the controversy about Bush and the National Guard? On one level, not much. We know that Bush had some problems in his past (drinking and arrests), and they really aren't relevant to his performance as president. Of course, it can be argued that the real issue is that Bush is now lying about what he did in the past. But if so, this surely is an insignificant lie in comparison to his continuing lies about Iraq, the economy, and everything else.

On another level, however, the controversy is quite significant. It shows that Bush is a fellow who happily agreed to have taxpayers teach him how to fly, and then unilaterally decided that he didn't want to fulfill his flying commitment to the military. In other words, he acted like a spoiled brat who thought he could do whatever he wanted, and damn everyone else. Hmmm, sort of like his performance as President!

Bush's Interview

Did you miss the Bush interview on "Meet the Press"? Here it is in its entirety:

Q: [put any question here]
A: I did what I did because it was the right thing to do. You have a problem with that?

Justice Scalia

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has said he doesn't believe anyone could reasonably question his impartiality in the case involving Vice President Cheney. In fact, of course, Scalia's impartiality can be questioned in most cases that come before the Court. Scalia has a far-right agenda, and as a Justice he does what he can to further it.

What Scalia doubtless was thinking, but perhaps didn't express very well, is that his relationship with Cheney will have no effect upon his position in the case. That doubtless is true -- Scalia would take Cheney's side even if he had never met the fellow.

Nevertheless, the entire judicial system is based upon the idea that judges are impartial (which is largely true, unless you are talking about Supreme Court justices). In order to preserve both the appearance and the reality of impartiality, it is important that judges not rule in cases where they are friends with one of the litigants. Whether or not their thinking actually is affected by the friendship is irrelevant.

Scalia is a smart guy -- why doesn't he know that?

Terrorist Attack Prevented?

Tom Ridge says that the cancellation of certain airline flights has prevented another Al Queda attack. So, after all the money spend on airport security, on bulletproof cockpit doors, and on who knows what else, we still are protected only if we cancel the flights the terrorists are targeting? Really comforting.

Getting Out of Iraq

Bush has offered three reasons for the Iraq War: Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S.; Saddam had ties to Al Queda; and Iraq deserves democracy.

Bush now wants to get out of Iraq before the November 2004 presidential election. A hasty retreat is consistent with either of the first two reasons for the war, as our business would have been done once we defeated Saddam. But a hasty retreat is inconsistent with the third reason, as democracy will be achieved only if we stay as long as needed.

The first two reasons for the war have been discredited (if they ever made sense), so Bush is forced to rely upon the third reason. Yet that reason is inconsistent with a quick exit. If Bush does make a quick exit, and democracy fails to take hold, he will not have achieved a single goal of the war. But if he stays in Iraq, he may not be re-elected.

Bush is between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

Weapons Inspector David Kay

Weapons inspector David Kay says that the CIA owes an apology to George Bush for its intelligence failures. Huh? Certainly, one can imagine a situation where bad intelligence on WMD might have pushed a reluctant President toward war. In such a situation, an apology might be appropriate. However, the actual situation was just the opposite -- Bush was looking for any intelligence that would justify a war, and to a large extent the CIA gave it to him. The CIA doesn't owe Bush an apology for telling him what he wanted to hear, but instead owes the American people an apology for helping Bush to justify this war.