The Economist is a magazine--well, they call themselves a "newspaper"--that I respect and enjoy reading. Sometimes, though, I read something from among their usually well-written articles and feel that the beat just isn't going on like it ought to. Then I browse over to
economist.com and write a comment on their story. A recent article that they published on California is a case-in-point. The title of the article is
"California -- Not quite Greek, but still weak." You probably get the drift of the article just from its title.
There's much value in their article, but even so it has significant shortcomings, perhaps caused by a murky view from their vantage point in London. They seem to have a reporter stationed in Los Angeles, and you would think that could be an aid in accuracy, but perhaps that person--if originally from the cooler climes of Great Britain--has been disadvantaged by a bit of sunstroke.
The links in this posting will let you reach
their web site where you can read the article as well as numerous other comments, if you so choose. Here's a copy of my comment in its entirety:
"As a life-long Californian who has been a
regular participant in our local political shenanigans for the last four
decades, I feel qualified to recognize that your article on California
is reasonably informative as well as mildly entertaining. In a similar
manner, your very own Sir Francis Drake once set foot upon our fetching
shores and then quickly removed himself to more agreeable adventures
after apparently concluding, as The Economist has done, that the land
held great promise if only the natives could be brought to heel.
"In fact, California is a monumentally successful giant. Though it
has troubles, it is misleading to your readers to begin your story with a
headline that implies infirmity. California has been, and continues to
be, a prodigious producer of goods and services from such industries as
agriculture, entertainment, finance, information technology, tourism
and a variety of different types of manufacturing.
"And yet, even with all of these successes and strengths, the
governing of the State is, as you have pointed out, not producing the
same type of success. Governance needs improvement, but it is not likely
to come about in the manner that you have suggested.
"A comprehensive and lasting solution to California's revenue and
spending woes will require a recognition on the part of the State's
voters that they cannot create and implement a solution, and so instead
they must once again empower their elected representatives to accomplish
this herculean task.
"The State's voters have occupied themselves with setting limits on
taxation, while at the same time requiring more government services, for
several decades now, and the evidence of their failure to balance
revenues with spending is obvious. It has been the voter's
actions--instigated, at times, by election advertising that is
lavishly-funded by various special-interests--that have contributed to a
mismatch between funding obligations and revenue generation. Also,
voters' actions bear much of the responsibility for the creation of the
current dysfunctional legislative environment.
"For example, revenue generation from the collection of taxes on real
property is limited by a law passed by the State's voters in the late
1970s, called Proposition 13. The property tax on all real (not
personal) property is 1% of that property's assessed valuation, and the
assessment is allowed to increase by a maximum of 2% annually, until the
property's ownership changes, at which time it is reassessed at the
value of the current transaction. This applies to business and
residential property equally. Since the ownership of business
properties changes much less frequently than does the ownership of
residential properties, the revenue collected for State and local
government operations has withered to a far greater extent than had been
the original understanding of the voters who enacted this law.
"In addition, this same law enshrined the legal requirement for a
two-thirds majority vote in the State legislative bodies as a
requirement for the passage of taxation measures. Proposition 13 also
required the same super-majority legislative vote for annual passage of
the State's budget, but that was reversed by a simple majority popular
vote in 2010, and now the State's Legislature and Senate are empowered
to enact an annual budget on a simple majority vote, but are not allowed
to pass corresponding revenue measures in the same way because taxation
still requires a 2/3 majority vote of those bodies.
"California's voters have also imposed term limits on all State
legislators. One unintended consequence of this attempt to ensure that
it would be impossible to make a career out of being elected to office
is that professional lobbyists have become the most
legislatively-knowledgeable people involved in State government. Since
knowledge creates power, the lobbyists are perhaps now the most powerful
force involved in State government.
"To say, as you do, that California's politicians are "hated" probably
overstates the feelings of the electorate. Though there are always
some who hate, I believe that in this case a more accurate statement
would be to say that our politicians are often viewed with mistrust,
skepticism and disrespect. Some of those feelings are well-earned, but
not all of them.
"The recent changes in the State's election system that you have
described might contribute some improvements to governance over time.
However, probably of greater importance is a recognition by the State's
voters that they have contributed to the fiscal problems by creating a
maze of conflicting boundaries within which California's legislative
bodies are compelled to act. Once that recognition is achieved, we as
voters can then stop being obstacles for good governance, and instead
expect--as we once did--that our elected representatives are
professional enough to produce good governance through their legislative
actions."
"In fact, California is a monumentally successful giant. Though it has troubles, it is misleading to your readers to begin your story with a headline that implies infirmity. California has been, and continues to be, a prodigious producer of goods and services from such industries as agriculture, entertainment, finance, information technology, tourism and a variety of different types of manufacturing.
"And yet, even with all of these successes and strengths, the governing of the State is, as you have pointed out, not producing the same type of success. Governance needs improvement, but it is not likely to come about in the manner that you have suggested.
"A comprehensive and lasting solution to California's revenue and spending woes will require a recognition on the part of the State's voters that they cannot create and implement a solution, and so instead they must once again empower their elected representatives to accomplish this herculean task.
"The State's voters have occupied themselves with setting limits on taxation, while at the same time requiring more government services, for several decades now, and the evidence of their failure to balance revenues with spending is obvious. It has been the voter's actions--instigated, at times, by election advertising that is lavishly-funded by various special-interests--that have contributed to a mismatch between funding obligations and revenue generation. Also, voters' actions bear much of the responsibility for the creation of the current dysfunctional legislative environment.
"For example, revenue generation from the collection of taxes on real property is limited by a law passed by the State's voters in the late 1970s, called Proposition 13. The property tax on all real (not personal) property is 1% of that property's assessed valuation, and the assessment is allowed to increase by a maximum of 2% annually, until the property's ownership changes, at which time it is reassessed at the value of the current transaction. This applies to business and residential property equally. Since the ownership of business properties changes much less frequently than does the ownership of residential properties, the revenue collected for State and local government operations has withered to a far greater extent than had been the original understanding of the voters who enacted this law.
"In addition, this same law enshrined the legal requirement for a two-thirds majority vote in the State legislative bodies as a requirement for the passage of taxation measures. Proposition 13 also required the same super-majority legislative vote for annual passage of the State's budget, but that was reversed by a simple majority popular vote in 2010, and now the State's Legislature and Senate are empowered to enact an annual budget on a simple majority vote, but are not allowed to pass corresponding revenue measures in the same way because taxation still requires a 2/3 majority vote of those bodies.
"California's voters have also imposed term limits on all State legislators. One unintended consequence of this attempt to ensure that it would be impossible to make a career out of being elected to office is that professional lobbyists have become the most legislatively-knowledgeable people involved in State government. Since knowledge creates power, the lobbyists are perhaps now the most powerful force involved in State government.
"To say, as you do, that California's politicians are "hated" probably overstates the feelings of the electorate. Though there are always some who hate, I believe that in this case a more accurate statement would be to say that our politicians are often viewed with mistrust, skepticism and disrespect. Some of those feelings are well-earned, but not all of them.
"The recent changes in the State's election system that you have described might contribute some improvements to governance over time. However, probably of greater importance is a recognition by the State's voters that they have contributed to the fiscal problems by creating a maze of conflicting boundaries within which California's legislative bodies are compelled to act. Once that recognition is achieved, we as voters can then stop being obstacles for good governance, and instead expect--as we once did--that our elected representatives are professional enough to produce good governance through their legislative actions."