Tim Cavanaugh | May 21, 2009
Like a schmendrick I included the wrong URL for Jon Fleischman's news aggregator FlashReport.org in my latest Reason print column. I regret the error, and I urge you to head over to the Flash Report and read Fleischman's roundup of the winners and losers in this week's ballot initiative debacle.
It's almost always the case that the losers column is where the really interesting stuff is (and I wish Fleischman had included the state's newspaper editorial boards, and the papers' reporters themselves, for their blithe, blithering, anti-voter editorializing on the initiatives).
But in this case, the long-expected failure of the propositions means the real action was in the winners circle. For several months, members of California's fiscally responsible rump have been competing to take credit for the defeat of the slate. Fleischman gives the top spot to Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Coupal is a frequent contributor for Fleischman, but in this case I think the credit is deserved: Coupal was an energetic presence both among the tea party crowd and in doing anti-Prop 1A media. He and the HJTA helped define the slate of initiatives before supporters ever got a chance.
This performance was in marked contrast to the weak showing by Coupal and others during the end game over last year's budget, which ran into this February. In that case, tax opponents pretty much hunkered down and let the MSM define the handful of principled Republicans in Sacramento as a bunch of dead enders who, as the phrase always goes in these matters "haven't presented any alternative plan." (Admittedly, California Republicans are a weird bunch and hard to defend even in the best of times.)
In general I prefer my niche as the Libertarian Pessimist. I even got agida the night before the vote when I received a remember-to-vote robo-call from one "Alan Helfman" of the L.A. Unified School District's "Office of Government Relations;" I figured in the end the props would pass because the left just wanted it more. So I am really happy that tax rebels have been re-animated. To all readers who wonder why the Brandy Alexander-sipping, inside-the-beltway toffs of Reason are giving so much attention to California, just remember that the Golden State has a long, if checkered and irony-laden, history of leading the rest of the country away from the big-government swamp. The original Prop 13 and the Reagan Revolution were one installment in this history, and I hope Tuesday's low-turnout vote was the beginning of another one. (Provided the Obama Administration doesn't bail out the state first.)
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
It's almost always the case that the losers column is where
the really interesting stuff is
And their tears are so yummy and sweet.
Feh! Kaliforn-eye-ay, is twice as hopeless as the rest of the country. Even Iowa has gay marriage now.
I think I am going to enroll at Norwhich University and specialize in terrorism. I love blowin' shit up.
My vote matched the outcome precisely, but to be honest, I think giving someone credit for the defeat isn't nearly as accurate as giving the teacher's union credit for their non-win. If you were here, you'd know -- you could tell they just didn't have their heart in this one.
I voted "no" all the way down. Even 1F. Why give the jerks and excuse to raise taxes to get their pay raises back? But that's just me because I'm a purist who doesn't like taxes.
I have to take exception with who you say deserves credit. While
both Fleischman and Coupal have done great and wonderful things to
help defeat the props, I think the real credit goes to John and Ken
of the John and Ken Show on KFI 640 in LA. These guys were on the
budget process since '08, watching everything carefully and
reporting all that they found.
They were also key in holding two anti-tax rallies, including one
on May 16, just a few days before the election.
They also had both gentlemen on the air, allowing them to explain
to their listeners exactly what was going on.
In addition to all that, they are supporting recalls of various
Republican assemlymen and state senators for turning their backs on
a pledge not to raise taxes anymore.
I mean, even the governator asked whether he was in charge of
running the state or John and Ken. Since the election, John and Ken
are awaiting to take their rightful place as co-governers of
California.
In general I prefer my niche as the Libertarian
Pessimist
"The" libertarian pessimist? There are many of us, Tim, but we
should be called "realists." The United States has reached the
tipping point as a nation. We're bankrupt, both economically and
philosophically. There will be a few illusory victories in the days
ahead, but 40 years hence we'll look back wistfully and tell anyone
who listens about the good old days, when Americans were
giants.
Large elements of the Left opposed the propositions, because 1A
did take money from the Prop 98 guarantees for schools, and other
propositions took money mandated for preschool or for mental health
programs, and the Left saw these as attacks on their favored parts
of government.
There were two reasons for libertarians and conservatives to oppose
the propositions: defeat of 1A will end the sales tax hike in two
years instead of 4, and defeat of the propositions shows widespread
anger, alienation and distrust of the Governor and the
legislature.
Many unions along with the Green Party and the Peace & Freedom
Party opposed all the propositions; the Democratic Party voted to
oppose Prop 1A.
The left was not pushing these - only the Governor, the Democrat
leaders in the legislature, and the Teachers Union. The rest of the
Left, all the Right, and Libertarians were all against, along with
the voters in all 58 counties. (except Prop 1B, backed by the
Teachers Union carried three Bay Area counties).
Actually Gene, I have to take a couple of exceptions to what you
said.
First, the Democratic Party did not oppose Prop 1A. The Democrats
simply did not endorse it, so it was a sort of a wash.
Only the Republicans, after much urging from many of their
constituents, opposed the measure, but decided not to spend any
money supporting that position because they had already given a
lion's share of their funds to the guvenator's group who supported
the proposition.
Secondly, the other reason many fiscally conservative people voted
against 1A, is because it was not a real spending cap. Rather than
tying spending to the rate of inflation plus population growth,
they calculated how much they were allowed to spend based on the
previous ten year's revenues. There was nothing in there that said
they couldn't raise taxes. What that meant, was that if they did
raise taxes, then more revenue would come in, then that would add
to the ten year average and they could spend more the following
year. Not sure how Arnold could call that a cap.
Finally, there were several teacher's unions that opposed all props
including 1B, because they were not invited to drink from the
trough.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245