Reason Writers on TV: Matt Welch Talks California and Greece on Fox Business Channel

On Tuesday, November 9, Reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch appeared on Fox Business Channel to discuss the future of California's economy and its similarities with debt-ridden Greece. About seven minutes.

Comments

[sage]

That was my first thought too. It seemed like the most salient point in all this.

[C'mon man]

I done Tivo-ed your ass yesterday, Matt. I don't think that dude realized you enjoy the Chronic.

[Ross]

Correction on your statements: California voted to decrease the vote threshold to pass a budget, but increased the threshold to a 2/3 to raise "fees." For years, the Dems have been calling taxes "fees" to pass them on a majority vote. Now they can't raise taxes or fees without a 2/3 vote.

[John Thacker]

As I understand it, there's actually a bit of a debate about whether the "can pass a budget by majority vote" obviates the raise taxes and fees provision. It contains a comment about how it applies "notwithstanding" other provisions in the state Constitution.

Ask Canadians about the damage a "Notwithstanding Clause" can do.

[dotdotdot]

Good interview. I think Brian Sullivan made a simple but often overlooked point about why California goes Dem: because the Dems bribe voters with the treasury.

"It's very simple math: if more people are getting than giving, the people who are getting are going to vote in the people who give to them."

[Fleeing Cali]

Unions have a very very sweet deal in Cali, they aren't going to give it up easily.

Californians (especially soccer mom types) have been convinced that if they don't vote D, their child will get a horrible education and/or die.

Minorities have been convinced that they will either be deported (even if they are legal) and/or enslaved if the D's aren't there to protect them.

It's all about the D's successful strategy of groupthink and divide and conquer.

For example, let's look at the governor's results.

White men: Brown 44 Whitman 52
White women: Brown 47 Whitman 48
BLack women: Brown 83 Whitman 16
Latino men: Brown 63 Whitman 33

So what is Brown's constituency? White women somewhat, and anyone not white.

The white vote generally splits fairly close with some swing either way. The black vote is monolithic, and the hispanic vote pretty close to it.

The democrats have long targeted white women as the way to swing elections and it works.

[lee]

The Latino vote isn't as big as everyone thinks. At the top of my head, in California they make up a mere 10-15% of the registered voters. Only 33% of Latinos are likely to vote. Whites still make up more than 60% of likely voters here.

The perennial efforts to woo the minority votes by the likes of Meg Whitman simply makes no sense. To win in California, you probably have to capture the white vote outside of Los Angeles, SF, and some coastal cities. The central and eastern half of the state went mostly red in 2010. But Whitman decided to make John Mccain impressions in the general election and undoubtedly lost some hardcore conservative white votes she needed.

Half of the minorities in California consider themselves as at least somewhat conservative. Prop 8 and prop 19 are proof of that. Republicans will have to find a way to connect with them on social conservatism while promoting fiscal conservatism - if they're serious about winning their votes.

Because Latinos are not unlike Bush era republicans. They're social conservatives who feel the government has a role in promoting morality, alleviating poverty, or directing the economy.