Deliberative polling, a hybrid focus group, town hall and expert panel, was developed in the early 1990s by the Stanford communications professor Jim Fishkin.Randomly selected voters are brought together to be polled on their opinions, lectured by experts, interned in breakout sessions, then polled again to see how their opinions change. The goal is to get a sense of how voters would lean if they were, in the opinion of the pollsters, better educated.
While I think the research structure of deliberative polling is fatally flawed by the presumption that the pollsters know what constitutes adequate knowledge of public affairs, the process itself is potentially interesting.
It would, for example, be interesting to see a random set of voters get browbeaten for two days not by good-government think tanks, politicians and apparatchiks but by a different set of experts whose default presumption is that holders of state power are no less self-interested than any other people.
That is clearly not the case with the Torrance event, where the above-the-line talent includes L.A. City Councilman Paul Krekorian and former Schwarzenegger cabinet member Sunne Wright McPeak, who now heads a non-profit devoted to closing the "digital divide."
As this sampling of tweets from the white-hot center of the deliberiffic action shows, the participants in the What's Next, California? event have not, as initial reports suggested, risen so far above politics as usual that the city of Torrance is in imminent danger of escaping Earth's gravitational pull.
Tweets in reverse chronological order, just like life:
Epic Quote: "I'll pay my high California taxes. I call it the 'weather tax.' I just want some accountability."
Fascinating discussion of taxes. 1 thing clear: Prop 13 as it stands is a big obstacle to raising revenue.
"Ppl caught w joint shd be made to clean up streets, graffiti not in jails"
Actually, random sample was drawn from CA registered voters. Supposedly, it matches CA overall pop. pretty well.
I think a young man in this group has been writing a group manifesto - wonder what that's all about?
participant: we're all gonna have to pay to get out of this mess. #prop13
What made this wknd great was how we discussed the structures of govt without regard to political opinion.
Methodology claims to avoid groupthink b/c it doesn't require consensus, but this group is trying to get there anyway…
Some scary misconceptions here & there but yes:"@kathayccc:Amazing how smart #Nextca participant discussion is. I'd let them govern anyday!"
New group debating piecemail approach vs overhauling all of #prop13.
Sen Michael Rubio "We need performance measures to be accountable to our constituents."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com
posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary
period.
Subscribe
here to preserve your ability to comment. Your
Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the
digital
edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do
not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments
do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and
ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
"If only we'd had three decades of old people being forced to sell their homes because of rising property taxes, our state's economic problems would be over!"
Prop. 13 has actually kept California out of the dire situation in other states where declining property values have led to plummeting property taxes and cash-strapped local governments.
Local governments in CA are out of cash for bizarre reasons like the state cutting programmes that piped money to local governments, or ancillary revenue streams like building permits drying up due to no new house construction.
Prop 13 makes it harder for new businesses/owners to enter the market.
No, Prop 13 makes it harder for government to continue to overspend, because real estate is an easy target as it cannot be relocated.
New businesses and owners aren't held back by Prop 13, they're held back by government regulation.
Prop 13 enables business investment because it eliminates sudden tax hikes, which will be passed along to the customers while simultaneously restricting businesses from competing.
The government wants to repeal Prop 13 because they want to take more money rather than run more efficiently. What's so hard to understand about that?
If the reform is that everyone pays no property tax (or lets be a bit more realistic, and say the same low rate for their Property tax), I'd be for it. Prop 13, as currently constructed? It just allows Disney to be total assholes while paying relatively little while a new business owner is paying a higher rate. Its ass backwards.
It's interesting to see how Houston looks pretty much like other American (or Texan) cities, despite the lack of zoning. Houston has always had affordable housing relative to other growing sunbelt cities, though...
This is true. But even thought Prop 13 is a stupid distortion, its proponents have two valid arguments: that it's repeal will not be met with a balancing of tax burdens but rather an increase on current beneficiaries, and that with this new revenue California is more likely to go on another spending spree than balance its budget in the long-term.
Having lived in the Bay and seen how it fucks over newcomers -- through building height restrictions in SF, rent control almost everywhere, etc. -- I personally could care less if it were gone given how its current beneficiaries are already subsidized, but it would be replaced with something almost equally bad, IMO.
Arr, it be a sad sight indeed. There lies before you the glowing embers of a burning sinking ship, a viewing to surely gladden the heart, but then to be denied the totality of her spoils? Aie, such be the stuff of melancholy.
The value of the property upon resale ends up being less than it would be without the new sky-high property taxes, so older residents still have some incentives to avoid high tax rates.
If property is reassessed every year, the government favours new residents over old ones, as the new ones can vote in giant tax increases and get to enjoy the benefits while the elderly are priced out of their own homes.
I disagree. The real value of the land is what you can sell it for. As long as we're accepting the idea of taxation, I don't see why someone who loses everything on penny stocks should pay the same tax on his initial investment as someone with huge capital gains. Real estate here is similar: someone invests in land and benefits from its increase in value. Someone whose land decreases in value should have lower taxes.
Part of what would feed a bubble, FWIW, is any policy that encourages buying and discourages selling, which is exactly what Prop 13 is.
I'm agnostic on Prop 13, but only because it its repeal would compensate for the decreased distortions with higher taxes.
Someone whose land decreases in value should have lower taxes.
I agree in part. As you say - land is valued at it's sale price - which enables those purchasing land after it has decreased in value to reap the tax benefits.
If it were left completely to the government, property tax roles would reflect the same bubble reality that enables public sector unions to ignore economic downturns.
If the value of the land is what it can sell for, then the property tax basis can adjust when the property is sold.
It's pretty stupid for someone who wants to buy a house and live in it for 30 years to be responsible for paying real estate bubble taxes, unless you think it's a good thing for families to have to move every 3 years.
If the value of the land is what it can sell for, then the property tax basis can adjust when the property is sold.
Then it should also adjust when equity is extracted, and there should be a separate regime for companies, who are the prime beneficiaries anyway (it's a lot easier to find companies -- and then mostly larger corporations and CRE players -- that have owned the same property in the Bay since '75 than people). There's something in between Prop 13's massive understatement of real value and total volatility.
The point is that I shouldn't be paying three times the property taxes as someone else for the exact same use of wealth (about the differential versus '75 plus Prop 13's allowed 2% annual increase).
And again, Prop 13 with all its glorious inefficiencies exists because no one trusts the state to spend the money wisely. In fact, a ton of the windfall from a Prop 13 repeal would just go to redevelopment agencies anyway. I wouldn't classify it as a particularly fair method of taxation, though.
"The goal is to get a sense of how voters would lean if they were, in the opinion of the pollsters, better educated."
In other words, the goal is to see what the poll results would be if the people being polled thought exactly like the people conducting the poll. If they need to masturbate so much, wouldn't pornography be both cheaper and more effective?
We spent a lot more time discussing the issues with fellow californians with limited moderator intervention than by listening to 'experts' and teh material we were given was very well-balenced with well-researched pros and cons. It had to have been it was put together by Stanford's and Pepperdine's schools of public policy which are know for their conservatism as well as other foundations with a more liberal slant. But the people putting this on were serious about finding legitimate solutions not about brainwashing the state (it would have been a very expensive brainwashing if that was the case to pay stipends, meals, lodging, and transport to brainwash only about 400 people).
The government wants to repeal Prop 13 because they want to take more money rather than run more efficiently. What's so hard to understand about that?
@ I paid $32.67 for a XBOX 360 and my mom got a 17 inch Toshiba laptop for $94.83 being delivered to
our house tomorrow by FedEX. I will never again pay expensive retail prices at stores. I even sold a
46 inch HDTV to my boss for $650 and it only cost me $52.78 to get. Here is the website we using to get
all this stuff, BetaSell.com
Thanks for the shout-out. I was able to make my point to that particular Twitterer.
As far as Prop 13, the woes of California's housing market make it extremely unlikely that anyone'll touch it (i.e., if you think there are lots of short sales now . . .). I'm actually ambivalent about it: restricting the growth of property taxes good, centralizing revenues in Sacramento very, very, very bad.
Thanks for the shout-out. I was able to make my point to that particular Twitterer.
As far as Prop 13, the woes of California's housing market make it extremely unlikely that anyone'll touch it (i.e., if you think the sales numbers are bad now . . .). I'm actually ambivalent about it: restricting the growth of property taxes good, centralizing revenues in Sacramento very, very, very bad.
I weep in agony for the Republic as it burns to the ground.
And isn't Arizona a pretty decent but ridiculously convoluted state? Like New York, but better? With entire encyclopedias of laws upon laws repealing laws replacing laws clarifying laws adding laws, etc.?
Yeah, but it's a dry heat. And Arpaio will die, eventually. They are not likely to find his like to replace him; I don't think such an entity even exists. He's that fucking nuts.
There are other cities/counties in Arizona. Tucson is nice, though our sheriff has been pretty embarrassing of late. There's Flagstaff, and Yuma, and Prescott, and a lot of other nice medium to small towns that are pretty cool if you can stand all the Mormons.
This I do not doubt, but Ol' Joe takes that shtick and runs with it in a way I wouldn't, until his existence was made known to me, believe was possible in a being capable of sentience.
OK, yeah, it IS fucking hot. Thermometer read 91? on my back porch at 9:45 AM this morning. Walked the dogs anyway, because it wasn't getting any cooler. Even last night at 8 PM, just about 30 minutes after the sun went down (we don't do daylight savings, either) it was still in the 90's. Overnight low was 77?. And actually, with the monsoons moving in, it wont be a dry heat much longer.
I tried to read it.. I really did... but I kept getting hung up on this piece of genius: ""Ppl caught w joint shd be made to clean up streets, graffiti not in jails"
Deliberative polling sounds like the most condescending thing ever. Then again there are public planning meetings with Delphi breakout groups, and President Obama's every word.
As alluded to by Mike, DP seems like a variant of the Delphi method. A new name for the same basic approach with a few sparkly tweaks here and there? Much as "liberals" became "progressives," perhaps?
SEW-CRATES: So, Bill and Ted, do you think that throwing Grandma into the street is a good thing, or a bad one?
BILL AND TED: Uh, bad?
SEW-CRATES: Excellent! Now, would you say that tiny puppies are cute, or that they should be thrown into blenders?
BILL AND TED: Uh, cute?
SEW-CRATES: Again, correct! Now, since this is a deliberative polling exercise, I shall assist your deliberations by pointing out that if you're in favor of cute puppies, and against Grandma getting thrown into the street, then you must logically oppose Prop 13.
BILL AND TED: Makes sense - 13 is an unlucky number anyway.
SEW-CRATES: So, I'll just mark you down as "for" the Grandma-and-Puppies Revenue Enhancement Act for the Children?
hey folks, I was one of the members of this deliberative poll and I want to tell you a few things about it.
1) Yes, condescending though it may seem, the majority of the voting populace has no real understanding of just how the CA government works.
I'm fairly involved from time to time and I learned so much. Also with respect to political viewpoints of those presented, this focused on structure of Government, not on specific policies. Additionally it was put on by Stanford's and Pepperdine's institutes of public policy, two schools known for their academic stature and general general conservative bent. So do not go thinking this was a brain-washing get-together.
2) Most of our time was not spent listening to these Experts (which they seriously, you try putting in a lifetime of work as an academic based solely on ideology and you see where that gets you - Maybe Liberty University), but rather the time was spent in groups speaking with fellow Californians about these issues. And I can sincerely say I learned more from the Union trucker from Whittier, the retired man who was almost taxed out of his home prior to Prop 13, The County employee from Humbolt, The teacher from Orange County, The Ex-Texan from Temecula, The two Real-Estate Brokers from San Diego, The UCLA Student from East LA, the small-business woman from Sacramento, and the master's student studying IR from Minnesota who lives in Palo Alto than anyone that we asked questions to at the Plenary Sessions.
3) These tweets are taken out of context and are a chronological rundown of less than 5 'tweeters' tweets and do not represent the intensity and intelligence of the discussions presented
13) On the prop. 13 issue -within my group at least- we found that one of the main reasons why so many of us did not trust the legislature was because they could not be held accountable for anything really. This was due to various factors, particularly our massive Citizen-to-Legislator ratio in CA, but especially because of the supermajority it takes to raise taxes. When the budget doesn't go through we can't blame the democrats because they can simply (and justly) say it is the minority's fault for blocking the addition of new taxes. We can't blame the Republicans because they aren't the majority. And when Republicans sign an ideological pledge not to raise taxes ever. It creates numerous problems including:
1) lack of accountability for decisions in Sacramento
2) Minority Rule
3) high difficulty of going back and fixing existing tax loopholes when in campaigns as it will be construed as raising taxes
(there is a major one involving how prop 13 treats commercial property. because residential property is reassessed whenever it changes hands, is bought or sold, this tax base is updated regularly. However Commercial property, due to how it is owned int the forms of stocks and bonds and LLCs etc. etc., Is often not reassessed when the property changes hands and ownership changes. This is particularly true of commercial property in the hands of larger businesses and provides them with a competitive edge not accessible to many small businesses. Thus homeowners end up paying more and more of the property tax pie whereas businesses, particularly larger ones are paying 1978/79 tax rates on property which has changed hands and been bought and sold)
4) mercurial revenue streams due to our reliance on the Income Tax
5) Weaker local governments due to the inability to have control over revenue streams.
6) Little accountability. State blames Local Management, Locals blame state financing and strings attached to the monies.
And yeah, on a personal note, the reason why CA has been in the past such a powerful economic force has been our education system. It has allowed us to have the Silicon Valley, the OC military-industrial complex, and others. Our UCs were the envy of the world, and our k-12 education (now 49th in per-student spending only ahead of Mississippi). But yeah.
So I don't like to see all of this bashing of what was a truly educational and civic experience without. We all care about CA and were seriously trying to do what was best for it
My email is meclayton6@gmail.com if anyone has questions about what it was like (instead of just extrapolating it from a few tweets). I would love to hear from you and share about this experience as well as spend time discussing what I've learned from this weekend with you and what you feel is wrong or right with what I am saying.
I will be honest, and sincere. Integrity is vitally important to me.
Oh and one more thing "And when Republicans sign an ideological pledge not to raise taxes ever. It creates numerous problems including:" I did not intend to make it sound as if the list that followed afterwards was all republicans' faults, I intended it to be the issues caused by Prop 13. I apologize for that. This comment box is quite small and makes it difficult for me to notice these things prior to posting.
First of all, crediting the CA's education system with Silicon Valley is like crediting the Liverpool City Council with the Beatles.
Second, the reason why the deliberative poll is a waste of time is, ironically, Prop 13. By centralizing tax revenues in Sacramento and making localities dependent on an annual bailout from the state, 13 ensured that local constituents really have no impact relative to organized lobbyists. But, glad you had fun.
And, seriously, Republicans' "ideological pledge" aside, can you possibly believe that California's problems are a matter of inadequate funding? Given more money, the state will waste it and come back demanding more. As it's doing now.
I would actually say that California's problems are not due to inadequate funding. But we can't expect our state and local governments to govern effectively when it is so difficult to find out who is truly accountable. We are a representative democracy whose representatives have little power.
This difficulty in finding out who is truly responsible and who do we hold accountable for the failings is very difficult when the system is structured as it is that the state funds the local management and the legislature has less and less power over budgetary decisions.
Also, somethind that was fixed by our initiative system last election - the Gerry-mandered districts should come into effect soon making elections more competitive and allowing us to hopefully have a more responsive government.
And yeah blaming the UCs/CA education for silicon valley that's fair enough to say that that is an inappropriate statement. But it certainly helps to have an educated workforce geographically close by in terms of hiring the best workers for your industry.
First, I should say that your presence in the Reason H&R comments may or may not preclude you to a greater ability to examine facts, but your post seems to reflect that possibility - in other words - you may not be a true representative sample.
As to your statements, I would ask:
1) While it may be true that the group focused on government structure, it is entirely possible that the presentation of such is often "this is the way it works" as opposed to "how is this not working?". Correct me if I'm wrong.
2) It's nice to know that you spent more time talking to fellow Californians than listening to "experts". This may be a reason to update the article, if it doesn't accurately reflect what happened at the meeting.
3) See #2 as to inaccurate sampling.
Your 13) One point you fail to bring up is that the lack of accountability does not have anything to do with Prop 13, and everything to do with the gerrymandered districts that allowed the representatives to create their own virtual fiefdoms. Whether the just passed prop 11 calling for independent redistricting is effective or not will be represented by changes in the legislature. Honestly, blaming the restriction of government to collect fees after the same government blew through what is arguably the largest property tax increase in recent history (due to the real-estate bubble) is nonsensical.
How about cutting spending?
As to your other points:
1) Lack of accountability - see redistricting above.
2) Minority rule - Not a problem, as the elimination of the supermajority also eliminates any blame for the minority party. "We all voted against it - Sorry!" is not a viable argument when spending hasn't been cut.
3) Prop 13's supposed problem with Commercial property seems at odds with the ever expanding data regarding businesses fleeing California. Surely some of those relocations free up property here for competitors or other businesses? Perhaps the real blame is regulation and government favoritism, and not tax rates, although I don't see that mentioned.
4) Hate to break it to anyone, but relying on 'mercurial' revenue streams isn't the problem. The problem is government's attitude that its spending levels have nothing to do with private sector economic performance, and a wish to simply extract more funds during tough times so that bureaucrats don't have to make hard decisions.
5 & 6) Again, accountability lies with government regulating the available tax base, not the tax base it thinks it needs. This whining needs to stop.
1) You claim 49th place in per student spending. Bullshit.
- In 2007-08, California's per-pupil spending?without regional cost-of-labor adjustments?ranked 28th.
- Using state-level CWI data to compute adjusted 2007-08 per-pupil expenditures and corresponding rankings for California and the three other most populous states, California's per-pupil expenditure of $9,706 falls to $8,853, and its ranking of 28th falls to 43rd.
- At the same time, California has consistently ranked at or near the top in average teacher salary. In 2007-08, California ranked first, with an average salary of $65,808, according to NEA.
- California spends a little more than the national average on instruction: 67% versus 65.8%.
- Public school students as a whole in California are heterogeneous. Until 2009-10 when Hispanics/Latinos edged over 50%, the state had had no majority ethnic group.
- About 25% of California's students are English learners (ELs), compared with almost 9% nationally. Most of California's English learners (85%) speak Spanish.
- California has about 6.2 million students, about 1.5 million more than Texas, the next most populous state, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Besides dealing with the complexities of running a school system of this magnitude, California educators face other challenges. The state has the highest percentage of English learners in the nation and is near the top in the proportion of children living in low-income families.
Would you care to comment on how demographic changes from the glory days of the 1950s and 60's - the heyday of Aerospace, Tech sector, and other industries that you mention might have something to do with educational performance?
There are professional morons in Sacramento outlawing plastic bags and you think California's problem is that new commercial property owners pay different taxes than old ones?
No I feel that California faces numerous problems particularly within its structure and in how we raise revenues. I am not suggesting we increase taxes to pay for spending.
And quite frankly, we are California, you have to expect that environmental concerns will be very popular with voters. As such I feel the legislature was responding to the concerns of its constituents.
How wise that legislation is when it likely increases costs for grocery stores I don't know. I don't own a grocery store nor have I seen any studies as to the economic impact.
But in the end, it is very difficult to vote out the professional morons when it is so difficult to hold them accountable for the governance of the state. Again be they the local governments managing the state's money or the state granting the money to the local governments or be it the legislature having voter-imposed mandates of spending via the initiative system in combination with voter-imposed restrictions on tax increases. Or worse still, our 40 senators each have districts that are about 910,000 constituents strong and our 80 legislators have around 450,000.
It becomes very difficult to hold accountable the 'professional morons' messing up our state in this climate.
There were about 40 or so proposals we discussed in our groups to deal with the initiative system, state-local relationship, tax structure, and our levels of representation and it will be interesting to see the results of the deliberative poll to find out what those of us who attended would accept.
Thank you for your response.
Oh right, I just realized, I feel that commercial property owners paying different taxes is a problem. Not THE problem, but it is a problem.
When the budget doesn't go through we can't blame the democrats because they can simply (and justly) say it is the minority's fault for blocking the addition of new taxes.
No, the Democrats can't justly say that. California's already got the 6th-highest state and local tax burden in the US, a whole 10.6% of total state income. If California kept its state-and-local spending down to the 9.8% of state income that is the US average, you'd be running huge surpluses at your current tax levels.
The problem is not, in any way to any degree, that you can't raise revenue. You've got plenty of revenue. Proposition 13 is not causing one cent of California's budget woes. The problem is, directly and solely, that California's wasting way, way too much money.
Seriously. Your state and local taxes, as a percentage of the income of the people of the state, is 134% of the state and local taxes in Texas, as a percentage of the income of the people of the state. Despite this, Texas has more money per capita for K-12 education than California has. Given that, how could one conclude the reason California has such low K-12 spending is the taxes aren't high enough yet? So why are the people at this thing teaching you about Proposition 13, instead of teaching you about all the things California is spending money on that Texas manages to get by without?
"So why are the people at this thing teaching you about Proposition 13, instead of teaching you about all the things California is spending money on that Texas manages to get by without?"
They did this because what we spend our money on is fiscal policy and that was not what we were there to discuss. We were there to discuss with fellow Californians what structural blocks there are to CA's government running and working effectively, and what possible solutions could work.
I would say the reason why texas gets more for their money mostly is because the majority of spending on k-12 education goes into the salaries and wages of superintendents, school boards, teachers, janitors, substitute teachers, counselors, librarians, etc.
Now the key difference here is that due to the cost of living in CA Wages here have to be much higher than in other states including texas. Now granted this difference in cost of living does account for more revenue generated. But it also greatly impacts the effectiveness of our spending on k-12 educations (which is 31% of the budget).
Also (I do not know for sure, I don't live there and have done no research) I presume that the local governments in Texas receive more (relatively) in property taxes than we do as a result of the reassessment rules of Prop 13 thereby enabling the local governments to have more control over what they spend the community's money on. Maybe local governments tend to spend more on education than a centralized state government does? I don't know.
As a final note despite Texas being above us in per-student education spending I would still rather be in California getting my education instead of under the 'loving guidance' of the Texas State Board of Education. But I digress with that.
Now the key difference here is that due to the cost of living in CA Wages here have to be much higher than in other states including texas.
This doesn't make a large difference when we're talking about the tax burden as a share of income.
And the largest component of any state or local budget will be labor. As the People's employees, representatives have the civic duty (albeit no actual incentives) to hold down those costs, which they have failed to do in California. I remember when the BART union tried to hold SF commuters hostage over wage disagreements, while train operators were on average raking in $120,000 per year.
The point is, these are excuses for California spending, but there are states that just spend money poorly; look across the Atlantic at Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, etc. California does a poor job, and that's why it's in the situation it's in. Some politicians may claim it's due to lack of money, but the state's received revenue increases very consistently and blown them like clockwork. (Case in point: even now, voters approved a train from SF through the Central Valley to LA during the middle of the budget crisis.)
Also (I do not know for sure, I don't live there and have done no research) I presume that the local governments in Texas receive more (relatively) in property taxes than we do as a result of the reassessment rules of Prop 13...
You have no particular basis for making that presumption.
Thanks for a thoughtful response, Malcolm. I disagree with you on several points of fact and many points of philosophy, but to be clear: I don't think DP is a waste of time because it's too conservative or too liberal or too Republican or too Democratic. It's a waste of time because its understanding of the relationship between state power and individual liberty is fundamentally flawed.
Tim, that is an interesting discussion to have there. That is a very deep question.
However given that the present structure is unlikely to change - democracy, rule of the majority, the government taxing and providing certain services has become a norm of our society and an entrenched norm at that. As such I feel the DP was valuable as an attempt to take the government we have (and what we are likely to have to deal with for years to come) and seek possible solutions to the structural issues which have caused much strife to the state.
Unfortunately, as you said above, only limits on the ability to increase taxes were considered to be such a "structural issue", while any discussion of spending is outside the scope of the gathering (and I'm guessing always will be). So the real issue will just be off-limIt's, and the "non-partisan" organizers can just claim that their hands are tied. Convenient.
However given that the present structure is unlikely to change...
And the reason for the resistance to change is the corruption endemic in a system that spends too much and only looks to extract more cash for its scam.
Changing that system is the only solution. Any other is merely a hunt for more money from more suckers.
"Our UCs were the envy of the world, and our k-12 education (now 49th in per-student spending only ahead of Mississippi). But yeah..."
I have a hard time taking seriously the arguments of anyone who offers relative per-pupil spending in K-12 as evidence of decline. If there is a correlation between spending and educational excellence/performance, it is extremely loose, and probably doesn't hold at all after spending reaches some "sweet-spot" point, beyond which the "diminishing returns" effect swiftly dominates. I think California public education reached that point long ago and that real spending increases since then have been money flushed down the drain.
I was a pupil in California public schools during the 1960s and 1970s, the fondly-remembered "golden era" of our State's public education system. The per-pupil spending then, in constant, inflation-adjusted dollars, was a relative pittance, compared to the level of spending in recent years. Yet in the time between then and now, our schools have shown pronounced -- seemingly precipitous! -- decline. The level of spending doesn't begin to account for that deterioration. Something else appears to have negated whatever beneficial effect more spending MIGHT have had, and made things even worse. Unless and until we put our finger on that "something else," increases in per-pupil spending will have as much positive effect on our education system as spending more on fresher, higher-quality meat and potatoes would have on the incidence of scurvy among a sailing-ship's crew during a long ocean voyage. In the latter situation, a much more modest investment in citrus fruit would actually address the problem. What is the analogous "smart" investment for public schools. Or do we perhaps already have the necessary resources and need only to use them more intelligently? When we can answer the question about why some who spend (far) less get better outcomes than those who spend more (including the California schools of 1970 vs. those of the modern day, or many other present-day States in comparison with California), we'll be much closer to being able to estimate the proper cost of a good education.
Unfortunately, people are being led to think of the education problem in simplistic terms -- relying on the false assertion that our "poor" per-pupil-spending levels, in comparison with other States, actually have something meaningful to do with our education system woes. We don't ask whether California and many other States are already wastefully OVERspending, and whether we might, by doing things differently, enjoy far better outcomes in exchange for far fewer dollars. The huge crowd that thinks "more spending will fix it" faces a big obstacle in Prop. 13-era government financing, and so their natural response is that we must change the entire governmental infrastructure, in order to free more resources for the schools. Maybe such a thing would be reasonable if there were a strong correlation between spending and success, or if we hadn't yet reached the "sweet spot" of spending that I mentioned before. But in the absence of strong correlation, and given the knowledge that we today spend MORE in constant dollars than our "golden era" schools spent to get far more impressive results, the movement to totally change the infrastructure for the sake of the schools seems foolish, almost criminally so.
Finally, I would like to point out that "envy of the world" is the type of phrase that exemplifies the "Great State" mentality that I believe has been in large part responsible for our dire predicament. For decades pols and their agitator/activist partners exhorted the people of California to commission and pay the bill for institutions, programs, and physical infrastructure that were, according to the opinion drovers, "appropriate" for a State so large and grand as California. By encouraging and appealing to our collective vanity over several generations, these people managed to tie the California population down with attendant over-regulation and a Mt. Whitney of debt. Going forward, we need to turn a deaf-ear to those who would be our jockeys in the "race between States" -- which is just another form of the rat race. At very least, we need to be able to choose what is "best" not on the basis of the price tag, but on the basis of effectiveness.
MNG will run into trouble finding any unionised industry left in CA. Boeing already wound down manufacturing in Long Beach, and there aren't any union automakers left in California.
I think the only auto stuff left is Tesla (not union, yet).
It's sad how a "progressive" state completely killed off its unionised industries.
I don't know if Diogenes was the best choice to crop as an example of Greek democracy. He wasn't exactly known for his public spirit or people skills.
Or hygiene.
Can man live on onions alone? Only Diogenes knows.
If I were not Alexander I would wish to be Diogenes.
You people are so cynical.
I didn't know that John and MNG lived in CA (and twitter, no less).
Prop 13 as it stands is a big obstacle to raising revenue.
I think that was the point.
And such a big burden that California has to limp along with having only the sixth-highest state and local tax burden, instead of being #1.
To our national disgrace.
"If only we'd had three decades of old people being forced to sell their homes because of rising property taxes, our state's economic problems would be over!"
Prop. 13 has actually kept California out of the dire situation in other states where declining property values have led to plummeting property taxes and cash-strapped local governments.
Local governments in CA are out of cash for bizarre reasons like the state cutting programmes that piped money to local governments, or ancillary revenue streams like building permits drying up due to no new house construction.
The goal is to get a sense of how voters would lean if they were, in the opinion of the pollsters, better educated.
In yer focus grp, focussin yer conformities!
Deliberative polling is not a new idea.
The jackholes pushing this bullshit should come up with an honest name for it.
Re-education seminars has a nice metro douche ring to it.
maybe this convo too complex 4 Twitter
All conversations are too complex for twitter.
As the default medium for journalists and tweens to converse I think its users view that fault as a feature rather then a bug.
Journalists look at a twitter feed and see an ejaculation of nutgrafs.
Odd that they picked Torrance for this. The South Bay in general is a conservative, laid back area.
Also, Prop 13 makes it harder for new businesses/owners to enter the market. Isn't market distortion something libertarians are against?
Prop 13 makes it harder for new businesses/owners to enter the market.
No, Prop 13 makes it harder for government to continue to overspend, because real estate is an easy target as it cannot be relocated.
New businesses and owners aren't held back by Prop 13, they're held back by government regulation.
Prop 13 enables business investment because it eliminates sudden tax hikes, which will be passed along to the customers while simultaneously restricting businesses from competing.
The government wants to repeal Prop 13 because they want to take more money rather than run more efficiently. What's so hard to understand about that?
The government is still picking winners and losers, in this case older residents vs. newer ones.
The government is still picking winners and losers, in this case older residents vs. newer ones.
Smart growth land use regulations does this far more then property taxes.
So are we to take it that you oppose California's zoning regulations?
Also are we to take it that you oppose property taxes in general?
Sure, why not.
If the reform is that everyone pays no property tax (or lets be a bit more realistic, and say the same low rate for their Property tax), I'd be for it. Prop 13, as currently constructed? It just allows Disney to be total assholes while paying relatively little while a new business owner is paying a higher rate. Its ass backwards.
As for zoning regs, everyone knows they are retarded.
It's interesting to see how Houston looks pretty much like other American (or Texan) cities, despite the lack of zoning. Houston has always had affordable housing relative to other growing sunbelt cities, though...
This is true. But even thought Prop 13 is a stupid distortion, its proponents have two valid arguments: that it's repeal will not be met with a balancing of tax burdens but rather an increase on current beneficiaries, and that with this new revenue California is more likely to go on another spending spree than balance its budget in the long-term.
Having lived in the Bay and seen how it fucks over newcomers -- through building height restrictions in SF, rent control almost everywhere, etc. -- I personally could care less if it were gone given how its current beneficiaries are already subsidized, but it would be replaced with something almost equally bad, IMO.
Arr, it be a sad sight indeed. There lies before you the glowing embers of a burning sinking ship, a viewing to surely gladden the heart, but then to be denied the totality of her spoils? Aie, such be the stuff of melancholy.
4chan|6.26.11 @ 4:17PM|#
"The government is still picking winners and losers, in this case older residents vs. newer ones."
You're right. Prop 13 was only a start.
The value of the property upon resale ends up being less than it would be without the new sky-high property taxes, so older residents still have some incentives to avoid high tax rates.
If property is reassessed every year, the government favours new residents over old ones, as the new ones can vote in giant tax increases and get to enjoy the benefits while the elderly are priced out of their own homes.
The government is still picking winners and losers, in this case older residents vs. newer ones.
But not because of Prop 13, which is the "fairest" possible way to tax property, ie it is taxed at the rate that you paid for it.
The winners and losers of real estate taxation are caused by government policies that create inflation and credit bubbles.
I disagree. The real value of the land is what you can sell it for. As long as we're accepting the idea of taxation, I don't see why someone who loses everything on penny stocks should pay the same tax on his initial investment as someone with huge capital gains. Real estate here is similar: someone invests in land and benefits from its increase in value. Someone whose land decreases in value should have lower taxes.
Part of what would feed a bubble, FWIW, is any policy that encourages buying and discourages selling, which is exactly what Prop 13 is.
I'm agnostic on Prop 13, but only because it its repeal would compensate for the decreased distortions with higher taxes.
Someone whose land decreases in value should have lower taxes.
I agree in part. As you say - land is valued at it's sale price - which enables those purchasing land after it has decreased in value to reap the tax benefits.
If it were left completely to the government, property tax roles would reflect the same bubble reality that enables public sector unions to ignore economic downturns.
its sale price
If the value of the land is what it can sell for, then the property tax basis can adjust when the property is sold.
It's pretty stupid for someone who wants to buy a house and live in it for 30 years to be responsible for paying real estate bubble taxes, unless you think it's a good thing for families to have to move every 3 years.
If the value of the land is what it can sell for, then the property tax basis can adjust when the property is sold.
Then it should also adjust when equity is extracted, and there should be a separate regime for companies, who are the prime beneficiaries anyway (it's a lot easier to find companies -- and then mostly larger corporations and CRE players -- that have owned the same property in the Bay since '75 than people). There's something in between Prop 13's massive understatement of real value and total volatility.
The point is that I shouldn't be paying three times the property taxes as someone else for the exact same use of wealth (about the differential versus '75 plus Prop 13's allowed 2% annual increase).
And again, Prop 13 with all its glorious inefficiencies exists because no one trusts the state to spend the money wisely. In fact, a ton of the windfall from a Prop 13 repeal would just go to redevelopment agencies anyway. I wouldn't classify it as a particularly fair method of taxation, though.
"The goal is to get a sense of how voters would lean if they were, in the opinion of the pollsters, better educated."
In other words, the goal is to see what the poll results would be if the people being polled thought exactly like the people conducting the poll. If they need to masturbate so much, wouldn't pornography be both cheaper and more effective?
wouldn't pornography be both cheaper and more effective?
Even pornstars have more self-respect that to be subjected to deliberative polling.
that. THAN.
We spent a lot more time discussing the issues with fellow californians with limited moderator intervention than by listening to 'experts' and teh material we were given was very well-balenced with well-researched pros and cons. It had to have been it was put together by Stanford's and Pepperdine's schools of public policy which are know for their conservatism as well as other foundations with a more liberal slant. But the people putting this on were serious about finding legitimate solutions not about brainwashing the state (it would have been a very expensive brainwashing if that was the case to pay stipends, meals, lodging, and transport to brainwash only about 400 people).
The government wants to repeal Prop 13 because they want to take more money rather than run more efficiently. What's so hard to understand about that?
@ I paid $32.67 for a XBOX 360 and my mom got a 17 inch Toshiba laptop for $94.83 being delivered to
our house tomorrow by FedEX. I will never again pay expensive retail prices at stores. I even sold a
46 inch HDTV to my boss for $650 and it only cost me $52.78 to get. Here is the website we using to get
all this stuff, BetaSell.com
Also, Prop 13 makes it harder for new businesses/owners to enter the market. Isn't market distortion something libertarians are against?
Why don't you say what you are really thinking?
FREE CHARLES MANSON!
GUT THE CAPITALIST PIG HOMEOWNERS!
IF YOU DON'T LIKE OUR HIGH TAXES AND SOCIALISM, GET THE FUCK OUT!
MOVE TO ARIZONA!
OUR COMMUNE-STATE NEEDS NO OWNERS!
Thanks for the shout-out. I was able to make my point to that particular Twitterer.
As far as Prop 13, the woes of California's housing market make it extremely unlikely that anyone'll touch it (i.e., if you think there are lots of short sales now . . .). I'm actually ambivalent about it: restricting the growth of property taxes good, centralizing revenues in Sacramento very, very, very bad.
Thanks for the shout-out. I was able to make my point to that particular Twitterer.
As far as Prop 13, the woes of California's housing market make it extremely unlikely that anyone'll touch it (i.e., if you think the sales numbers are bad now . . .). I'm actually ambivalent about it: restricting the growth of property taxes good, centralizing revenues in Sacramento very, very, very bad.
I weep in agony for the Republic as it burns to the ground.
And isn't Arizona a pretty decent but ridiculously convoluted state? Like New York, but better? With entire encyclopedias of laws upon laws repealing laws replacing laws clarifying laws adding laws, etc.?
Yeah but also:
1) Sheriff Joe
2) It's too goddamn hot
Yeah, but it's a dry heat. And Arpaio will die, eventually. They are not likely to find his like to replace him; I don't think such an entity even exists. He's that fucking nuts.
No, I believe the supply of megalomaniacal thugs will be ample to supply a replacement, if that's what Arizona wants.
There are other cities/counties in Arizona. Tucson is nice, though our sheriff has been pretty embarrassing of late. There's Flagstaff, and Yuma, and Prescott, and a lot of other nice medium to small towns that are pretty cool if you can stand all the Mormons.
Point being, Maricopa County/Phoenix metro is NOT the totality of Arizona.
True. There are also pretty rocks.
This I do not doubt, but Ol' Joe takes that shtick and runs with it in a way I wouldn't, until his existence was made known to me, believe was possible in a being capable of sentience.
Mnemone Jones|6.26.11 @ 6:00PM|#
"Yeah, but it's a dry heat."
I remember getting buddies to help me move: "Hey, it's not heavy, just awkward!"
Worked once.
I suppose that's the number of times it needs to work.
El Paso is a dry heat with 2500 extra feet of altitude over Phoenix.
And you don't dare touch a car door handle in the sun.
OK, yeah, it IS fucking hot. Thermometer read 91? on my back porch at 9:45 AM this morning. Walked the dogs anyway, because it wasn't getting any cooler. Even last night at 8 PM, just about 30 minutes after the sun went down (we don't do daylight savings, either) it was still in the 90's. Overnight low was 77?. And actually, with the monsoons moving in, it wont be a dry heat much longer.
But, you get used to it. With air conditioning.
2) It's too goddamn hot
You never have to shovel hot.
All the libertarians seem to have gone into hiding after the Viper Militia scare.
Epic Quote: "I'll pay my high California taxes. I call it the 'weather tax.' I just want some accountability."
Question: would it take higher or lower taxes to reduce the temperature in the Valley?
Also, how do they account for the high taxes in San Francisco?
No bad angles.
I tried to read it.. I really did... but I kept getting hung up on this piece of genius: ""Ppl caught w joint shd be made to clean up streets, graffiti not in jails"
Please don't ask me to continue
Are you going to feature each philosopher in the School of Athens?
I eagerly await Epicurus' moment of glory. Even though he wouldn't seek it himself.
Don't forget Hypatia!
Deliberative polling sounds like the most condescending thing ever. Then again there are public planning meetings with Delphi breakout groups, and President Obama's every word.
As alluded to by Mike, DP seems like a variant of the Delphi method. A new name for the same basic approach with a few sparkly tweaks here and there? Much as "liberals" became "progressives," perhaps?
SEW-CRATES: So, Bill and Ted, do you think that throwing Grandma into the street is a good thing, or a bad one?
BILL AND TED: Uh, bad?
SEW-CRATES: Excellent! Now, would you say that tiny puppies are cute, or that they should be thrown into blenders?
BILL AND TED: Uh, cute?
SEW-CRATES: Again, correct! Now, since this is a deliberative polling exercise, I shall assist your deliberations by pointing out that if you're in favor of cute puppies, and against Grandma getting thrown into the street, then you must logically oppose Prop 13.
BILL AND TED: Makes sense - 13 is an unlucky number anyway.
SEW-CRATES: So, I'll just mark you down as "for" the Grandma-and-Puppies Revenue Enhancement Act for the Children?
BILL AND TED: Sure! This deliberation is fun!
Where is the "Like" button on this?
fuck that where's the
"excellent dude" button
You may be a king or a little street sweeper. But sooner or later, you blog-dance with a Freeper.
Alt-alt-text: The Council of Derp
Of course, for this to be worth a shit, you'd have to let the non-statists do their own "deliberative" polling, and compare the results.
What a steaming load of condescending crap this whole exercise is. Only in California. Dude.
This is why I'm always leery of the "voters are uninformed" theme. It nearly always translates to "the voters don't agree with me."
hey folks, I was one of the members of this deliberative poll and I want to tell you a few things about it.
1) Yes, condescending though it may seem, the majority of the voting populace has no real understanding of just how the CA government works.
I'm fairly involved from time to time and I learned so much. Also with respect to political viewpoints of those presented, this focused on structure of Government, not on specific policies. Additionally it was put on by Stanford's and Pepperdine's institutes of public policy, two schools known for their academic stature and general general conservative bent. So do not go thinking this was a brain-washing get-together.
2) Most of our time was not spent listening to these Experts (which they seriously, you try putting in a lifetime of work as an academic based solely on ideology and you see where that gets you - Maybe Liberty University), but rather the time was spent in groups speaking with fellow Californians about these issues. And I can sincerely say I learned more from the Union trucker from Whittier, the retired man who was almost taxed out of his home prior to Prop 13, The County employee from Humbolt, The teacher from Orange County, The Ex-Texan from Temecula, The two Real-Estate Brokers from San Diego, The UCLA Student from East LA, the small-business woman from Sacramento, and the master's student studying IR from Minnesota who lives in Palo Alto than anyone that we asked questions to at the Plenary Sessions.
3) These tweets are taken out of context and are a chronological rundown of less than 5 'tweeters' tweets and do not represent the intensity and intelligence of the discussions presented
13) On the prop. 13 issue -within my group at least- we found that one of the main reasons why so many of us did not trust the legislature was because they could not be held accountable for anything really. This was due to various factors, particularly our massive Citizen-to-Legislator ratio in CA, but especially because of the supermajority it takes to raise taxes. When the budget doesn't go through we can't blame the democrats because they can simply (and justly) say it is the minority's fault for blocking the addition of new taxes. We can't blame the Republicans because they aren't the majority. And when Republicans sign an ideological pledge not to raise taxes ever. It creates numerous problems including:
1) lack of accountability for decisions in Sacramento
2) Minority Rule
3) high difficulty of going back and fixing existing tax loopholes when in campaigns as it will be construed as raising taxes
(there is a major one involving how prop 13 treats commercial property. because residential property is reassessed whenever it changes hands, is bought or sold, this tax base is updated regularly. However Commercial property, due to how it is owned int the forms of stocks and bonds and LLCs etc. etc., Is often not reassessed when the property changes hands and ownership changes. This is particularly true of commercial property in the hands of larger businesses and provides them with a competitive edge not accessible to many small businesses. Thus homeowners end up paying more and more of the property tax pie whereas businesses, particularly larger ones are paying 1978/79 tax rates on property which has changed hands and been bought and sold)
4) mercurial revenue streams due to our reliance on the Income Tax
5) Weaker local governments due to the inability to have control over revenue streams.
6) Little accountability. State blames Local Management, Locals blame state financing and strings attached to the monies.
And yeah, on a personal note, the reason why CA has been in the past such a powerful economic force has been our education system. It has allowed us to have the Silicon Valley, the OC military-industrial complex, and others. Our UCs were the envy of the world, and our k-12 education (now 49th in per-student spending only ahead of Mississippi). But yeah.
So I don't like to see all of this bashing of what was a truly educational and civic experience without. We all care about CA and were seriously trying to do what was best for it
My email is meclayton6@gmail.com if anyone has questions about what it was like (instead of just extrapolating it from a few tweets). I would love to hear from you and share about this experience as well as spend time discussing what I've learned from this weekend with you and what you feel is wrong or right with what I am saying.
I will be honest, and sincere. Integrity is vitally important to me.
Thanks for reading,
Malcolm Eric Clayton
Oh and one more thing "And when Republicans sign an ideological pledge not to raise taxes ever. It creates numerous problems including:" I did not intend to make it sound as if the list that followed afterwards was all republicans' faults, I intended it to be the issues caused by Prop 13. I apologize for that. This comment box is quite small and makes it difficult for me to notice these things prior to posting.
That's ok, I blame the Republicans too.
First of all, crediting the CA's education system with Silicon Valley is like crediting the Liverpool City Council with the Beatles.
Second, the reason why the deliberative poll is a waste of time is, ironically, Prop 13. By centralizing tax revenues in Sacramento and making localities dependent on an annual bailout from the state, 13 ensured that local constituents really have no impact relative to organized lobbyists. But, glad you had fun.
And, seriously, Republicans' "ideological pledge" aside, can you possibly believe that California's problems are a matter of inadequate funding? Given more money, the state will waste it and come back demanding more. As it's doing now.
I would actually say that California's problems are not due to inadequate funding. But we can't expect our state and local governments to govern effectively when it is so difficult to find out who is truly accountable. We are a representative democracy whose representatives have little power.
This difficulty in finding out who is truly responsible and who do we hold accountable for the failings is very difficult when the system is structured as it is that the state funds the local management and the legislature has less and less power over budgetary decisions.
Also, somethind that was fixed by our initiative system last election - the Gerry-mandered districts should come into effect soon making elections more competitive and allowing us to hopefully have a more responsive government.
And yeah blaming the UCs/CA education for silicon valley that's fair enough to say that that is an inappropriate statement. But it certainly helps to have an educated workforce geographically close by in terms of hiring the best workers for your industry.
Thanks for the well-reasoned response.
Thanks for writing.
First, I should say that your presence in the Reason H&R comments may or may not preclude you to a greater ability to examine facts, but your post seems to reflect that possibility - in other words - you may not be a true representative sample.
As to your statements, I would ask:
1) While it may be true that the group focused on government structure, it is entirely possible that the presentation of such is often "this is the way it works" as opposed to "how is this not working?". Correct me if I'm wrong.
2) It's nice to know that you spent more time talking to fellow Californians than listening to "experts". This may be a reason to update the article, if it doesn't accurately reflect what happened at the meeting.
3) See #2 as to inaccurate sampling.
Your 13) One point you fail to bring up is that the lack of accountability does not have anything to do with Prop 13, and everything to do with the gerrymandered districts that allowed the representatives to create their own virtual fiefdoms. Whether the just passed prop 11 calling for independent redistricting is effective or not will be represented by changes in the legislature. Honestly, blaming the restriction of government to collect fees after the same government blew through what is arguably the largest property tax increase in recent history (due to the real-estate bubble) is nonsensical.
How about cutting spending?
As to your other points:
1) Lack of accountability - see redistricting above.
2) Minority rule - Not a problem, as the elimination of the supermajority also eliminates any blame for the minority party. "We all voted against it - Sorry!" is not a viable argument when spending hasn't been cut.
3) Prop 13's supposed problem with Commercial property seems at odds with the ever expanding data regarding businesses fleeing California. Surely some of those relocations free up property here for competitors or other businesses? Perhaps the real blame is regulation and government favoritism, and not tax rates, although I don't see that mentioned.
4) Hate to break it to anyone, but relying on 'mercurial' revenue streams isn't the problem. The problem is government's attitude that its spending levels have nothing to do with private sector economic performance, and a wish to simply extract more funds during tough times so that bureaucrats don't have to make hard decisions.
5 & 6) Again, accountability lies with government regulating the available tax base, not the tax base it thinks it needs. This whining needs to stop.
Oh, and Education - OK, let's talk about that.
1) You claim 49th place in per student spending. Bullshit.
- In 2007-08, California's per-pupil spending?without regional cost-of-labor adjustments?ranked 28th.
- Using state-level CWI data to compute adjusted 2007-08 per-pupil expenditures and corresponding rankings for California and the three other most populous states, California's per-pupil expenditure of $9,706 falls to $8,853, and its ranking of 28th falls to 43rd.
- At the same time, California has consistently ranked at or near the top in average teacher salary. In 2007-08, California ranked first, with an average salary of $65,808, according to NEA.
- California spends a little more than the national average on instruction: 67% versus 65.8%.
- Public school students as a whole in California are heterogeneous. Until 2009-10 when Hispanics/Latinos edged over 50%, the state had had no majority ethnic group.
- About 25% of California's students are English learners (ELs), compared with almost 9% nationally. Most of California's English learners (85%) speak Spanish.
- California has about 6.2 million students, about 1.5 million more than Texas, the next most populous state, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Besides dealing with the complexities of running a school system of this magnitude, California educators face other challenges. The state has the highest percentage of English learners in the nation and is near the top in the proportion of children living in low-income families.
Would you care to comment on how demographic changes from the glory days of the 1950s and 60's - the heyday of Aerospace, Tech sector, and other industries that you mention might have something to do with educational performance?
I'll be back here tomorrow to reply bit to this =]
There are professional morons in Sacramento outlawing plastic bags and you think California's problem is that new commercial property owners pay different taxes than old ones?
No I feel that California faces numerous problems particularly within its structure and in how we raise revenues. I am not suggesting we increase taxes to pay for spending.
And quite frankly, we are California, you have to expect that environmental concerns will be very popular with voters. As such I feel the legislature was responding to the concerns of its constituents.
How wise that legislation is when it likely increases costs for grocery stores I don't know. I don't own a grocery store nor have I seen any studies as to the economic impact.
But in the end, it is very difficult to vote out the professional morons when it is so difficult to hold them accountable for the governance of the state. Again be they the local governments managing the state's money or the state granting the money to the local governments or be it the legislature having voter-imposed mandates of spending via the initiative system in combination with voter-imposed restrictions on tax increases. Or worse still, our 40 senators each have districts that are about 910,000 constituents strong and our 80 legislators have around 450,000.
It becomes very difficult to hold accountable the 'professional morons' messing up our state in this climate.
There were about 40 or so proposals we discussed in our groups to deal with the initiative system, state-local relationship, tax structure, and our levels of representation and it will be interesting to see the results of the deliberative poll to find out what those of us who attended would accept.
Thank you for your response.
Oh right, I just realized, I feel that commercial property owners paying different taxes is a problem. Not THE problem, but it is a problem.
Or worse still, our 40 senators each have districts that are about 910,000 constituents strong and our 80 legislators have around 450,000.
So, true. Each of our Senate districts has just tad fewer people than the entire state of Rhode Island.
No, the Democrats can't justly say that. California's already got the 6th-highest state and local tax burden in the US, a whole 10.6% of total state income. If California kept its state-and-local spending down to the 9.8% of state income that is the US average, you'd be running huge surpluses at your current tax levels.
The problem is not, in any way to any degree, that you can't raise revenue. You've got plenty of revenue. Proposition 13 is not causing one cent of California's budget woes. The problem is, directly and solely, that California's wasting way, way too much money.
Seriously. Your state and local taxes, as a percentage of the income of the people of the state, is 134% of the state and local taxes in Texas, as a percentage of the income of the people of the state. Despite this, Texas has more money per capita for K-12 education than California has. Given that, how could one conclude the reason California has such low K-12 spending is the taxes aren't high enough yet? So why are the people at this thing teaching you about Proposition 13, instead of teaching you about all the things California is spending money on that Texas manages to get by without?
"So why are the people at this thing teaching you about Proposition 13, instead of teaching you about all the things California is spending money on that Texas manages to get by without?"
They did this because what we spend our money on is fiscal policy and that was not what we were there to discuss. We were there to discuss with fellow Californians what structural blocks there are to CA's government running and working effectively, and what possible solutions could work.
I would say the reason why texas gets more for their money mostly is because the majority of spending on k-12 education goes into the salaries and wages of superintendents, school boards, teachers, janitors, substitute teachers, counselors, librarians, etc.
Now the key difference here is that due to the cost of living in CA Wages here have to be much higher than in other states including texas. Now granted this difference in cost of living does account for more revenue generated. But it also greatly impacts the effectiveness of our spending on k-12 educations (which is 31% of the budget).
Also (I do not know for sure, I don't live there and have done no research) I presume that the local governments in Texas receive more (relatively) in property taxes than we do as a result of the reassessment rules of Prop 13 thereby enabling the local governments to have more control over what they spend the community's money on. Maybe local governments tend to spend more on education than a centralized state government does? I don't know.
As a final note despite Texas being above us in per-student education spending I would still rather be in California getting my education instead of under the 'loving guidance' of the Texas State Board of Education. But I digress with that.
Thanks for the comment man.
Now the key difference here is that due to the cost of living in CA Wages here have to be much higher than in other states including texas.
This doesn't make a large difference when we're talking about the tax burden as a share of income.
And the largest component of any state or local budget will be labor. As the People's employees, representatives have the civic duty (albeit no actual incentives) to hold down those costs, which they have failed to do in California. I remember when the BART union tried to hold SF commuters hostage over wage disagreements, while train operators were on average raking in $120,000 per year.
The point is, these are excuses for California spending, but there are states that just spend money poorly; look across the Atlantic at Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, etc. California does a poor job, and that's why it's in the situation it's in. Some politicians may claim it's due to lack of money, but the state's received revenue increases very consistently and blown them like clockwork. (Case in point: even now, voters approved a train from SF through the Central Valley to LA during the middle of the budget crisis.)
Also (I do not know for sure, I don't live there and have done no research) I presume that the local governments in Texas receive more (relatively) in property taxes than we do as a result of the reassessment rules of Prop 13...
You have no particular basis for making that presumption.
Thanks for a thoughtful response, Malcolm. I disagree with you on several points of fact and many points of philosophy, but to be clear: I don't think DP is a waste of time because it's too conservative or too liberal or too Republican or too Democratic. It's a waste of time because its understanding of the relationship between state power and individual liberty is fundamentally flawed.
Tim, that is an interesting discussion to have there. That is a very deep question.
However given that the present structure is unlikely to change - democracy, rule of the majority, the government taxing and providing certain services has become a norm of our society and an entrenched norm at that. As such I feel the DP was valuable as an attempt to take the government we have (and what we are likely to have to deal with for years to come) and seek possible solutions to the structural issues which have caused much strife to the state.
Unfortunately, as you said above, only limits on the ability to increase taxes were considered to be such a "structural issue", while any discussion of spending is outside the scope of the gathering (and I'm guessing always will be). So the real issue will just be off-limIt's, and the "non-partisan" organizers can just claim that their hands are tied. Convenient.
However given that the present structure is unlikely to change...
And the reason for the resistance to change is the corruption endemic in a system that spends too much and only looks to extract more cash for its scam.
Changing that system is the only solution. Any other is merely a hunt for more money from more suckers.
lack of accountability for decisions in Sacramento
The only way to bring accountability to Sacramento is to fundamentally change the structure of government.
Either through an expanded uni-cameral legislature and a unitary executive or with a westiminster style parliamentary system.
"Our UCs were the envy of the world, and our k-12 education (now 49th in per-student spending only ahead of Mississippi). But yeah..."
I have a hard time taking seriously the arguments of anyone who offers relative per-pupil spending in K-12 as evidence of decline. If there is a correlation between spending and educational excellence/performance, it is extremely loose, and probably doesn't hold at all after spending reaches some "sweet-spot" point, beyond which the "diminishing returns" effect swiftly dominates. I think California public education reached that point long ago and that real spending increases since then have been money flushed down the drain.
I was a pupil in California public schools during the 1960s and 1970s, the fondly-remembered "golden era" of our State's public education system. The per-pupil spending then, in constant, inflation-adjusted dollars, was a relative pittance, compared to the level of spending in recent years. Yet in the time between then and now, our schools have shown pronounced -- seemingly precipitous! -- decline. The level of spending doesn't begin to account for that deterioration. Something else appears to have negated whatever beneficial effect more spending MIGHT have had, and made things even worse. Unless and until we put our finger on that "something else," increases in per-pupil spending will have as much positive effect on our education system as spending more on fresher, higher-quality meat and potatoes would have on the incidence of scurvy among a sailing-ship's crew during a long ocean voyage. In the latter situation, a much more modest investment in citrus fruit would actually address the problem. What is the analogous "smart" investment for public schools. Or do we perhaps already have the necessary resources and need only to use them more intelligently? When we can answer the question about why some who spend (far) less get better outcomes than those who spend more (including the California schools of 1970 vs. those of the modern day, or many other present-day States in comparison with California), we'll be much closer to being able to estimate the proper cost of a good education.
Unfortunately, people are being led to think of the education problem in simplistic terms -- relying on the false assertion that our "poor" per-pupil-spending levels, in comparison with other States, actually have something meaningful to do with our education system woes. We don't ask whether California and many other States are already wastefully OVERspending, and whether we might, by doing things differently, enjoy far better outcomes in exchange for far fewer dollars. The huge crowd that thinks "more spending will fix it" faces a big obstacle in Prop. 13-era government financing, and so their natural response is that we must change the entire governmental infrastructure, in order to free more resources for the schools. Maybe such a thing would be reasonable if there were a strong correlation between spending and success, or if we hadn't yet reached the "sweet spot" of spending that I mentioned before. But in the absence of strong correlation, and given the knowledge that we today spend MORE in constant dollars than our "golden era" schools spent to get far more impressive results, the movement to totally change the infrastructure for the sake of the schools seems foolish, almost criminally so.
Finally, I would like to point out that "envy of the world" is the type of phrase that exemplifies the "Great State" mentality that I believe has been in large part responsible for our dire predicament. For decades pols and their agitator/activist partners exhorted the people of California to commission and pay the bill for institutions, programs, and physical infrastructure that were, according to the opinion drovers, "appropriate" for a State so large and grand as California. By encouraging and appealing to our collective vanity over several generations, these people managed to tie the California population down with attendant over-regulation and a Mt. Whitney of debt. Going forward, we need to turn a deaf-ear to those who would be our jockeys in the "race between States" -- which is just another form of the rat race. At very least, we need to be able to choose what is "best" not on the basis of the price tag, but on the basis of effectiveness.
When the taxes to come to the ballot, it will be "taxes for prison guards". Jerry has helped us as much as he can.
Hey, here's an idea... the NLRB should force businesses to stay in California.
MNG should love this idea.
MNG will run into trouble finding any unionised industry left in CA. Boeing already wound down manufacturing in Long Beach, and there aren't any union automakers left in California.
I think the only auto stuff left is Tesla (not union, yet).
It's sad how a "progressive" state completely killed off its unionised industries.
It's sad how a "progressive" state completely killed off its unionised industries.
A parasite will feed off of anything.