Contact
Subscribe


The Petulant Anger of the Unlistened-to

May 21, 2009
By .
Politics & Current Events

Today Patterico has a fun post discussing the egg-faced Sacramento Bee, which accidentally posted a draft editorial online and therefore revealed its editorial contempt for voters who soundly rejected California's slate of shell-game try-to-pretend-we-are-balancing-the-budget initiatives that were on the ballot this past Tuesday. (Ezra discussed the initiatives here.)

The Sac Bee — which Patterico, in which I can only assume is an act of satire, calls "Big Media" — lays into those dumb rubes who JUST DON'T GET IT that we must find ways to keep spending all the money we've been spending:

Good morning, California voters. Do you feel better, now that you’ve gotten that out of your system?

Patterico details how the Bee then beat an ignominious retreat by posting a different draft that attacks politicians instead. I'd respect them more if they kept the original up. They'd be pseudo-elitist twaddle-pushing socialists, but at least they'd have grown a pair about it.

Today the Los Angeles Times sounded a similar note of resentful how-dare-you-not-follow-our-advice hysterical recrimination, printing a front page that listed the educational budget cuts that will have to be made in roughly the same font they used to announce 9/11. This is odd. The Los Angeles Times recently had the stones to point out the pervasive problems caused by teachers' unions. Among other things, those unions have succeeded in making California teachers the best paid in the country, earning an average of $64k, or 25% more than the national average. The L.A. Times doesn't seem to connect the dots.

What's the consistent theme between the Bee and the Times? It's journalistic outrage at the notion that government should only offer the services that it can afford with actual, real-world revenue.

[Edit: I note that a number of commentators are suggesting that the Bee is lying when it says that the editorial was posted in error as a draft, and that the Bee actually just changed it when it drew unfavorable reactions. I'm not convinced of that one way or the other.]

Last 5 posts by Ken

6 Comments
Tags

6 Comments

  1. Mike  •  May 21, 2009 @9:01 am

    I love how so many people are giving Schwarzenegger grief. Schwarzenegger got his ass thoroughly kicked in the special election of 2005. They kicked the fight out of the dog. If some of his proposed initiatives had passed, maybe California would have been better off.

    Let's see….. Giving unions less power; making it harder for teachers (like the bad ones profiled by the L.A. Times); and funding a rainy day fund all seemed like pretty good ideas.

    The voters – with help from teachers and other unions – rejected those initiatives. Unions kept their power. The State didn't save money.

    It's much easier to blame a Republican governor than a Democratic legislature and loony voting population. Not more honest. But definitely easier.

  2. Mike  •  May 21, 2009 @9:05 am

    I love the lede to the NY Times article: "Direct democracy has once again upended California …."
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/21calif.html?_r=1&hp

    Really? Or could it be that the excessive fucking spending by a Democratic legislature might have upended California?

    Most of the articles criticizing California talk about voter initiatives that increase spending. They ignore the excessive spending by the Democratic legislature.

    I'm certainly NOT supporting California voters – who are kooky. Or Schwarzenegger, who's been limp since the 2005 special election. But let's share the blame equitably. Our Democratic legislature has done plenty of upending.

  3. Chris  •  May 21, 2009 @12:57 pm

    The structure of the california government increases the impact of kooks and bad legislatures. Lots of places are full of crazy people who elect incompetent politicians. Most of those places aren't as bad off as California.

  4. Ezra  •  May 21, 2009 @2:16 pm

    I tend to agree with Chris. The 2/3 majority required to pass a budget leads to ridiculous gridlock, and seems to grind the state to a halt each year because of a (almost literally) handful of Republican legislators.

    Mike, the Propositions in the first special election would not have done anything to address the current budget problems and (based on the recurring theme of borrowing from the future to pay current bills) might have exacerbated things.

    My 2 step way to get timely budgets and keep California somewhat solvent? 1) eliminate the 2/3 majority. 2) raise the threshold required to get propositions on the ballot by John Q. Public (or get rid of it entirely.)

    Our stupid proposition system is an enabling factor to allow our do nothing Governator & Legislature to toss their responsibilities back to the voters, and let them not have to do their job?

  5. Patrick  •  May 21, 2009 @2:46 pm

    You should also repeal Proposition 13. I wouldn't say I enjoy paying my property tax bill each year, but I do recognize that some level of realistic property taxation provides a steady tax base, as opposed to the wild swings in tax revenue that one can expect from a stream that depends entirely on income and sales taxes. Your tax revenues are entirely dependent on the business cycle, which sets you up for crisis in a recession.

    Moreover, realistic property taxes might have provided a disincentive for the Dutch tulip real estate speculation bust that California and a few other states inflicted on the rest of the country.

    For that matter, you should abolish your plebiscite system entirely. California is a republic in name only. It's really a direct democracy, with too many Athenians and too few Solons. You haven't had a decent governor since Earl Warren.

    I'd say it's time for a constitutional convention, but California will probably screw that up too.

  6. Ezra  •  May 21, 2009 @3:56 pm

    Preaching to the choir, mi amigo. My hatred of Prop 13 is legendary. And the connection to the real estate bubble is clear.