Special Report
Putting Government First
In the California budget stalemate, public sector unions take precedence over programs for the poor.
The idea that Democrats care more about the poor and the needy is an enduring American political stereotype — and one of the party’s most potent vote-getting tools. It’s highly questionable whether Democrats’ emphasis on government paternalism and a generous welfare state actually helps the downtrodden more than Republicans’ recipe of economic growth and low taxes. But at least on a rhetorical basis, Democrats certainly do talk the most about the hurting.
This is why we saw Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards jousting over which Democratic presidential candidate had the best anti-poverty program, with Obama touting his plans for “an all-encompassing, all-hands-on-deck anti-poverty effort.” On the brink of Obama’s presidency, there is every reason to assume his intentions to broadly expand the scope, power and spending of the federal government will include plenty of goodies for poor and working-class Americans.
But in California, when it comes to the politics of compassion, the Democrats who dominate the politics of the nation’s largest state have been exposed as utter frauds — machine politicians beholden to public employee unions who barely bother to pose as protectors of the poor.
There have always been signs that this pose was a ruse. Even as the state went on a spending binge from 2002 to 2007, funding for social services and welfare programs barely kept up with inflation. This history of indifference prompted liberal groups to do end runs around the legislature twice since 1998, using initiatives to pass cigarette and income tax hikes to fund programs for children and the mentally ill, respectively.
But now the state’s budget crisis has made Democrats’ true priorities crystal-clear. The crisis has been exaggerated by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to try to soften up voters for tax hikes; the oft-heard estimate of a $42 billion deficit is based on the Sacramento fantasy that a reduction in future projected spending increases is a real-world, hard-dollar spending cut. But there is no question that the state spends an average of about $1.5 billion more a month than it takes in — and that bankruptcy looms unless this imbalance is resolved.
Toward this end, Democratic leaders of the California Senate and Assembly agreed in closed-door negotiations with Schwarzenegger to cuts in virtually every social services, health and welfare program in the state. This was the governor’s price for going along with proposed increases in sales, gas and income taxes; a sharp reduction in the dependent children income tax credit; and a new levy on oil production.
But the cooperation ended when Schwarzenegger took his everyone-must-share-the-pain thesis to its logical conclusion. To ease the state’s cash crunch, he announced plans to have state employees take off two unpaid furlough days a month beginning Feb. 1.
Leading Democratic officeholders — and several likely 2010 gubernatorial candidates, including Attorney General Jerry Brown — immediately engaged in an impromptu contest to determine who could denounce the proposal with the most vigor. Treasurer Bill Lockyer was typical, expressing outrage that the governor would “impose such a hardship on the backs of our employees.” Lockyer and other Democrats elected to statewide office said they would refuse to enforce the furlough plan with their own staffs.
Medical checkups for poor kids can be halved. Help for the developmentally disabled can be reduced. Job training for inner-city youths can be suspended. But when it comes to cutting pay or benefits for a highly compensated state work force, Democratic officeholders not only draw the line; they express horror at the very thought.
Their reductive priorities were on display yet again on last Friday. That’s when state Controller John Chiang offered his alternative to Schwarzenegger’s plan to fight the cash crunch: Beginning Feb. 1, he said he would withhold $3.7 billion in payments owed to Californians.
Headlines focused on the fact that this meant nearly $2 billion in state income tax refunds were being kept for now by the state. A look at the fine print, however, showed Chiang also intends to withhold $188 million in funds for the two main state programs helping blind people and ailing seniors.
What was that again about Democrats being the best friend of the disadvantaged?
What was that again about heartless Republicans?
In crisis, a crude political Darwinism now rules in California. This survival-of-the-fittest scrum has made more obvious than ever that Democrats in the state legislature aren’t just allies of public employee unions. Instead, these lawmakers are best described as wholly owned union subsidiaries – people who see state government as a jobs program, not a means to provide services to the downtrodden or anyone else.
The poor and needy? They’re helpful political props to be used and discarded as needed — no more and no less.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (49) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Chris Reed
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/01/19/putting-government-first
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A Panoply of Beauties
- His Reach Exceeded His Grasp
- Gabby Giffords Poisons the Well
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Jason | 1.19.09 @ 6:46AM
First things first.
http://www.rightklik.net/
Bram| 1.19.09 @ 7:29AM
That is certainly a good description of how things work here in New Jersey. Since Jim McGreevy took office, the state’s population has been flat but 50,000 employees have been added to the state payroll. Our current Governor was literally in bed with a public employee union leader. Budgets include any trick possible to avoid cutting employees and their generous pensions. Democrats are the big government party.
Louis Jenkins| 1.19.09 @ 8:15AM
Another case of "do as I say, not as I do." If the public must do with less, whether caused by decreased income or increase in retail prices, wouldn't it make sense for all parts of a government do the same? Government, local, state, and national, is a created hierarchy, and the peons at the bottom of the feudal chain suffer. California's Gubernator may have been an action movie hero, but he's Conan the whimp when it comes to running a government. (And he's considered a candidate for the next presidential fiasco?)
a| 1.19.09 @ 8:28AM
How has California lasted this long?
malm| 1.19.09 @ 8:46AM
This issue is also bubbling in little Rhode Island. It might explode pitting middle class private sector workers vs middle class public sector workers. The former can't afford to pay the retirements and benefits, as well as current labor costs of the later. The Union bosses belch " cough it up ". Yet, people take it and vote for a one party, democrat state. The republicans just can't gain an inch. By the way, when I talk about union bosses that includes our beloved newspaper, and most of all the tv news people. If at home , I have the unfortunate experience to walk by the tv, and see one of their images on the screen mewing the latest propaganda, I am prone to lose control and spit upon them. Good thing paper towels are cheap.
JP| 1.19.09 @ 9:41AM
"The Union bosses belch " cough it up ". Yet, people take it and vote for a one party, democrat state. The republicans just can't gain an inch."
MALM,
Nothing lasts forever. Even in RI, public bankruptcy has an effect of waking people up.
Rev. Bob Celeste | 1.19.09 @ 10:19AM
I understand the need for commercials and advertising, but must you have ads that change every few seconds? They are such a distraction that it is nearly impossible to concentrate on the article one is reading. Please, stop the moving ads.
Bob
Walt | 1.19.09 @ 10:52AM
As a 60 resident of the Golden State, and having spent the past 34 years living in the California capitol of Sacramento, I made a decision to inform myself with some facts and research before going off half-cranked here.
My first order of business was to aquire some actual documentation, then attempt to make a reasoned analysis on that basis.
As a result of completed studies, I thought I'd share with the rest of the nation the results of my basic research.
Although not a completely scientific project, and certainly not without acedemic flaws, this non-collegiate posting might be an initial place to begin when contemplating a definitive description of ... the state of this state.
Pens ready - take notes.
California/kal.ee.for.nee.ah/n. (a) a large mass of western land; generally refered to as (b) the golden state (c) a North American region of territory stolen from Mexico/ Meh-hee-ko (d) an encroaching cess pool . (e) Most likely (d).
Meanwhile, I've learned that while Montana's exceptionally cold this time of year, it's generally free of (d's) evolving conditions later in their season. I'm watching.
Before leaving, please read chapters 6 thourgh 10 and be prepared for a quiz on Friday. It will count toward your final grade.
Good luck, wherever you are.
Louis Jenkins| 1.19.09 @ 12:03PM
Several years ago I had the opportunity to visit a friend who lived in Washington (state). He noted in passing that Californians were migrating to his area in droves. Wonder why?
Dustoff| 1.19.09 @ 12:04PM
I was born and raised in San Diego and live there for the last 50 years. I finally moved to a lib state (WA) but their not nearly as nuts as the dem's in CA. Well not yet!
I left because the state just couldn't stop taxes and making more & more laws for no good reason.
What a shame.
SeniorD| 1.19.09 @ 12:45PM
California is a piker compared to the East Coast pols. I can't name one state from Maine to Florida in which politicians claim poverty for themselves while making salaries at least 2x than the rest of the State.
It's not just former residents leaving in droves. IT business is moving to better climates, like Washington, Oregon, Texas, Arizona.
Bob| 1.19.09 @ 1:37PM
While I agree that the Dems have a political slogan that is ineffective and works for them, the Republicans are no different. Low taxes have not lead to economic growth -- they have only caused the debt to rise. GDP rises no more under Republican administrations than Democrat administrations.
The only solution that will keep both sides in check are balanced budgets -- forcing spending cuts if people want lower taxes. Neither party wants the electorate to know the real facts.
Ryan| 1.19.09 @ 2:34PM
Hey Bob, low taxes don't lead to debt rising.
Spending more than you bring in leads to debt rising.
Bob| 1.19.09 @ 2:44PM
Ryan, that is not the way it works in real life. Spending is never reduced because of the 53% of the budget that is entitlements. Older voters will never vote for a politician who wants to reform social security or medicare. Given that spending will not be reduced in our system, lower taxes definitely leads to higher debt. Take a look at this chart -- especially at the Reagan and Bush administrations:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
In real life (not in Republican dreamland) supply side administrations have caused the greatest increase in debt. I believe the only way to hold down spending and force politicians to make the hard decisions is to tie tax cuts to spending through balanced budgets. Right now, the voter gets lower taxes AND more spending, i.e., something for nothing.
Thus it is sloppy thinking to believe that tax cuts don't lead to higher debt.
peter z| 1.19.09 @ 3:08PM
It is my opinion that any country, no matter how great, will peak when it allows government employees of any kind to unionize. There is no going back from this. The worst president, therefore, is the one who condoned this parasitic obscenity.
stmichrick| 1.19.09 @ 7:23PM
Bob; THERE YOU GO AGAIN.
Record revenues to the treasury as a result of supply-side marginal-rate cutting do NOT lead to the debt. Spending does.
Mike Ts.| 1.19.09 @ 7:31PM
The Republican message in California only sells to old people any more. The Republican Party is run by old people. There is a compelling case for gutting state employee greed, but the few Republicans left continue to push this asinine creationism, gay rights, abortion, crap. Or at least they happy with being labeled with that. Arnold has something like his own political party - he's for hyper-expensive trains, hyper-nonsense stem cell research, and hyper-stupid billion dollar First Five boondoggle, and severe global warming laws on businesses.
David Govett| 1.19.09 @ 9:30PM
Not one top California Democrat comes from the working class--heaven forefend!
Frosty| 1.19.09 @ 11:33PM
So many jackasses like Mike Ts is another reason why California is so screwed. Immoral, crappy people. It's all about the money.
ccc| 1.20.09 @ 3:06AM
Despite all the contempt for california, it is still the biggest ecnomic power in the union and a significant net contributor to federal revenues unlike misissipi. And while "real american" states in the midwest are shrivaling into irrelevance california grows. And the reason is, they can get jobs in california and it is a vastly nicer place to live than all but a handful of red states (such as montana or idaho).
I left the state years ago and don't want to return, too hot and crowded for my taste.
Michael L. Hauschild| 1.20.09 @ 5:32AM
ccc,
California is not an economic power. It is easy to create ledger sheet viability using only "production" tallies. Quite the contrary, their debit column shows that the citizens in the "irreverent" midwest are the ones that will be called upon to bear burden of making up all those "federal revenues." You cannot get blood from a migrant harvested turnip.
Bram | 1.20.09 @ 7:36AM
"Low taxes have not lead to economic growth” That’s a joke, right? Texas, Tennessee, Utah, Nevada are growing rapidly while people and businesses flee from California, Michigan, Ohio and New Jersey.
Are you going to tell me all those Utah and Arizona license plates I see in LA are just tourists?
Are you going to tell me all those Utah and Arizona license plates I see in LA are just tourists?
Bob| 1.20.09 @ 8:45AM
stmichrick, you continue to make arguments notwithstanding the facts. First, there were not record revenues during the Reagan and Bush administrations and secondly, there was no more economic growth during the Reagan/Bush administrations than anyone else. Those are the facts. You are dealing in myth -- which is why this country is in bad shape right now -- an under-educated public.
Here are the charts -- study them...
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-R2-Federal-Government-Tax-Revenue.html
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
http://www.heritage.org/Research/features/budgetchartbook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S1-Federal-Spending-Has-Increased.html
You cannot look at these charts and possibly come to the conclusion that in real life, artificially low taxes have been good for this country.
Please do your analysis before you make any more stupid remarks.
Joe| 1.20.09 @ 8:55AM
Bob, you are wrong again. The revenues were higher. And it is my money not yours or your liberal friends in Washington.
Bob| 1.20.09 @ 9:08AM
Joe, give me a link for a CHART of the data that shows me the revenues increased more than Democrat presidents. You cannot. Deal with fact -- not ideology. By the way, I don't want a two point analysis because that kind of data can be manipulated. Charting all data points cannot be manipulated.
Look at the charts before you respond. Find other charts of the same data. Don't be so anti-intellectual and actually use your head.
Darin| 1.20.09 @ 1:24PM
Obviously it's not an election year. The only time liberals care about the poor is when their vote is needed. At all other times, the poor can go pound sand.
Bob| 1.20.09 @ 2:01PM
Bram, the joke is actually on you. Did low taxes bring gambling (and the mob) to Nevada? Did low taxes put the oil into the ground in Texas? What large urban populations are in Tennessee and Utah? Why are all the high tax states manufacturing states in decline? Did high taxes cause the manufacturing declines or outsourcing to China, etc.?
You don't have a clue, do you. Why do you believe the ideologues? Because they know you won't think? Use your head...
disruptive skeptic| 1.20.09 @ 3:16PM
Bob, whatever your chart says Bush revenues were higher pre recession than those in the vaunted Clinton 200 billion as far as the eye can see surplus projection. That projection did not include the prescription drug benefit( something Bill always cried about that we lacked but never acted on it ), a laughably low defense budget, and zilch for homeland security. All this budget and revenue stuff is really tricky. I do know this a 6 month tax holiday on income tax, and payroll would stimulate growth more than what is being proposed. The places that are in trouble are run by democrat party machines. They have it all, the finance centers, the legal centers, the corporate centers with the highest paying jobs, loads of natural resources, coastlines, media and entertainment conglomerates, the big medical centers( the list can go on and on), and yet they are broke. They are homes of the great universities, so called the smartest people and they are a mess. They lack accountability, productivity, and common sense. The best of the regular folks are fleeing the madness, replaced by immigrants who will not assimilate, and have massive numbers of children out of wedlock. It is not about artificially low taxes Bob. It is based on artificially high government costs. Even the dopiest democrat is starting to get this, even in a state like Rhody totally brainwashed, people trained pavlov doglike fashion to vote democrat. Obama is not the beginning of anything ,but rather a massive and great comeback of the democrats. They are the winning team. They will, however, not be a dynasty. What will knock them off, well not this conservative absolutist republican party. But, something will challenge and defeat the DPPM(democrat party political machine). What you and your party believe in Bob is the artificial, a massive exercise in liberal magical thinking. Sooner or later the wild left ( the true heart and mind of the DPPM) will go goon. You are all wanna be bullies who believe you can should control others. A political party that just says vote for me and you can still enjoy your autos, barbecue, and tell the local community organizer to bleep off might be all that will be needed to knock them out.. I would advise people who want to defeat the democrats to look into music that white kids listen to today. It is not just hip hop or CW. The Indie music and all that. Even some of the graphic novels. I am just starting to realize that there is a strong " just leave me alone " attitude out there. And not just leave me a lone about sex, drugs, and rock'n roll as the democrats and liberals are happy to do, but leave me alone across across the board. Of late I am starting to talk to some of these kids . God they look dopey and sound dopey, but they are not Obama youth cult followers. They loathe the Brown University ivy league types( but no so based on class warfare). They did not vote. They have a built in bs meter. I can assure you they are not bamboozled by Obama. They question his entire deal. They say he is saying nothing, but mumbo jumbo. They know he is a propagandist thru and thru. The problem is that the republicans, party of the preacher man, will never reach them. Mostly they are white, these skeptical and curious youth, but they have friends of color, are not racist. Their non white friends are down with them. All of this is way beyond my paygrade, but if I had Soros money I'd commission a study to discover who are the youth who did not vote Obama, did not vote at all. Smart people need to study these things. They will not be conservatives of course. Conservatives are stuck in the mud and know everything all ready. Outsourcing Bob ? Yes taxes killed manufacturing, and our nutty tort system and trial lawyers and our non energy production policy. These job killing policies are all brought to us courtesy of the DPPM.
Bob| 1.20.09 @ 3:56PM
Disruptive, it is not my chart, it is OUR chart directly from the federal numbers. There is NO evidence of increased revenues more than normal with decreased tax rates. One year does not make a trend, and we've had lower taxes for almost 8 years. The smart people are neither conservative ideologues or liberal extremists who cannot, and will not, look at factual information.
I am a Republican, not a Democrat. I want government to be smaller. I want us to take care of our borders. I believe in market based solutions with regulations to make sure only that the market is fair. I am not for the Bush Doctrine that trys to force democracy on other countries -- a traditional Republican position. But I am not for intervening into other people's lives including on abortion and gay marriage. Let them live freely.
The Republican party is dying because they keep on looking backwards. They don't look at facts to realize that Reagan was NOT a good steward of our economy. The rise of social conservatives, who eschew intelligence and knowledge in favor of Christian scripture have dumbed down the party. The degradation of science has been a hallmark of Republicans for many years now.
The party must change into one that looks at the future, is open to conflicting points of view, and one that does not demean other people. You are living in the past. It's time to look to the future.
Bram| 1.20.09 @ 4:02PM
Bob - To answer you questions:
1. Low taxes and a reasonable cost of living brought many people and businesses to Nevada (including me for a few years).
2. 1.1 million people live in and around Salt Lake City with another million and a half in the surrounding region. I’m not sure why that is relevant.
3. Yes - high taxes and intrusive regulations make outsourcing very attractive – I have been part of several such projects. I work in a corporate headquarters – right now the business environment is far more attractive in many foreign locations.
You are the kind of know-it-all arrogant liberal the whole country will soon learn to hate again. The answer to every problem is government. Anyone who objects is called “selfish” or “ignorant.”
Bob| 1.20.09 @ 4:20PM
Actually, Bram, I am a libertarian oriented conservative. But I also support the use of data and fact and not ideology. Low taxes may have brought YOU to Nevada, but it was the gaming industry that made low taxes possible. Do you really want to argue with that? Salt Lake City may be a large city, but it is not a Los Angeles, San Francisco, St. Louis, Chicago, or New York.
And you obviously couldn't find any facts that would counter my arguments because the data is fairly clear and solid.
I want smaller government, but low taxes have not made that happen. Low taxes have not increased our economy. The only thing they have done is increase the debt and make our children pay for our poor stewardship. It is nice to pay fewer taxes and get more services -- but it is not responsible behavior.
Tom| 1.20.09 @ 9:01PM
Bob
What exactly is an artificially low tax? By what or who's standard? I happen to think any tax over and above military, police, and courts is to much.
Bob| 1.21.09 @ 7:15AM
Tom, an "artificially low tax" is one that increases our debt substantially. You may want to get rid of social security, medicare, the FTC/FDA/FBI, etc., but that is just not realistic. I do think we need to revamp the social programs and pare down some government functions.
However, I'm a bottom line guy. If you are going to spend, then you must tax. If people really don't like high taxes, they might be more amenable to cut spending when they feel the pain. No pain -- no gain....
ds| 1.21.09 @ 8:49AM
Sorry Bob , but you failed to address artificially high government costs. We need less expensive government Bob. We all work into may or so for government. And, do not make me laugh about taxing the rich. I contend middle class workers pay for the rich guys tax increase. And taxes are all taxes Bob, like corporate taxes. Who in the end pays those ? C'mon Bob, alledged libertarian. Look at the cost side of government and start finding economy, productivity, and common sense solutions. And Bob, nobody has degraded science more than liberals, and add in history, too. Is Al Gore a sound scientific mind ? Was the China Syndrome scare promoted by hollywood wing of the democrat party sound science. Was forced busing sound social science ? The Alar Scare ? Nuclear winter ? Fad science, hysteria. You call that real science. And of course, star wars-won't work, can't work being the mantra.
Bob| 1.21.09 @ 9:05AM
ds, you need to read my response to this here:
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/01/21/obamas-responsibility#comment_19319
I agree with you on several fronts. First, that we need less expensive government. However, you must start with entitlement reform as that is the bulk of our budget. Furthermore, the Dems are not an example of true science, but neither are the Republicans. I've looked at a lot of the data and believe there is a slight trend to global warming but unsure of the actual causes. Furthermore, a true scientific approach would support nuclear power and more drilling and would cut ethanol subsidies. I do believe in more research in wind and solar, however, as they are not currently economically viable but will be at some time in the future IF we do the research necessary. Research is relatively cheap.
From the evidence I've seen, Republicans have degraded science much more than Dems, but both sides have done it. Do you really believe that humans rode dinosaurs and that evolution doesn't exist? Give me a break.
Nick| 1.21.09 @ 3:17PM
Bob,
I accutually believe you are a Republican and not some stinking liberal troll. Your problem is you're more libertarian than conservative. Therfore your faith in reason above all else and your almost worship of man's enlightenment and intellect. And hence your disdain for anyone who appeals to their faith in God in any public discussion.
It's the problem most libertarians have. There is no liberty apart from God. As Christ said: "One cannot serve two masters." Yet that is what you try to do. And you end up hating the one and loving the other. You make yourselves "god", the arbiters of what is right or wrong according to your "facts". "Facts" meaning anything you can find to agree with your worldview.
Which brings me to your post. You state: "I've looked at a lot of the data and believe there is a slight trend to global warming but unsure of the actual causes." And what about the data you haven't seen? Did you know that in the early '90s the Russains stopped monitoring Siberia? And since the early '80s official weather monitoring stations across the nation have been stuck next to A/C units, asphalt parking lots, sewage treatment plants? So how in the world can anyone declare one way or the other that the earth is warming? They can't.
You also ask do I really believe that evolution doesn't exist? Well I'm glad you admit the theory of evolution is set of beliefs or creeds, and not science. Kind of like a religion, right?
All Darwin did was write a new Genesis 3000 years after Moses did. His new story of creation was for all the atheists and agnostics out there to cling to so they could sin without feeling any guilt.
I'm a social conservative Bob. I'm Roman Catholic, which means I acctually believe everything the Church officially teaches. I also love science and history, although I don't claim to be an expert in either. Which means my opinions can be changed if the facts are there. But science has nothing to say about God. Science deals with the physical world and God is supernatural.
hghjjhg| 11.18.09 @ 8:18PM
Mac TOD Converter,
TOD Converter for Windows