SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Fun For Fiscal Hawks In California

THE PLANK JULY 21, 2009

Fun For Fiscal Hawks In California

Ed Kilgore is managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, and a frequent contributor to a variety of political journals.  

One of the odder political phenomena of 2009 has been the strength of the neo-Hooverite argument that the most appropriate response to the deepest recession since the 1930s is radical retrenchment of public spending policies to mitigate (or, at the state and local level, avoid) deficits. Most Republicans and some Democrats have embraced the rhetoric of hard-core fiscal hawkery, with particularly tough words for those state and local governments who have suddenly, through no particular fault of their own, watched revenues drop through the floor.

Well, the fiscal hawks ought to be enjoying the latest news from California, where Republican manipulation of a two-thirds-vote requirement for enactment of a state budget has led to a no-tax-increase deal to close an astounding $26 billion state shortfall.

The deal does have a revenue component that manages to take money out of California's economy without actually increasing the state's revenue base: it will increase and speed up tax withholding, and exploit an arcane provision related to Prop 13 that enables the state to borrow (to the tune of $1.9 billion) property tax dollars from local governments, who will in turn, of course, be forced to cut their own spending.

The spending side of the deal includes $1.2 billion in unspecified cuts to prison expenditures--virtually guaranteed to force early release of prisoners, a practice that earlier led to public demands, in California and elsewhere, for mandatory sentencing rules and restrictions on parole and probation.

But the crown jewel of the spending cuts in the California budget deal is the continuation and extension of furloughs for public employees that amount to a 14% pay cut. This isn't exactly great news for California businesses that will feel the impact of reduced consumer spending by state employees.

Given the Golden State's size, there's no question the budget deal (if, indeed, it secures legislative approval) will represent a significant blow to national economic recovery. But it will undoubtedly please those for whom public spending is the villain, and "sacrifice" in every area other than taxes is the panacea.

--Ed Kilgore

[Cross-posted from The Democratic Strategist]

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 3 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

3 comments

States like Texas aren't confronted by massive deficits because, unlike California, they didn't cut taxes and boost spending during the boom years. California has expanded government spending massively, and pointlessly, for the past decade and its citizens now have no one to blame but themselves.

- AMVHuck

July 21, 2009 at 11:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AMVHuck:

The main reason revenues dropped in California was not because taxes were cut irresponsibly (with the notable exception of Schwarzenegger's slashing the vehicle licensing fee mere minutes after being sworn in). It's because state government is overly dependent on income tax revenues, which are highly volatile, akin to putting half of your kids' college fund in penny stocks. And the reason the state overwhelmingly lives off income and sales taxes is because of Prop 13 and subsequent steps to mitigate its effects over the years.

- primwallflow

July 21, 2009 at 12:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The 2/3 budget requirement will be eliminated by constitutional amendment.  The state GOP here in California vastly overplayed their hand, and the result will be that they won't have a say in future budgets.  While I'm glad for the political outcome of the budget it's very sad to see the idiocies of both parties that led to the horrific cuts.  

But...Schwarzenegger will rightly get much of the blame for this mess.  His first instinct was to slash absolutely everything in which he had no political stake, with education getting the brunt of it.  He showed no intelligence or imagination during this process.  He simply issued draconian edicts then passed the buck to the legislature  (a monstrously inept and corrupt institution) when people questioned him.  And he can forget running for the Senate.  Those prospects have all but evaporated (Boxer would cream him).  

Schwarzenegger will go down as a far worse governor than Grey Davis (the man he recalled) and the 2/3 budget requirement will be gone.  That will be the legacy of the budget crisis.  

- shaw-man

July 21, 2009 at 1:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close