Californians object to increasing taxes in order to pare the state's massive budget deficit, and instead favor closing the breach through spending cuts. But they oppose cuts—and even prefer more spending—on programs that make up 85% of the state's general fund obligations, a new Los Angeles Times/USC Poll has found.
That paradox rests on Californians' firm belief that the state's deficit—estimated last week at nearly $25 billion over the next 18 months—can be squared through trimming waste and inefficiencies rather than cutting the programs they hold dear. Despite tens of billions that have been cut from the state budget in recent years, just a quarter of California voters believed that state services would have to be curtailed to close the deficit.
I remember reading a study which first asked voters if they believed foreign aid should be cut -- the answer being a resounding "yes". The next question was how much the respondents believed we spent on foreign aid -- an amount they overstated dramatically. Finally, when asked how much we should spend on foreign aid, they gave a figure that was something like triple what we spend currently.
38 comments:
I think it is rather easy to understand the poll, which seems to be saying that Californians want to ring out whatever inefficiency there is in government before taking unpopular steps, such as raising taxes or eliminating programs.
I, for one, cannot imagine how California gets out of its mess any time soon. I rather doubt, given the recession, that anyone will volunteer to pay more money. I rather doubt that those who use government services will volunteer to lose them or that supporters of such programs - me included - will volunteer to eliminate them. So, what to do?
I do not know how efficient government in California is. However, if it is like most state government, no doubt there is massive corruption, massive inefficiency, etc., etc. However, I rather doubt that such problems will or, for that matter, can be eliminated. So, what to do?
A huge problem California has is its referenda system, which has created a set of budgetary mandates that only could be met in an eight-year old's fever dream. California voters regularly vote to mandate increases in spending across all the programs they like, tax cuts or caps to prevent money going in, and then want a balanced budget. It's impossible to manage.
You are certainly correct about the referendum system.
Of course, it is not just California that has a budget crisis. Many states do. And, there is no obvious solution to the problem which, if allowed to fester and if the recession does not end soon, will result in a Greece-like solution for those states.
The big problem here is the recession, I fear, and the likelihood that the government will not step up to the challenge. I read Paul Krugman's book, The Return of Depression Economics, which is about events in the 1990's, most especially in Asia. If you have not read it, it is worth your time.
It seems to me - and, unlike religion and history, I defer entirely to writers like Krugman - that the Obama administration has effectively adopted the same approach as the Japanese government in the 1990's and with, thus far, the same dismal results. Which is to say, I think we are in a lot of trouble, all things considered.
I know you are a fan of Obama. My view - and I hate to say it - is that he will be remembered as being among the worst presidents in the country's history. In fact, historians will rate him, I think, lower than Bush II, which is, as I see it, pretty low on the list. Obama can always be expected to take half measures, to adopt trendy notions in the manner of a poorly read ideologue - anything but to think about the world as it is and take concrete steps to shape it for the better.
That aside regarding our half-wit president was meant merely to note that the fate of places like California is not only in the hands of the Californians but depends on how and, I suppose, if the recession is tackled. Will the Federal government comes up with some plan to reverse the economic problems facing the entire country? We have had two years of a president downplaying the problem - foolish move, as the election results and high unemployment rate show. And, while I favor healthcare insurance reform, Obama's work on that project was akin, for voters and common sense, to Nero fiddling while Rome burned.
David, that was the comment I was going to make.
A good portion of the spending is approved via the initiative process. Most of this spending can not be touched by legislative action. Couple that with a lame legislative ruling class, that often operates at odds with common sense, and it spells disaster.
Example.
Back in 1986 (ish), an initiative was passed that allowed the state to get in on the lottery craze in order to raise revenue. The hook to help the thing pass? "X" amount of all revenue collected from the lottery would go toward financing state education. OK. But, when the lottery passed and started generating $$$, the legislature soon started to divert the education dollars from the general fund (the taxes collected vs the lottery revenue)and use that $$ for other things. So, even thought the funds for education did increase at the initial launch of the lottery, due to the publics excitement over the lottery, reality set in.
After a couple of years California officials soon saw that participation in the lottery began to decline. Instead of restoring the funding being siphoned off, the geniuses running the lottery decided that the reason there was a decline in the amount of people playing the lottery was because the jackpots weren't big enough. So they jerry-rigged it to produce bigger jackpots. Of course, the only way you can accomplish this is to make it harder for anyone to win the jackpot!
Again, after a couple of years, after the initial increase in edu $$$, a good chunk of the public realized that it wasn't worth playing because no one ever won. Yet the legislature had already committed the original general fund edu $$$ to other things. They had to increase spending to cover the cost.
Anyway, getting this ship righted is going to take a massive rethinking of the government system in California. I, for one am very much in favor of doing away with the initiative process altogether. It's flawed, and makes it all to easy for legislators to shirk the necessity of having to make hard decisions. Instead of voting on something that might cost an election down the road, hey, they simply wash their hands of any responsibility and offer it up as an initiative. Plus, as was revealed by Prop 8, where is the wisdom of being able to amend the state Constitution with simply a bare majority vote? Like the Federal model, amending the Constitution should be hard... Damned hard!
Crap. I have to go work some more.
sonicfrog,
You have only focused on part of the problem. After all, New York is in a dire situation as well.
It's definitely not a problem unique to California. We see similar blocks to raising taxes or cutting spending on federal level, as David noted last week re: earmarks. I suspect our constitutional system of government is simply incapable of delivering on hard choices in any situation short of an existential crisis (or perceived existential crisis).
joe,
I think another problem here - and in line with what you write - is that the voters do see an existential crisis but the politicians, most especially the Obama administration, has had difficulty understanding that it exists, believing instead that it could jolly the public. Hence, the election result.
Voters drive the actions of politicians, not the other way around. If most voters can't agree on what the crisis is, and the advantage to one side or the other is only two or five or (at most) eight percent of the vote in any given year, and various entrenched interests can lobby and spend endless piles of money on ads to get their piece of the pie; then it's really of no matter that we can all agree in the abstract "something must be done".
It is one giant collective action problem, exacerbated by the fact that. Trying to pass it off on Obama (or any other individual in politics for that matter) is simple scapegoating.
I meant "exacerbated by the fact that firm governance requires a massive supermajority."
joe,
I rather think that the vast majority of the public think that the economic problems are dire - an existential threat. There are differences about what to do about it. Where the Obami went seriously wrong is to jolly the public, claiming that matters were under control - morning in America is just around the corner, as it were -, have that not turn out to be so and, while things were playing out, pushing on things other than the country's economic problems.
Which is to say, I do not think the mechanics of how politics works much matters here. I think the Obami totally misread the situation. That, frankly, is the administration's habit on everything. Naivety and half-witted policies which satisfy ideologues.
That's just content-less babble. What, exactly, should have the administration done with respect to the economy (specific policy proposals, please, not beltway nuggets like "feel America's pain" or "focus on the issue")? Possibly the highest profile thing he did was bailout the auto industry, and that was a resounding success. I think the stimulus should have been larger, but that was Congress who shrank it from the President's original proposal. I'd say you clearly have alternatives in mind, except that you've hit this refrain a bunch of times and yet been remarkably fuzzy on what specifically you think should have been done.
David,
As I said, I am not an economist. I am judging his economic policies by their results A disaster!!!
If we go by what Krugman said back in 2009 and earlier, Obama should have expended all of his effort on a massive stimulus - double what was proposed by Obama. You claim that Congress reduced what he proposed. Why, David, did Obama not fight for his proposal? Why did he claim that what was passed would lower the unemployment rate? It did no such thing, as we now know. In fact, Krugman predicted that Obama's policy actually followed would amount to spinning our wheels - which is more or less what occurred.
Alternatively, Obama might have gone the path taken by Germany, where they have serious growth already. Again, I am not an economist. However, I know failure when I see it.
Politically, what he should not have done was jolly the public, claiming that unemployment would be down to 8.5% long ago. That was the result of his lack of experience. Which is to say, we elected a politician in over his head.
You claim the bailout was a success. Maybe. Maybe not. Most economists still doubt its utility, except as a place saving device. Now, I supported the buyout because I do not like seeing people out of work and because I think the country needs a manufacturing base. However, it is really premature to speak of the bailout as a success - at least if you think that GM and Chrysler will emerge as successful companies. That, to me, seems rather unlikely.
I could just label that last comment as Part 567. Let it never be said that NF let ignorance bar the path to judgment.
I mean, this is just laughable. Obama's a failure because he misforecast unemployment data (an embarrassing political misstep, for sure, but your elevation of it is beltway sophistry of the highest order). Obama's a failure because he didn't talk tough to the Senate and force a coordinate branch of government to pass a larger stimulus (god, I've so missed the "USE TEH BULLY PULPIT" shriek from the blogosphere).
And while you apparently know failure when you see it, the question of success is apparently far more fuzzy. Jobs restored, profits earned, and Michigan not turning into a third world country (all costing the government nothing -- hell, taxpayers turned a profit on the auto bailout!) -- well, juries still out on that one.
I know a comment fail when I see one. We don't elect politicians to either "jolly the public" or to deliver grim truths with stern resolve. We elect them to enact policy. Trying to recast the latter as the former is the profession of ignorant beltway pundits everywhere, and it is why I loathe them with the fire of a thousand suns.
Come now, David. Most of the electorate seems to agree with me about Obama. The economy is a wreck. Our position in the world deteriorating. Etc., etc. Only a committed ideologue could see it your way.
Indeed, they do. But the question of (a) how much of current economic conditions are or are not attributable to Obama's policies, (b) whether his policies have helped or hurt the economy and (c) the degree to which it was feasible to take alternate, more beneficent policies are all questions that have nothing to do with the state of the polls. But they are the questions that matter when intelligent people try to assess someone a success or failure. Follow the herd if you like, but don't act so chagrined that not everyone is interested in trailing behind.
I side more with David here.... with some caveats.
On the one hand, the "saving 3 million jobs" number is quite suspect, relying on some dubious metrics to get that number. On the other hand, even though I think it can be shown that a good chunk of the stimulus money, either the tax cuts or the actual money that went out in the package, did not go to places that would have done much to actually create many jobs.
On the other hand, knowing my economic history, if both the TARP and stimulus packages hadn't been passed, things would have almost certainly been worse, maybe much worse, especially without TARP. You only need to read some detailed history of the depression of 1868, and the near economic collapse of 1907, to get a feel of how "bail-out" as we'll call them, can stave off total economic disaster.
Must go sleep now.
Oops... should have been "bail-outs". Too much wine!
David,
You write: "But they are the questions that matter when intelligent people try to assess someone a success or failure."
I agree with what you are saying in the quoted language. If we take Sonicfrog's view that the recession would have been worse had TARP, etc., not been pursued as correct - and, in fact, I think he is correct -, that does not relieve Obama for employing insufficient medicine to get us out of the recession.
Moreover, taking your point (a) carefully, we have to say that, while not all of this is Obama's fault, some of it is. The part that is his fault is the failure to use strong enough economic medicine to, following Krugman's theory, get us out of the mess that Obama inherited.
Again, I do not blame Obama for the recession. I blame him for not doing enough to get us out of it. That, frankly, is his fault. And, as I noted, jollying the public that things were on the mend better than they were likely to be (assuming Krugman was correct all along) made the public dislike Obama.
And, pursuing healthcare reform, which clearly is of no consequence to the current problem facing the economy but which became the focus of his administration - and not the economy - was, politically speaking, idiotic.
Again, I do not blame Obama for the recession. I blame him for not doing enough to get us out of it.
Question: What should he have done differently?
(can tell you right now my answer will be different)
So we have three things:
(1) The stimulus should have been larger. I agree. But the fact is, Obama asked for a larger stimulus, and Congress didn't give it. Why we shouldn't thus blame recalcitrant members of a coordinate branch of government is escaping me at the moment (and simply shouting "he should have used the bully pulpit!" is as spectacularly unpersuasive now as it was when folks that it was the only thing standing between America and the public option. They're equally powerful branches for a reason).
(2) Obama misforecast unemployment data. True, embarrassing, but ultimately trivial. If economic performance had been better, people would be happy, but not because Obama proved himself a prodigious prognosticator. And if Obama had said "unemployment will likely be at 11% for the next four years", people would not be happy with him because he made an accurate prediction. This goes back to the false assertion that the President's role is to utter grim truths. It's not, and it's just beltway sophistry to pretend like it is.
(3) Too much time on health care (I think it was really important to pass health care -- that's been the Democratic holy grail for 50 years, and getting it passed is a massive victory for the party and the country -- but the amount of time sunk into was a problem). I agree too, but once again, it's Congress that decided to take for-fucking-ever before passing the damn bill. That was obviously a tactical mistake, and I agree with Jon Chait that it plays a huge role in explaining Democratic loses -- both because it sucked up time that could have been used on other things (like the economy), and because the longer the debate went on, the more teabsggers were able to whip their base into a frenzy about emergent socialism. But once again -- that was a misstep by Baucus and his fellow Senate Democratic moderates. Whom I fully agree are morons. But Obama, if you recall, wanted the bill passed by August of 2009.
So of your three problems, one of them is utterly trivial, and two of them are the fault of congressional Republicans and moderate congressional dems for accommodating them, rather than actually doing what the President asked for (larger stimulus, faster passage of health care).
And of course, this whole discourse puts you in a pickle come 2012, because (on the economy at least), everything you think Obama did wrong, Republicans wanted to do times eleventy-billion. Smaller to non-existent stimulus, no bailouts, drag health care out forever ("start all over!"). Maybe you can vote for Nader or something.
Sonicfrog,
You ask what I would have done. Answer: There were two available theories that I know of, Krugman's and that of the neo-classical school. I would have followed one of those approaches more vigorously than did the president.
David,
Obama pushed for a bigger package than was offered by Congress. Krugman stated and wrote at the time that Obama's approach would, at best, tread water. Congress whittled down Obama's approach, but not by that much. So, your effort to exonerate the President is based on the supposition that his approach would have worked.
Note: the president did not push for a larger package vigorously. He chose not to spend his political capital on its accomplishment. So, we have him offering too little and pushing too weakly - which is a good metaphor for his administration.
As for jollying the public, that is not a trivial matter. It allowed him to change the topic from the economy to other things he preferred. And, it is his failure to - using Clintonesque language - focus on the economy like a light beam which is why he is so despised. So, that mistake was not only not trivial but, frankly, is a reason there are fewer democrats.
You say Obama wanted to pass healthcare reform in August, 2009. He wants to do all sorts of things and them sets deadlines. If one has no viable plan to accomplish a goal, one's preferences are irrelevant. So, while healtcare reform may be the holy grail, that does not mean it was (a) more important than the economy - a point overlooked by Obama and other Democrats - and (b) that he could pass a plan that had the public's support - again, a failure of Obama either to explain his program or in his approach to pushing his program.
I have no idea what I shall do in 2012. I can say that there is no way I shall vote for Obama. That means I shall probably sit things out. As for the program proposed by the GOP for the economy, I have no idea what it would have done or will do going forward. I do know that, notwithstanding the fact that Keynsianism was in when I studied economics, the countries that are not following that remedy are already out of recession (e.g. Germany, with high levels of economic growth). So, maybe, they are right and we are wrong. It is not beyond contemplating. I want to see what happens in the UK, which seems to think that Germany has the correct formula this time.
You ask what I would have done. Answer: There were two available theories that I know of, Krugman's and that of the neo-classical school. I would have followed one of those approaches more vigorously than did the president.
That doesn't answer the question. What specific policy do you recommend to get us out of this mess?
I may not be able to answer for a couple of days... will be traveling. But, what ever you answer, I promise I will respond.
"It seems to me - and, unlike religion and history, I defer entirely to writers like Krugman - that the Obama administration has effectively adopted the same approach as the Japanese government in the 1990's and with, thus far, the same dismal results."
Er, have you read what Krugman has written about the current situation? He's praised the Fed under Obama for buying government bonds (popularly called "quantitative easing"), and noted that Milton Friedman urged the Japanese government to do this but the Bank of Japan didn't.
As for the wisdom of the voting public, I can assure you that Paul Krugman's preference for a *larger* stimulus is not what polls indicate most Americans to prefer.
Krugman's support of QE is tepid at best, and he also shows that Japan DID try it in 2000, and it did... drum-roll please... absolutely nothing!
Here's the link.
Sonicfrog,
I noted that I am not an economist and have no recommendations in fields that I lack competency. Were we having a discussion about religion or history or certain areas of law, I have views based on exhaustive reading. I have never studied economics exhaustively; only one college course and a few books here and there.
Rather than give recommendations that I have no basis to think correct or not, I noted that there were two (or so) general paths which major economists presented back in late 2008 and early 2009. The president adopted, but only half-halfheartedly, the Keynsian approach.
If you are asking about what to do now, I again note that there are two general ideas on the table, so to speak. One is to follow what Bernanke suggests - quantitative easing - and the other is to go the path of Germany, which opted to reduce spending and deficits. I do note that, at least in Germany, the latter plan has resulted in a booming economy. I, however, have no idea if what ails us is the same as what ailed Germany.
Where I have problems with Obama is that, back when he took office, he chose to act as if the recession was a minor bump along an otherwise smooth road. He pushed a few bills, did not push for hard medicine, declared victory, then moved on with his agenda only to discover that the recession, as most experts had indicated at the time, was not a mere bump along the road. Hence, his judgment was very poor.
PG,
That Krugman has said some encouraging things about quantitative easing does not mean it is his policy of first choice. Normally, Keynsians - at least when I was in school - believe that monetary policy is insufficient in a liquidity trap type recession. So, what he is likely saying is that quantitative easing is better than doing nothing. Or, more than likely, he is saying that it will help the economy tread water.
sonicfrog,
Your Krugman link states, "And just to be clear, I also favor QE — largely because it might help some, and seems to be just about the only policy lever still available in the face of political reality."
I don't think that's tepid support, given that unlike N. Friedman, Krugman is well aware that Republicans -- not Pelosi nor Reid nor Obama -- have assembled a monolithic opposition to government spending, which is the policy lever Krugman would have preferred in a perfect world.
PG,
You might actually read what I wrote. It turns out that you counter my view about Krugman's view by stating my understanding of Krugman's view.
N. Friedman,
You claim that Obama didn't fight for his proposed stimulus. What precisely would, in your view, constitute "fighting" for this proposal? Vetoing any legislation that didn't match his proposal? Engaging in a hunger strike? What? Again, if you believe in the wisdom of the voting public, voters are skeptical that any stimulus, much less a *larger* stimulus of the type you and Krugman favor, was the way to go.
Krugman deciding during the Bush Administration that Republicans in general are essentially people whose opinions don't matter. He does nonetheless recognize, however, that Obama's failure to get the stimulus Krugman would have liked is basically the fault of Republican opposition: "Instead, however, [Obama] offered a plan that was clearly both too small and too heavily reliant on tax cuts. Why? Because he wanted the plan to have broad bipartisan support, and believed that it would. Not long ago administration strategists were talking about getting 80 or more votes in the Senate."
If you want to say Krugman is right, then be prepared to adopt his underlying philosophy, which is that the Republicans are pretty much always wrong. Considering that you've declared the Democrats to be without the ideas to lead, I'm skeptical that you're actually willing to share Krugman's beliefs about the GOP.
PG,
I think that Krugman's history is more or less accurate. However, note: it was, on his theory, Obama who chose to engage Republicans - a group which does not find Keynes persuasive. So, I do not see why one needs to blame the Republicans for not doing what they oppose. I think one needs to blame Obama for not realizing that Republicans do not accept Keynsianism.
Obama might have addressed the public and taken the view that, absent a truly WWII type investment, the future would be one of stagnation. He might have kept at it, at least as much as he kept at healthcare insurance reform. He did not so thing.
Instead, he passed a bill that was timid in scope, failed to push for a stronger bill and then declared victory.
Note: I do not claim that Krugman's view of economics is correct. That is not something I know how to judge. As I said, he might be correct. Alternatively, the GOP's economists might be correct. I have no idea who is correct here.
Your view seems to imply that Obama did things just about right, given the circumstances. The election disaster and the ongoing economic stagnation and the lack of prospects for improvement and the fact that none of his programs, domestic or foreign, seem to have borne any important fruit do not bode well for him or his point of view. And, as I have said, I think he is among the worst, if not the worst, presidents I have ever seen in action - Democratic or Republican. He is ineffective, lacks judgment, etc., etc. I think he is a disaster. There is no circumstance where I shall vote for him. And, I rather expect that the soon to be released wikileak documents will provide copious even more detail about his inadequacy. Oh, and by the way: why is he doing so little to stop the massive leaks now coming out? Where is the outrage from him?
CORRECTION:
Strike: "He did not so thing."
Substitute:
He did no so thing.
You know, I get the distinct impression that NF decided Obama was one of the worst ever presidents based solely on his Israeli policy (or Mideast policy in gneral). in fact, I distinctly remember him saying a few months back that it's an area where he'd make an exception to his general reservation on single-issue voting.
How convenient, then, that as time goes on NF finds himself with a plethora of reasons to oppose Obama, thus neatly avoiding the dreaded single-issue label. And by that I mean it's not convenient at all: it's a pretty nice mirror to the Republican approach to this presidency. Criticize the opponent no matter what he does. Of course, at least Republicans have the fig leaf of having actual large-scale ideological opposition to Obama's overall agenda. NF claims to be a liberal himself.
Now, NF wants to be single-issue, fine that's his right. Lot of people are about a lot of issues. But I really think he should drop the pretense here.
joe,
How nice of you to label me.
joe,
I certainly do oppose Obama's Israel policy, which reminds me of British and French policy towards Czechoslovakia during the 1930's. But, that is only the start of it. I really do think he is a disaster who seems destined to do for liberalism what Hoover did for 1920's style Republicanism. Which is to say, the sooner the Democrats find someone else, the better.
So you honestly don't think if he emphatically stood against what you see as the modern equivalent of, what, Chamberlain's foreign policy?... you honestly don't think
that you'd be more charitably inclined when it comes to separate issues like the economy?
Sorry, but I don't buy it. To be sure, I think you're way off base with the Chamberlain thing, but it seems like you genuinely believe this clash of civilizations stuff. And since you do believe it (and the point of this post is not to argue why I think you're wrong there), sure, Obama's not your cup of tea.
By contrast, your other criticisms seem far more opportunistic and, as David pointed out, like content-less babble. Stuff people say because they have a problem with Obama instead of substantive reasons they don't like him.
joe,
You, of course, are entitled to your opinion. And, of course, you are correct that I find Obama's Israel policy very wrongheaded. Would I be more charitable to him if his policies regarding Israel were different? I doubt it. I think he will, as I noted, be remembered as doing to the Democrats what Hoover did for the GOP.
As for the clash of civilizations issue, I am not sure what I think about it. I have read Huntington's book, which is quite an impressive argument. However, there are other issues at work so that, while there are clearly clashes, there are also areas of cooperation and rivalry - more traditional stuff.
Post a Comment