The LA Times Is At It Again

by Robert in Monterey [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

Back in December, after a series of articles in the LA Times that framed our budget crisis as the product of locked-in spending, I wrote an op-ed challenging this view that the Times published, arguing that by focusing on spending rules, the paper was not informing readers of the actual problem - a structural, long-term revenue shortfall.

Unfortunately, that does not seem to have stopped the Times from continuing to espouse this view. Today's paper brings us an article by Evan Halper with the headline"In closing state budget gap, vast sums are off limits". In this case the spending rules that are examined are "novel" programs, but the basic conclusion is the same as usual - California's budget crisis is the result of locked-in spending, and not a structural revenue shortfall.

The state is about to pump half a billion dollars into teaching children to roll sushi, juggle pins and master new dance forms, even as spending cuts threaten to erode instruction in reading, math and other fundamentals.

That's because the sum scheduled to be spent on such after-school enrichment next year is off-limits for anything else. State law dictates that cooking classes continue even if some calculus courses could be canceled.

In good economic times, voters have passed ballot initiatives that devoted billions of dollars to novel social and recreational programs, such as the after-school initiative championed by Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2002, before he was governor. It is intended to keep youths off the streets by offering them extracurricular activity -- like cooking, juggling and dance -- as well as tutoring and volunteer opportunities.

Such measures lock spending into the state Constitution, forcing lawmakers, many of whom endorsed the propositions, to keep funding them despite a lack of cash for some essential services.

Certainly it is true that these kinds of programs have locked-in funding, and it is also true that if one takes a cuts-only approach to the budget, these programs would be spared while others deemed more central are slashed. But this frame and analysis has some serious problems to it, discussed below...
The first is that it reinforces the idea that our problems are the product of wasteful spending that out-of-touch Sacramento legislators aren't willing or able to tackle. After-school programs are not exactly novel or frivolous methods of education - many educators and pedagogical theorists are adamant that they are vital to helping children learn.

Second, why aren't tax breaks framed as frivolous and wasteful leftovers from the "good times?" That was how Mark Leno framed the VLF cut that Arnold made as his first act as governor - which costs the state some $5 billion each year. Or the yacht loophole, which George Skelton notes has the cruel effect of protecting the rich at the expense of the poor? Why is it that some Californians get the frivolous privilege of paying property tax rates that haven't changed in 30 years? This article simply reinforces the idea that spending on parks, schools, and social services is frivolous, whereas blatantly unfair tax favoritism isn't.

In fairness, the article does mention that "some lawmakers say Sacramento should not have to choose between one program and another and should instead be raising taxes to pay for them all," and the Times has recently published columns by George Skelton and David Lazarus about the injustice of tax cuts that are paid for by spending cuts that hit the poor the hardest. It's not as if the Times is silent on this issue, but it continues to frame the budget crisis - especially in its news reporting, and in the choice of what parts of articles get emphasized - as the product of an inability to cut spending.

Even though it features Darrell Steinberg and Fabian N??ez calling for tax hikes to prevent crippling cuts, the article still closes with this line:

The governor, however, proposes making a one-time trim of about 10% -- less than $60 million -- from after-school programs next year, if voters oblige.

But aspiring chefs need not panic. Such a cut might not diminish after-school offerings. Schwarzenegger says the state can get enough money largely by taking back funds from classes that are undersubscribed.

As Brad DeLong is so fond of saying, "why oh why can't we have a better press corps?"