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

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

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Robert Cruickshank

The 30th anniversary of Prop 13 has brought out a raft of commentary in the state media. This commentary tends to split on whether Prop 13 benefited or hurt the state - as if there is still any doubt that it was a disaster - but it rarely examines some of the underlying assumptions of Prop 13, and even more rarely does it explore the deep inequality it has enshrined into our state.

Much of this stems from a fundamental misunderstanding about what Prop 13 was and what it did. Voters convinced themselves it was a populist revolt against rising property taxes. They believe this so fervently that they act as if they willed it into existence.

In fact Prop 13 was an extremist attack on the very practice of state government by a group of far-right activists, with property taxes used as a convenient cover. Those who voted for - and who say they would vote for it again - still seem to believe its primary purpose was to protect homeowners, when its true goal was to destroy public services by starving government of revenue - otherwise why include the 2/3 rule? Why give commercial property the same protection as homeowners?

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

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Robert Cruickshank
California High Speed Rail Blog

High speed rail is an inherently political project. We can - and should - discuss the technological and transportation merits of the plan, defend its purpose, its value, its need. But to make it reality we must navigate the politics of California - never an easy thing no matter what the issue - as we've seen this week.

The main obstacle facing high speed rail is this state's political inertia. For the last 30 years California has slowly but steadily fallen apart as its public services are hollowed out from a lack of investment. Californians don't like $4.50 gas and are flocking to rail travel - but without massive investment this can never become the viable alternative to oil-based travel that we need to stay afloat and economically competitive.

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Robert Cruickshank

Last fall I took the LA Times to task for framing the state budget crisis as a problem of "automatic" spending, and not being sufficiently attentive to the structural revenue shortfall that is the true cause of the budget problem.

While the LA Times has shown some improvement - George Skelton's column yesterday is mostly if not completely on target and the incomparable David Lazarus always has some good insights - the rest of the state's media seems slower to follow.

Take, for example, Sunday's Sac Bee column from Daniel Weintraub, California Budget 101: What went wrong, when. Weintraub's column purports to be a "a fuller explanation of the dimensions of the problem" - but winds up repeating the same discredited arguments, namely that this is primarily a spending problem:

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Robert Cruickshank

Last fall I took the LA Times to task for framing the state budget crisis as a problem of "automatic" spending, and not being sufficiently attentive to the structural revenue shortfall that is the true cause of the budget problem.

While the LA Times has shown some improvement - George Skelton's column yesterday is mostly if not completely on target and the incomparable David Lazarus always has some good insights - the rest of the state's media seems slower to follow.

Take, for example, Sunday's Sac Bee column from Daniel Weintraub, California Budget 101: What went wrong, when. Weintraub's column purports to be a "a fuller explanation of the dimensions of the problem" - but winds up repeating the same discredited arguments, namely that this is primarily a spending problem: