Yeah, I've met those guys. I had great hopes for the book, but it ended up very simplistic and Leftist. The overall NAF effort here has been more mixed; some duds like this, but also some excellent stuff like the Deliberative Poll.
E Sent from my iPhone On Jan 11, 2012, at 11:40, [email protected] wrote: > Broken California by Steven Greenhut, City Journal 18 October 2010 > > www.city-journal.org/2010/bc1018sg.htmlCached - Similar > Oct 18, 2010 – ... Paul have penned a short and readable book, California > Crackup, that's ultimately as unsatisfying as the radical centrist philosophy > itself > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > from the site : CITY Journal > > Steven Greenhut > Broken California > A new book offers weak electoral remedies for the state’s ongoing crisis. > 18 October 2010 > California Crackup: How Reform Broke The Golden State And How We Can Fix It, > by Joe Mathews and Mark Paul (University of California Press, 240 pp., $19.95) > > California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently warned that if voters > approve a November initiative legalizing marijuana, the state will become a > national “laughingstock.” The only thing more prevalent than non-Californians > poking fun at the state’s enduring political and budget mess these days is > Californians who offer counsel on how to save the Golden State from collapse. > The latest entry comes from two scholars affiliated with the Washington, > D.C.–based New America Foundation, a think tank that advances the politics of > the “radical center” in an effort to forge a new political consensus. > Journalists Joe Mathews and Mark Paul have penned a short and readable book, > California Crackup, that’s ultimately as unsatisfying as the radical centrist > philosophy itself. > > Mathews and Paul ably describe key historical events that led to California’s > latest crisis. But as they examine the state’s problems, it becomes clear > where they place most of the blame: on the anti-tax activists who, in 1978, > brought California the property-tax-limiting Proposition 13, with its tax > restrictions and requirements for legislative supermajorities to pass tax > increases. Though the authors sympathize with homeowners who supported Prop. > 13 because of the vast increases in property taxes that were driving them out > of their homes, they endorse the discredited idea that Prop. 13 so severely > limited revenues that it destroyed public services. “California became a > meaner, shabbier, more dangerous place, one with fewer opportunities to get > ahead,” they charge. “A tax revolt set off by low- and middle-income > homeowners had become, in the hands of [Prop. 13 coauthors Howard] Jarvis and > [Paul] Gann, a lever to widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots.” > They neglect to mention that total property-tax revenues to California’s > local governments have risen at a rate faster than inflation, or that state > and local levels of government have far more money today, adjusted for > inflation and population, than before the proposition passed. > > Mathews and Paul claim that by capping property taxes—limiting the ability of > localities to raise revenue and thereby directing more spending decisions to > the capitol—Prop. 13 centralized power in Sacramento. Jon Coupal of the > Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association acknowledges that there’s some truth to > this, but the real shift in power, he argues, came from a state Supreme Court > decision (Serrano v. Priest) that mandated equalized school funding across > the state. The amount of property tax collected at the local level remains > generous and is plenty for localities to operate on, Coupal says. “The > districts are complaining about state control because they have to go to the > state for the extra revenue they seek to fund large pensions and salary > packages.” > > Though they claim the mantle of centrism, Mathews and Paul embrace the > fundamental principles of the liberal mainstream: that activist government is > a good thing, that it’s being starved of resources, and that there’s nothing > necessarily wrong with raising taxes. Dismissing conservative complaints that > California’s high tax burden is driving businesses from the state, the > authors contend that California’s major problems have been “scapegoating” and > the “clenched fist”— meaning divisive politics. > > The authors champion the “commonsense progressive traditions of places such > as Iowa and Minnesota”—states where, in my experience, liberal politics > advance with little debate, and those critics who do speak up get maligned > for lacking civic virtue. Mathews and Paul don’t reflect on the proper size > of government, worrying instead about which governmental entity is making the > decisions; they don’t fret over the issues of governmental waste and abuse, > but they believe that better rules will address those ills. They don’t ask > whether there might not be alternative, more efficient, ways to provide > services. > > Other centrist groups, like the Bay Area Council, have offered proposals to > fix California’s mess. Mathews and Paul acknowledge the council’s stalled > plan to call a constitutional convention. They criticize that proposal as too > risky, however, even though the council shares one of their main goals—the > elimination of the two-thirds legislative vote requirement to pass budgets. > The authors fear that a convention would open much of the existing state > constitution to tinkering, which could wind up eliminating as many good > things as bad. > > Mathews and Paul position themselves as post-partisan visionaries. “Our > method has been to stand above the political fray—high enough to be out of > earshot of the empty spin and consultant-speak that dominate political talk > and the media, but not so high, we hope, as to lose sight of how politics > work,” they write. “Our concern is not to advance the policy preferences of > the left or the right. It is to re-imagine government in a way that lets > Californians debate their choices, settle on the best ones, hold elected > officials accountable for results, and choose anew if something doesn’t work > or the world changes.” > > Their reform package begins with remaking elections and the legislature. It > proposes, as one alternative, a system of proportional representation that > would let California voters elect legislators from multimember districts. > “Instead of picking one representative in each of eighty Assembly and forty > Senate districts,” they suggest, “California would elect five legislators > each in sixteen Assembly districts and eight Senate districts.” The goal: > allowing Republicans to elect more members in Democratic areas, and vice > versa, to create more balanced representation. > > Mathews and Paul also propose a unicameral legislature, which they claim > would help limit lobbyists’ influence on legislation, because there would be > fewer committees and processes for them to kill bills. Their logic here is > particularly unpersuasive; a single body could just as well make it easier > for lobbyists to wield their power. The authors would also increase the > number of legislators, pointing out that California has the nation’s most > populous and therefore least accountable legislative districts. They would > make some statewide offices (attorney general, insurance commissioner) > appointed rather than elected. They suggest a statewide election system of > Instant Runoff Voting: one statewide election, without a primary, in which > voters would rank the candidates by preference. The authors claim that this > system would eliminate spoilers and elect more centrists. And freed from > party primaries, such campaigns would be less polarizing. > > Their best idea is a proposal to shift power from the state to local > governments and to eliminate many of California’s special districts—such as > its water districts, which often operate with little oversight or > accountability. But far less persuasive is their desire to hobble the > initiative process with many new rules and restrictions, seeking to reduce > its use drastically. For instance, they would allow legislators to amend or > eliminate proposed initiatives and to place a counterproposal beside the > initiative on the same ballot. To counterbalance the gutting of the > initiative process, the authors would make it easier for the public to > overturn legislative acts through the referendum process. But given the > state’s political demographics, these changes would strengthen the > legislature and likely eliminate any hope for passing the sorts of > government-cutting reform measures that could lift the state out of its > fiscal morass. > > A reader coming to the end of this book can’t help asking, “Is that it?” > After all, Mathews and Paul promised a major solution for California’s > crisis, suggesting that they were ready to swing for the fences. There is an > oddity to a book’s claiming, on the one hand, that political reforms have > ruined the state, and offering, on the other, yet another round of unproven > political reforms to save it. Still, the authors could be forgiven that > superficial fault if they had confronted the real tax and spending questions > at the core of California’s problems. How about cutting government down in > size, eliminating collective bargaining for public-employee unions, > privatizing services, and slashing regulatory burdens? Instead, Mathews and > Paul merely offer electoral gimmicks that won’t do anything to save a state > on the fiscal brink. > > Steven Greenhut is director of the Pacific Research Institute’s Journalism > Center, editor in chief of www.calwatchdog.com, author of Plunder! How Public > Employee Unions are Raiding Treasuries, Controlling Our Lives and Bankrupting > the Nation, and a columnist for the Orange County Register. > > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
