John Fund Calls Me Out ... Sort of
Yesterday, Adam beat me to the punch in linking to John Fund’s weekend piece in the Wall Street Journal taking aim at “elite” opponents of direct democracy. But while Adam chose to examine the issue through a fascinating constitutional prism, my approach is slightly different. You see, I’m one of those “elitists” Fund is talking about. He writes in the WSJ piece:
It's fashionable these days for elites to disparage popular democracy. "The longer that people live in California, it seems, the more likely they are to be misinformed, and possibly brainwashed into ignorance," sniffed the Economist last April in a 16-page special report slamming that state's initiative process. But in reality, the initiative process serves as a popular check on out-of-touch legislators and reminds everyone that it's the voters who should be in charge of the politicians, not the other way around.
Well, I did some ‘sniffing’ of my own in the pages of National Affairs in 2009. In my piece, “Who Killed California?” I wrote:
In practice, all of this [direct democracy] has meant that California politics has given expression to the public's contradictory political impulses. Liberals have won their campaign for bigger government and runaway spending, and conservatives have usually succeeded in keeping tax hikes at bay. The Golden State's signature optimism may be to blame: How else to explain the delusion that Californians could be taxed like libertarians, but subsidized like socialists? The result, of course, has been a fiscal crisis addressed with slashed spending on public services and increased taxes in the midst of a deep recession — a recipe for yet more discord and trouble. In a grim irony, Californians are now being taxed like socialists and subsidized like libertarians.
My problem is not, as Fund implies, that I resent the people having power. It’s that said power is unmoored from responsibility. This trend materializes most acutely on fiscal matters, where Californians can vote themselves all kinds of lucre from the public till without specifying a funding source. And, of course, when the tax increases needed to finance those obligations come on the ballot, the electorate consistently shoots them down. I’m with them on the latter point, but it’s unsustainable in light of the former.
Because the democratic masses legislate with blinders on, up to 85 percent of California’s state budget is entirely out of the hands of our (admittedly inept) legislature, since funding levels are necessitated by ballot measures. Try balancing a family budget when you can only control the allocation of 15 percent of your incoming revenue.
I’m not entirely opposed to direct democracy in theory. On binary social issues (gay marriage, for instance), it may be appropriate, though I’m sufficiently libertarian to fear Madison’s “tyranny of the majority.”
On fiscal issues, however, it’s another matter entirely. As Milton Friedman taught us, choosing to spend public funds is really choosing to tax private monies. Until there's a mechanism to force Californians to admit that to themselves, they ought not to be empowered in their efforts to flout the forces of fiscal gravity.
- Comment (10)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: John Fund Calls Me Out ... Sort of
You're absolutely right. The initiative and referendum were introduced to California by Progressive Governor Hiram Johnson, which greased the magical-thinking skids of democratic decline.
Edited on Jun 13, 2011 at 10:30pmNov '10
Re: John Fund Calls Me Out ... Sort of
Wait a second. It is true that Californians have voted down tax increases in referenda and they have voted for DEM majorities in the house and senate. However, it does not necessarily follow that they have voted for all kinds of lucre from the public till. The DEM majorities should be handicapped in their spending desires by the referenda tax opposition creating what should be a healthy tension between the opposing ideologies. Why isn't the correct conclusion that the DEM majorities have acted irresponsibly in spending money that the state does not have rather than blaming the direct will of the people in opposition to tax increases? Also, Cali is a balanced budget state so there is no excuse for the profligacy.
Edited on Jun 13, 2011 at 10:36pmRe: John Fund Calls Me Out ... Sort of
Robert,
No question that the Dems are a driving force. But you can't ignore the billions that the voters have spent -- either through direct expenditures or bond authorizations -- from the comfort of the voting booth. They're not mutually exclusive trends.
Robert Promm: Wait a second. It is true that Californians have voted down tax increases in referenda and they have voted for DEM majorities in the house and senate. However, it does not necessarily follow that they have voted for all kinds of lucre from the public till. The DEM majorities are handicapped in their spending desires by the referenda tax opposition creating what is supposed to be a healthy tension between the two opposing ideologies. Why isn't the correct conclusion that the DEM majorities have acted irresponsibly in spending money that the state does not have rather than blaming the direct will of the people in opposition to tax increases? · Jun 13 at 10:33pm
Edited on Jun 13 at 10:34 pm
Mar '11
Re: John Fund Calls Me Out ... Sort of
I felt like a bit of a voice in the wilderness decrying some aspects of the referendum process on Adam's initial thread. Glad you posted, Troy. Love National Affairs, too.
Since I share your perspective, Troy, John Fund (whom I respect) appears to be calling us both elites. I don't feel very elite. I certainly don't make an elite salary. I'm not ensconced in high powered office buildings or official positions within the party. I didn't go to an Ivy League school. I'm not a Ph.D.
Am I "elite" because I question the wisdom of the demos at large; of an electorate, for example, who swooned for Barack Obama in 2008 on very little substance? Am I "elite" because I believe the Founders articulated a view of human nature that changes very little with time--that we should be suspicious of both technocratic thinkers who want to aggregate power without any checks or balances, and of majority factions who often acts capriciously?
May '10
Re: John Fund Calls Me Out ... Sort of
Well, yeah, the Athenians demonstrated that direct democracy might not be such a good thing.
Maybe it should just be simpler to recall elected officials, and electoral district maps subjected to referenda.
May '10
Re: John Fund Calls Me Out ... Sort of
Ohio is heading down the same road:
Our Senate Bill 5, a rollback of public-sector unions, was campaigned on and signed by Gov. Kasich. Now the unions are exerting their muscle to disparage the bill -- disingenuously, of course -- and have arranged for it to be put to a public referendum in the fall (and it's polling very poorly).
As a consequence, our entire budget process is in disarray, as our representatives in state and local gov't are hesitant to use the tools provided by SB5 -- since the whole edifice could collapse in November, depending on the uninformed whims of the masses at that time.
It's not elitist to say that this is no way to run a state.
Edited on Jun 14, 2011 at 3:47amDec '10
Re: John Fund Calls Me Out ... Sort of
One of the primary reasons for the dilemma of public overspending, I contend, Is the fact that nearly 50% of voters do not contribute to the taxes used to fund government largesse. These voters have no "skin in the game". Until that is corrected we will be fighting an uphill battle.
Jun '11
Re: John Fund Calls Me Out ... Sort of
The old definitions of citizenship had requirements of property ownership and military service.
You had to have a stake in the game before you were considered a citizen.
I think reviving those notions makes perfect sense.
Aug '10
Re: John Fund Calls Me Out ... Sort of
What I want to know is where you got a picture of a drooping surfboard.
It looks so... hopeless.
Mar '11
Re: John Fund Calls Me Out ... Sort of
I understand your observation and agree with it. But why is it better for voters to limit the expression of their admittedly often contradictory wishes through so patently irresponsible a mechanism as the California legislature? As I’ve said in other contexts, I am a Youngmanian. When the king of the one-liners, Henny Youngman, was asked, “How’s your wife?” he replied, “Compared to what?”
Ballot initiatives and referenda may not always result in the best public policy, but who among us believe that Sacramento, left to its own devices, would do any better?
Edited on Jun 14, 2011 at 8:55am