“It’s all Prop 13’s Fault” chorus is at it again. You can count on them like clockwork during difficult economic times – world recession not withstanding – to blame Proposition 13 for California’s economic woes in commentaries and cartoons. I often wonder where this chorus goes when government treasuries are flush.

Chris Reed of the San Diego Union-Tribune points to statistics in his blog that show property taxes under Proposition 13 have increased faster not only than population and inflation growth, but faster than other sources of state revenue as well, despite the property tax cap.

Yet, while these other state taxes, such as the income and sales tax, are susceptible to volatile swings tracking the economy, under Proposition 13, the property tax has grown steadily and is the most reliable revenue source. That would all change if “fixes” applied to Proposition 13, like a split roll to collect more property taxes on commercial property, were put into effect.

Over the years, the list of charges made against Prop 13 is long and varied. The cartoon in the Sacramento Bee linked to above that declares Prop 13 caused the beginning of the end of California civilization falls neatly in line with past accusations.

Prop 13 has been blamed for more than lack of revenue for government services. It has even been implicated in a child’s tragic murder. The writer Richard Reeves argued in a Money Magazine piece that 12-year-old Polly Klaas may have been rescued by the police before she was killed if officers had compatible police radios surely denied them by the Prop 13 tax cuts.

When the Loma Prieta earthquake collapsed freeways in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1989, Paul Conrad’s Los Angeles Times editorial cartoon showed a car crushed by a freeway and the license plate on the car read: Prop 13.

When O. J. Simpson was found Not Guilty in his criminal trial, a column in the New Republic said it was Howard Jarvis and Prop 13’s fault. Because of the tax cut there was not enough money to hire competent police officers and coroner officials, the writer argued.

And that’s just a partial list.

Using the arguments against Proposition 13 as a catalyst, there is talk that more power should be shifted to local government with new revenue streams created for local governments to carry out their responsibilities. Keeping government decisions closer to the people is a good idea. But that doesn’t mean new revenue streams have to be created while all the current revenue collected by the state stays with the state.

Local government responsibilities can be funded by directing revenue all ready collected into local government coffers. In turn, with fewer responsibilities for the state, the state government will need less revenue. In fact, proponents of Prop 13 bashing and local government empowerment might unwittingly lead people to conclude that under this arrangement of locals taking more responsibility the state requires only a part time legislature.

Supporters of increased state spending have spent 31 years trying to make Proposition 13 the bogeyman. They have had success in some media outlets, particularly out-of-state newspapers. Just recently a column published in the New York Times suggested that if the federal government supplies loan guarantees to California, in return, it should demand that Proposition 13 be repealed.

But, for a great majority of the people of California who live with Prop 13, the bogeyman label doesn’t stick. Look at the polls. The measure passed two-to-one in 1978 and polls indicated it is supported two-to-one today. For the voters of California, the question of who do you trust, the politicians who want to change or repeal Proposition 13 or Prop 13, itself? The answer has never been easier.