Swine Flu and the Special Election
I’m reluctant to raise this topic. So much of the media discussion of swine flu seems intended to scare, not inform. The government’s basic advice — to go about your business, but wash your hands, stay home if you’re sick, etc. — seems perfectly reasonable. The state shouldn’t do anything that would add to the fear.
But I wonder about the impact the swine flu might have on turnout in the special election. Schools are closing. Some public events are being delayed. And some people seem to be staying inside out of an abundance of caution. It’s a strange time, then, to ask people to get out and vote. And many polling places are schools, after all.
A lifelong student of California politics — someone much older and wise than me — suggested to me earlier this week that the state needs to take a hard look at postponing the election, particularly if the situation grows more serious. And perhaps, even if it’s only the fear about the flu, and not the flu itself, that grows. Apparently, the state is studying the issue. In response to my question about the special election and the state’s rules for postponing elections in the event of pandemics, earthquakes or other serious problems, Kate Folmar, press secretary to Secretary of State Debra Bowen, emailed:
It’s Official: April Tax Collections $1.8 Billion Short
April revenue collections fell $1.8 billion below estimates, worsening the state’s budget cash shortfall by a like amount.
As of April 30, the state received $7,752,965 in personal income taxes – well short of the $8.9 billion expectation used to create the budget signed in February.
Corporate tax collections were expected to be $2.3 billion for the month. They totaled $1,647,727.
The less-than-anticipated revenue collections are the latest testament to the state’s listless economy, which has been pummeled by the collapse of the construction industry, tight credit and drought.
Proposition 13: What Would Howard Jarvis Say?
Proposition 13 will become a target for those who support more revenue because of the continuing state budget deficit. Frankly, Prop 13 has been a target since it passed in 1978 and while it will continue to be a target, its steady popularity means it will be difficult or impossible to change.
Last June, I was asked to give the keynote speech at an all day UC Berkeley conference on Proposition 13, commemorating the proposition’s 30th anniversary.
All speakers that day contributed their work to a book now published by the Berkeley Public Policy Press. Titled, “After the Tax Revolt: California’s Proposition 13 Turns 30,” the book is edited by professors Jack Citrin of UC Berkeley and Isaac William Martin of UC San Diego. The book contains essays from varying perspectives on Proposition 13. Copies of the book can be attained here.
When The Vending Machine Breaks
The highly respected City Manager of Ventura, Rick Cole, employs the “vending machine/customer” metaphor in describing what has become the de facto relationship between citizens and their governing institutions. As Cole tells it, “the unspoken mindset of many of our customers is that local government is a like a vending machine. You put your money in the slot and expect to receive the goods and services you desire.”
This shift from citizen to “customer” is fairly recent, originating in the 1980s and early 90s, when governments from cities to the Feds, incorporated the new customer service ideology then used by the private sector. Instead of viewing government as something one participates in, this change produced a scenario where it was just another service provider and taxes became the cost for those services.