Get This Man a Copy of the Constitution

I'm happy to believe that the California legislature is dysfunction in some ways, but surely if Joel Kotkin wants to mount an argument for the state's irrelevance in presidential politics, he might want to at least mention the fact that its governor is constitutionally ineligible to serve. Meanwhile, surveying the states problems, he also manages to completely neglect the anti-tax ballot initiative that's decimated the state's public services.

Strikingly, though, I thought this was a better than average Kotkin op-ed since usually he simply reiterates the idea that you can tell nobody wants to live in big cities from the fact that it's so expensive to buy houses in them.

Comments

Term limits and a scalpel taken to legislative staffs also greatly reduced the professionalism of the Legislature and made them beholden to lobbyists for information.

Unfortunately, these things feed on themselves, so the viters just nixed a fix to the term limits problem. Some 34 legislators are out of a job, ensuring that the next legislature will be even less able to deal with Gov Schwarzenegger and the state's problems.

Posted by Mimikatz | February 12, 2008 4:50 PM

Term limits and a scalpel taken to legislative staffs also greatly reduced the professionalism of the Legislature and made them beholden to lobbyists for information.

Unfortunately, these things feed on themselves, so the voters just nixed a fix to the term limits problem. Some 34 legislators are out of a job, ensuring that the next legislature will be even less able to deal with Gov Schwarzenegger and the state's problems.

Posted by Mimikatz | February 12, 2008 4:51 PM

usually he simply reiterates the idea that you can tell nobody wants to live in big cities from the fact that it's so expensive to buy houses in them

He cribs from Yogi Berra?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogi_Berra

Posted by El Cid | February 12, 2008 4:51 PM

Any argument about public spending in California that fails to mention Proposition 13 is pretty hard to take seriously, as you imply, Matt.

He also failed to mention that the halcyon days of the California legislature, whose record of professionalism and accomplishment he admires so much, were dominated by traditional liberal Democratic arm-twisters like Jesse Unruh and Willie Brown, and that the Legislature's slide into disfunction seems to have followed the introduction of term limits.

Passing Prop 13, attacking Willie Brown, and getting term limits were big goals of the California GOP for years. Seems to me they're the folks who've screwed up governance and public affairs in the Golden State.

Posted by Pesto | February 12, 2008 4:55 PM

It's better than living in Mexico or Iran.

Posted by Steve Sailer | February 12, 2008 5:02 PM

Our legislature's dysfunction can be summed up in one word: Republicans.

Posted by James F. Elliott | February 12, 2008 5:09 PM

That's the same Joel Kotkin who sang "Almost Heaven, Tyson's Corner" -- right?

Posted by roac | February 12, 2008 5:22 PM

Not analytically rigorous to fault Kotkin on the high house price argument. Kotkin was talking about growth. While high housing prices are a good indicator of general satisfaction with an area, they are an impediment to growth especially compared to other parts of the country.

Posted by Sean | February 12, 2008 5:23 PM

The electoral college doesn't help with presidential relevance, either.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | February 12, 2008 5:23 PM

Quite the low bar you have there Sailor, me if i lived in a state with a GDP larger than all but a handfull of countries I'd want a little more.

Posted by Eric k | February 12, 2008 5:31 PM

"Quite the low bar you have there Sailor, me if i lived in a state with a GDP larger than all but a handfull of countries I'd want a little more."

Ooh! Growth of total GDP as the highest possible value! I see my fundamental error and bow down to Total GDP as the One True Value.

Posted by Steve Sailer | February 12, 2008 5:38 PM

When Kotkin writes that "[t]he state was once the scene of some of the most searing moments in American political history, from the tragic assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968 to the triumphs of Ronald Reagan, but this year it didn’t make the last cut," is he lamenting the fact that no politician was assassinated in California this year?

Posted by david. | February 12, 2008 5:49 PM

On the other hand, this is a great example of one of the benefits of federalism. We got to see what the impact of term limits would be on Congressional performance and learned that it was... atrocious! I was fairly young when it was passed, so I had no idea this would happen. Maybe it was obvious to everyone. But if California was a lab test case we certainly learned what not to do.

Posted by mpowell | February 12, 2008 5:51 PM

Matthew,
I have never read Kotkin before. Perhaps he's a fool, as you say. But I think you may have missed his point here, especially regarding small enterprises and land costs. Entrepreneurship and innovation depend upon an expansive regime of small, agile firms which can pool information and resources (this is basic Marshallian economic theory). Land and congestion costs are make-or-break concerns for these firms. Thus, rising land and congestion costs tend to drive such firms away, or destroy them altogether. This tends to restructure local economies around socioeconomically rigid corporate monopolies, which assert homogeneous dependency relationships. This has major consequences for local political culture. A non-expansive middle class that is dependent upon corporate monopolies is sure to be more provincial and reactionary than an expansive middle class dependent upon a locally embedded regime of small firms. And this seems to me to be Kotkin's point.

Posted by Jacob Shell | February 12, 2008 5:54 PM

What a dumb article! I don't think I even understood it.

California is an interesting state in Presidential politics, but unfortunately its vote is rarely contested in general elections. It used to be solidly and reliably Republican in those elections (until '92), and now it is solidly and reliably Democratic.

Interestingly, Harry Truman won CA in 1948 and Bill Clinton won CA in 1992 -- between then, however, only one (yes ONE) Democratic contender won California, and that was LBJ in '64. It's a crazy stat: Nixon won 3x there, beating Kennedy in '60 and then winning in 68 and 72. Even Ford beat Carter in '76. Reagan beat Carter and then Mondale. Even Bush I beat Dukakis. Until Clinton took back California in 1992, it was a solidly red state. People often forget this. Its governors area almost always Republicans too, even though its legislators are Dems.

Posted by Jon | February 12, 2008 6:01 PM

"Any argument about public spending in California that fails to mention Proposition 13 is pretty hard to take seriously, as you imply, Matt."

Definitely agree. However, the discussion of public spending in California is still incomplete without mentioning that because of how underrepresented California is in the federal government because of the very nature of the Constitutional system [the most egregious example (but not the only one) is that we have the same number of Senators as Wyoming, yet have 70x the people], California does not get even close to a fair share of federal money. Because of this, we have to have higher-than-average state taxes. We also have to spend more on issues that the federal government ignores (immigration, for better or worse).

Californians are really screwed by a system that is just not democratic to them.

Posted by Jon | February 12, 2008 6:06 PM

Wait.

You said "he might want to at least mention the fact that its governor is constitutionally ineligible to serve." but then fail to supply us (and I'm a Los Angelino) with a link to what it is you're talking about here.

Maybe you "mentioned" it, but didn't give us any sources or information to go on.

Posted by volum | February 12, 2008 6:18 PM

Uh way to completely miss the point Sailor.

Posted by Eric k | February 12, 2008 6:27 PM

didn't give us any sources or information to go on.

Get this person a copy of the Constitution.

Posted by UN Plaza | February 12, 2008 6:34 PM

It's also pointless to discuss California governance without noting that the apparently paranoid delusion about the government being run for the benefit of public employee unions is actually true here. Prison guards are at the top, but even, say, the nurse's union has plenty of pull: they managed to get a stat law requiring a patient-nurse ratio of about 5-1, and now -- surprise! -- there's a nursing shortage and hospitals in poor areas are screwed.

Posted by too many steves | February 12, 2008 6:34 PM

you are right, matt. this guy is full of baloney and his point, if he has one, is so abstruse as to be irrelevant to anything.

as to california's influence on national politics, let us not forget that it was san francisco's mayor who set off the firestorm on same sex marriage, to mention just one of the evolutions in human rights that has reached critical mass here before anywhere else..

and we also are home to the stereotypical wingnuts of orange county and the would-be political machines of the mega churches of the fundy variety. yet, still sacamento defied D.C. on stem cells.

while many major media companies are either based in nyc or maintain substantial presences there, try and remember that california remains where america'a image of itself is manufactured. if that is too abstract a concept to track, consider the that reality is this: the television and film industries are still firmly ensconced in both southern and northern california (think lucas and pixar). while the net-based companies of silicon valley may indeed farm some of their more tedious chores out to the flyover states, as well as, annoyingly enough from a customer service perspective, to developing nations in asia, the epicenter of innovation remains here -- at least for now.

yes, sacramento is more than a tad dysfunctional, but arnold has done a better job of rescuing the state's economy from the ravages of enron than any latte-swilling liberal ever expected.

AND, at this point, California's Medi-Cal system far exceeds anything else in the country in terms of delivering quality health care regardless of economic circumstance. perfect? of course not. but no other state comes close in making medicine available to the broadest proportion of its population.

so wtf is this bozo kotkin's point? california is no less america writ large than it ever was -- and a decade or two ahead of the rest of the country in just about any arena one might care to mention. o.k. so new york does have the corporate bankers and wacko market derivative cadres, california remains the most influential state in the union, and as the 5th largest economy internationally, equally influential in the world.

and by virtue of size, if nothing more, of course california is critically important to any national political contest.

what planet does that dude kotkin live on anyway?

Posted by teknozen | February 12, 2008 6:49 PM

UN Plaza snorts:
"Get this person a copy of the Constitution."

Um, dude. The California State Constitution has roughly some 35 seperate articles, each many pages long with many passages.

I'm sorry that I don't have the time today while I'm working to leaf through the entire book and discover what it is that Matthew is talking about.

Here you go, you leaf through it and see how long it takes you to find out what he's referring to:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const-toc.html

Posted by Volum | February 12, 2008 6:55 PM

The United States Constitution.

Posted by UN Plaza | February 12, 2008 7:10 PM

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.

To save you the time of leafing through it.

Posted by UN Plaza | February 12, 2008 7:14 PM

Alright, then it was just confusing. I guess it was my fault for confusing Matthews reference of "The Constitution" (of the US) with the "Constitution of California" which was the subject he was writing about.

I understand the US constitution doesn't allow foreign-born citizens to run for POTUS, but the California Constitution states:
"The Governor shall be an elector who has been a citizen of the United States and a resident of this State for 5 years immediately preceding the Governor's election."

Yet, I'm still confused why Matthew would think Arnold's situation has anything to do with Kotkin's article.

Posted by Volum | February 12, 2008 7:31 PM

I believe Matt's point may have been that, if California has seemed less relevant in presidential politics in recent years, one reason is that its highly popular GOP moderate yet foreign-born governor, who in other circumstances could be a formidable presidential candidate, is Constitutionally ineligible to serve as President of the United States.

I agree that this point (if I have it right) could have been made more clearly.

Posted by UN Plaza | February 12, 2008 7:38 PM

I teach in the CSU system. Education in California is a shambles. We simply don't have enough money to pay for the programs we have. So they get cut, drastically, by our "moderate" Republican Governor (I've heard him called "moderate" by CNN and NPR, so it must be true.) The scope of the cuts is incredible. I wrote him a letter asking him to raise taxes on the rich. I got the standard rhetoric, "We don't have a tax problem. We have a spending problem."

California is a pale reflection of what it once was. The Republicans got what they asked for--smaller government.

People include a house (with picket fence) as part of the American dream. Not for this college professor. My dream is to live better than I did in graduate school in the early-mid 1990s. I'm not there yet. My lofty goal is to have a two-bedroom apartment with my own washing machine and dryer. Reach for the stars...

Posted by MattD | February 12, 2008 8:00 PM

teknozen -- I think many of us believe that the mayor of San Francisco is actually representing the vanguard of future politics in America in supporting the obvious right of gays to marry. We have no doubt that time is on our side.

As to the larger issue, as a Californian, I am convinced that the primary problem in California politics is the power of the initiative. Prop 13 not only lowered property taxes, but it made it virtually impossible to raise taxes in the future, such that the republican minority has a virtual veto on budget issues in California. And, made a 2/3 vote required in the future to overturn it!

Initiatives -- which sound so good in theory -- have destroyed California. But it only makes sense that it would be so. You can vote for one initiative which lowers taxes and another that raises spending in the same election. It's really easy -- I've done it myself.

Until initiatives are removed from the equation, there will be no change in California.

Posted by xenomera | February 12, 2008 11:21 PM

Count me a Californian in exile who is mystified as to the following:

1) When an electorate passes a ballot initiative limiting the pace at which property taxes rise -- largely due to the high cost of land in California, and the distaste for the idea of people priced out of their own homes because the land on which it sits is increasing in value (or at least appraised value) so fast) -- why does everyone assume that is the reason the state's finances are in trouble?

It isn't as though the California legislature is incapable of levying or raising other taxes and fees. Property taxes aren't a magical, singular revenue source able to balance budgets in a way that money from other revenue sources can't.

2) Why does everyone assume that term limits are the problem with California's legislature given the fact that a) a state whose electorate passes term limits was self-evidently already pretty damn dissatisfied with their legislature; and b) the real problem with California's legislature is gerrymandering that has entrenched legislators in safe seats that are either far more liberal than California's electorate (which is pretty liberal) or more conservative than GOP bastions like Orange County, parts of the Inland Empire and the Central Valley?

3) Why is it that liberals, who presumably agree with California ballot initiatives like the one that eased the path to medical marijuana for cancer patients, evaluate the ballot initiative system as though every initiative is silly and counterproductive, never mentioning the many voter backed measures that are by their lights eminently sensible and nowhere to be found in other states that lack direct democracy?

Finally, my home state has better produce than yours.

Posted by Conor Friedersdorf | February 12, 2008 11:52 PM

@Too many steves

Since when is the nurse's union a public sector union?

If the public sector unions are so powerful, there won't be so many politicians making their career based on "apparently paranoid delusion," against correctional officer's union or CTA.

For me, Prop. 13 by itself is not a big problem, but combine that with state constitution's requirement that budget need to be passed with 2/3 in the legislature, that's the prescription for structure deficit. Either one of them is fine, in combination it's fatal.

Posted by kanchou | February 13, 2008 11:36 AM