Obscured By Clouds

If there is one thing we have learned during CA's budget crisis, it's this: when given the choice between raising taxes and cutting spending, most Californians will choose cutting spending. The only people who seem to disagree with this are: the political class, the public employees unions, and the members of the media who provide them with political cover through sympathetic press coverage. But, that's typically been enough in the past to keep the money machine going.

For the state-media's part, the template of a news story about "CA gov't in crisis" is simple: stoopid Republicans want to reduce state spending to zero while noble Dems are trying to keep firehouses and kindergartens open. This story in the Chronicle is typical of the genre: State's Most Conservative County Uses Much Cash

Modoc has the highest Republican registration of any county in California, it unfailingly elects anti-tax Republicans to office, and the vote here against last month's ballot measure that would have raised a variety of taxes was one of the most lopsided in the state. And yet, per capita, Modoc County gets more state taxpayer dollars than all but one of California's 58 counties.

The prevailing attitude among the right-wing ranchers and modern hippies who define Modoc County is of fierce self-reliance - but more people here than just about anywhere else depend on welfare checks of some kind to get by.

So with state Republicans blocking new taxes and insisting on deep cuts in taxpayer-funded services, does that make this most solid of GOP bases politically conflicted? Or, worse, just plain ignorant?

Duh, ya mean these rednecks up there in Modoc are anti-spending, but "get" more state money than CA's other counties? Oh, the hypocrisy! (always the subtext of stories abou the CA GOP) And, just in case you don't get the idea, the reporter also suggests all those dopey conservatives are jest gettin' by on welfare. The story even dares to say Modoc has more welfare recipeints than "just about anywhere" - a numeric impossibility. More than in LA? More than in SF? More than in Fresno? Also, never mind that the conservatives that the reporter talked to are ranchers and contractors with jobs. Also, never mind that Modoc has a population of a couple thousand registered Democrats, who maybe - just maybe! - are the ones on the welfare rolls.

There is so much wrong with this story, it's hard to know where to start. First, when the reporter talks about Modoc getting the "most" money, what he really means is the most per capita, not the most in terms of dollars and cents. Second, and worse, he oddly leaves out this fact: the amount of money per capita that Modoc receives! I thought this was important information!

Modoc is the size of Connecticutt and has a population of less than 10,000. As one guy points out in the linked article, Modoc has to do a lot of road maintenance that benefits relatively few people. That might account for Modoc's large "per capita" state spending. Is the Chronicle saying that rural counties shouldn't be getting money to maintain their roads? Given the above, it just might be that Modoc is not what you would call a representative sample, but that never seems to matter when there are Republicans to be bashed.

The story also manages to obscure the question of how much health services - another big budget line item - Modoc consumes. The story simply states that roads and health services consume 70% of the state's general fund, but doesn't state how much Modoc consumes. Must be 70%, as that's the only number we have! But, with less than 10,000 in population, how much could Modoc possibly spend? Without looking, I am willing to bet that SF and LA counties each provide health services to more than 10,000 people per day. But, whereas in Modoc, the consumers of state services are locals, the consumers of state services in larger counties are just as likely to be mooches busing in from out of state as they are local residents. But, somehow, these questions are ignored to make the odd point that Modo is consuming health services even though they are Republicans. Note to the media: I know you think the GOP is a secret cabal, but that does not mean we get a Cloak of Invinsibility when we register our party affiliation.

Really, what this story represents is a fundamental misstatement of the GOP position regarding government spending. Liberals always seem to believe that the GOP wants to cut gov't spending to zero. While you can always find some old coot in the mountains who might say this, the vast majority of Republicans simply want gov't spending to be reduced, not eliminated entirely. No one really objects to road maintenance, for heaven's sake. That's something the gov't should be doing. Instead, CA's gov't distracts itself with regulating the environment, building high speed rail, and paying pension and health benefits to state employees that would make the UAW blush. The GOP is a party of limited gov't, at least in theory. It is not a party of NO gov't. Those are Anarchists. Go bug them about consuming gov't services while railing against the State.

CA's buget crisis is not just about money. It's also a crisis of a political philosophy which wants to expand the size of gov't, but never wants to talk about how big the gov't should be, and how the gov't should pay for its expenditures. That's not the GOP's problem. But, for some reason, it's easier to blame a few thousand ranchers in Modoc, rather than the unproductive souls on the state dole and in the halls of the State Legislature.