Conservative attitudes cost California, but the kids are on the case

|
(57)
Breanna Jones with her thesis adviser, Professor Joan Petersilia, at the graduation for Stanford's School of Public Policy.
Steven T. Jones

I hope you'll all indulge me a proud papa moment, because it's one that also has important public policy implications for California as state officials and voters wrestle with serious budget problems and a severely overcrowded prison system against the backdrop of conservative interests wielding more political and fiscal power than their numbers should indicate.

My oldest daughter, Breanna Jones, last week graduated with honors from Stanford University with a degree in public policy. At the ceremony, she received an award for her honors thesis – “California's Tragedy of the Commons: How a Few Voters Disproportionately Influence County Use of State Prisons” – which I'm attaching as a PDF.

“California's prison system has overrun maximum capacity, causing a public health conundrum, constitutional violations, and hemorrhaging finances. Even the public – which overwhelmingly endorsed past 'tough-on-crime' policies – has expressed its outrage about this waste of tax dollars. Recently, new research revealed that some California counties incarcerate more prisoners than the crime rate should dictate. That 'surplus incarceration' disproportionately contributes to the prison problem and thereby poses a significant tax burden on the state,” her report's abstract begins.

Her research isolated a multitude of variables to show how it is the decisions that district attorneys in conservative counties make in how they charge crimes – with those prosecutors becoming especially aggressive after closely contested district attorneys races – that has the biggest impact on these high incarceration rates.

In other words, conservative attitudes toward crime and criminals are causing these usually small counties to have big impacts on the state's prison budget – not to mention being unfair to those being sent to prison – something that ought to concern all of us.

Couple this with other studies showing that conservative counties also tend to use a disproportionate share of other state resources – and with the requirement of a two-thirds vote in the Legislature to raise taxes, which Democrats fall just a couple votes short of – and it becomes clear that these right-wing political attitudes aren't benign. Indeed, we're all suffering from the outsized influence of a vocal minority of state residents.

Luckily, voters will have some opportunities to correct this imbalance in November when there will be revenue measures that need only a simply minority to be approved, as well as measures that would repeal the death penalty and reform the Three Strikes You're Out law, approval of which would begin to undo some of the damage done by these tight-fisted hypocrites.

California has lost its way and its balance. Luckily, the younger generation understands the situation and is willing to help us clean up the messes we've created for ourselves. It is the only thing that gives me hope for the future.

Comments

A degree from Stanford is an amazing achievement.

Posted by Troll II on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 3:46 pm

That said, have you considered the possibility that the daughter of an activist journalist who elected to study "public policy" might just not be representative of all young people?

The very act of choosing a wealth-consuming subject to study rather than a wealth-creating subject, already speaks to her (not doubt, paternally-induced) political bias. So should it shock us that she support higher taxes and bigger government. She's a chip off the old block.

My two sons are studying finance and law, respectively. They want to join the private sector and not work for government which they find, as I do, the "problem" and not the solution.

So a left-wing pa hasleft-wing kids and a right-wing pa has right-wing kids. Hardly surprising or newsworthy, ultimately, but at least we both raised our kids well enough so they didn't mindlessly rebel for the hell of it.

Anyway, that said, congratulations. But I'm still voting "NO" on Brown's November tax mugging. Even if US falters, there's always private schools, where you evidently prefer to send your kids.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 3:58 pm

My daughters both went to public schools, where Breanna earned her way into Stanford as an honors student and star debater. As such, she learned to rely on evidence and academic analysis, rigors that have nothing to do with your knee-jerk accusation of bias (an accusation you clearly made before you even read her work). You and your family can hold conservative biases that cause you to devalue academic work and place disproportionate value on supposed "wealth-creating" pursuits, ignoring the value of government and the myriad externalities of growth for growth's sake. But we're all paying the price for your short-sighted attitudes.

Posted by steven on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 4:22 pm

conservative. Yet in fact there are a great number of professors across the US who are conservative and indeed many of them have laid down the bedrock of economic thought that has informed federal economci policy since Reagan.

I think it's great that there are idealistic kids like your daughter out there who really believe that a civil servant in a cheap suit can make the country better. And if that were actually true, I'd be the happiest guy in the nation. Experience says otherwise, sadly.

But again, congrats on choosing a private school over UC. It's good to know that even left-wing journalists make exceptions when it comes to the welfare and prospects of their own kids. Chris Daly agrees with you on that topic, apparently. So do I.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 4:30 pm

She chose Stanford, just as my other daughter has chosen to attend UCSB this fall. They are independent thinkers, a trait I've always encouraged.

As for your point about conservativism, I didn't imply there aren't conservative academics, my point was that you dismissed her rigorous academic research as somehow vaguely biased without any evidence or even the bare minimal consideration of her work and arguments, which seems pretty typical of many conservatives that treat insightful academic work with suspicion and/or disdain.

Posted by steven on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 4:54 pm

"Public Policy" ever suggest that less government is a viable solution? The fundamental premise that underlies any class called "public policy" is that the study of how government can "improve" society is a given.

How many of Brianna's classmates wrote a thesis on lower taxes, smaller government and sound Austrian economic policies? It couldn't happen. Same with sociology and some other liberal arts college majors - they are skewed towards a left-wing outlook.

Look, I'm sure her work was "rigorous" and academically good. I'm equally sure the economics major in the next classroom was equally "rigorous" in his thesis that proved the exact opposite. That's the point of an academic education, or should be anyway, i.e. to be able to argue both sides of an argument, not to take sides.

So could Brianna write an equally "rigorous" and persuasive thesis in support of small government? If not, she hasn't gotten quite as good an education as you might like to think.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 5:08 pm

What happens when you find out that the private corporation used to replace one of our government functions, education, resource management, banking, is actually owned by a regime that would like to get the upper hand on the USA. Some of these "private" multinational corporations may have a communist government or a dictatorship as a majority stakeholder and are not accountable to the public!

Posted by sf24hr on Jul. 01, 2012 @ 7:16 am

It does not matter to the ideological adherents to economic sharia, the market is always right even if the Chinese Communist Party or Al Quaeda rustles up enough cash to buy the US Post Office.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 01, 2012 @ 8:42 am

You appear to have no knowledge of the scientific method of experimentation and analysis of results to inform research.

Like Stalinist communism, there are no instances in the historical record where libertarian capitalism with small government has proven sustainable over time.

Wherever libertarian capitalism has been tried, there have been popular revolts that have either overthrown that regime or been put down violently.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 5:05 pm

It is communist regimes that have been routinely overthrown in living memory, while low-tax principalities like Dubai, Andorra, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, Liechenstein, Aruba, and so on have flourished.

While relatively low-tax, smaller government USA has greatly out-performed over-governed, over-taxed, sclertoic Europe. And even within the US, low-tax States routinely do better like, right now, North Dakota and Wyoming, running budget surpluses.

You could not be more wrong.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 5:16 pm

Latin America.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 5:27 pm

There's a whole world outside the America's

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 4:47 am

Yes, the European situation is completely settled, the Austerians have won a decisive victory!

Posted by marcos on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 6:12 am

have been overthrown, not prosperous democratic nations that favour sound money and lower taxes.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 7:21 am

Germany has ample retirement benefits as well as no point cost health care financed by government. Germany requires that all boards of directors of private firms have significant labor representation. By tea party reckoning, Germany is communist.

I'd also add that South Africa and Egypt, both in Africa, have kicked out the neoliberals and are seeking a more just and balanced governmental regime.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 7:53 am

They are left-wing by American standards though, and most Americans would not be happy with their level of tax and welfare

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 9:20 am

Most Americans are not allowed to vote on whether to have a German style economic system, neither party offers that choice, so we will never know until we eliminate the domestic political monopoly.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 9:40 am

Put up a candidate who proposes a German-style welfare state with taxes to go with it, and see how well it does.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 9:56 am

Neither party that dominates the electoral system permits debate to go there. The Republicans spend their time attacking the Democrat Party while the Democrat Party spends their time attacking the Democrat base.

Any effort to put forth an alternative, such as the Greens which were gaining traction, results in the Democrats attacking them with a vigor they never use against the Republicans.

The game is rigged and is being rigged more every day by rent seekers who profit off of the current corrupt regime. Even the tea partiers say "get your government hands off my Medicare." Even veterans love the VA. Yet the Washington consensus is to slash both programs.

That can only go on for so long.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 10:16 am

Would you prefer us to be a non-democratic state if it implemented the policies that you approve of?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 10:54 am

Government of the people, by the people and for the people is what one Republican had in mind. Now we've got government of the dollar, by the dollar for the dollar where the dollar can be a corporation or foreigner.

When the government does not respond to the policy demands of the voters, which happens over and over, then that government is not democratic, by definition.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 11:15 am

describe a better alternative. It's easy to carp. But difficult to stand up FOR something.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 11:31 am

Germany has a better system. South Africa has a better system. Most every country that has produced a post-WWII constitution has a better system.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 11:48 am

quit whining.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 11:57 am

Further, Germany has stringent regulations on banking and as a result they are the most highly "developed economy" that was impacted the least by the bank implosion.

Most Americans want Medicare for all as the health care financing vehicle. Most businesses want to be relieved of the burden of paying directly for health insurance for their employees. That burden makes American firms less competitive than their German counterparts. They'd prefer to pay a tax, say 5% on labor, to finance purchasing health care in bulk for everyone.

Americans don't want to have to rely on the workplace for health care. Obama ran on as much in 2008 and if memory serves he won. He governed quite differently it turns out and that will probably cost him the presidency and rightly so.

I could imagine the conniption fits that you tea partiers would be throwing right now had Obama actually fulfilled his campaign promise and delivered a public option, Medicare for all or some other sort of government financed health care.

Instead, we've got an individual mandate that coerces purchase of a product, Americans delivered like potted meat to the pharma companies that force us to pay the highest rates for meds and subsidizing cheaper rates in Europe.

These were all demanded by the insurers and pharmaceutical firms and forced on us. Tea Partiers, Citizens United all, should follow their ideology and thank the rich who run these companies for pointing you all in the direction that God clearly ratified by enriching those leaders and allowing them to buy the government.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 10:12 am

Anyone who has taken these soft science classes since likely the 70's knows that the biggest way to earn a bad grade is to not agree with the teacher.

In the 80's when I was a soft headed Jones like liberal I noted the total lack of intellectual vigor in these classes.

A philosophy needs a mechanism for questioning the entire premise of your beliefs, like Randism or born again jesusers, the revealed wisdom of the left is unquestioning.

Karl Poppers Falsifiability should put an end to born againers, Randroids and the far "I agree with my college teacher" left. But no.

Posted by Matlock on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 6:16 pm

I had several political science classes taught by capitalist political scientists and I got A's in all of them, not a problem, really.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 7:17 pm

Government transfers plenty of wealth all the time.

The rise of the 1% is directly related to explicit acts of governmental discretion and that money came from the 99%.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 5:03 pm

You'd have no political views without a stereotyped class to hate.

When conservatives blame everything on illegals or blacks, you whine. Yet you do exactly the same thing.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 5:17 pm

The outcomes speak for themselves, really.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 5:27 pm

Many of us don't buy the stereotypes and the hate.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 5:04 am

Both the tea party and occupy are up in arms about government owned by Wall Street demanding bail outs. When government freezes people out of the process by not responding to demands to end TBTF and cuts social security in order to finance bail outs and the perpetual war machine, it is simply a matter of time before the government falls. Whether it is a Berlin Wall or Tienanmen Square scenario, eventually, and we're seeing instability in China as their growth bubble is collapsing, it is decreed, the people rule.

You are wrong.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 6:10 am

We have elections here, a capitalist society and almost nobody wants to change that.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 7:21 am

99% of lawyers create nothing - they merely exist to help transfer money from one person/entity to another. Almost every civil lawsuit is about transferring wealth from one person/entity to another. And many of the lawyers I know are active in the very lucrative practice of helping their business clients rearrange worldwide operations to reduce fees and taxes to governments, a job that merely takes money from governments and transfers it to the business owners/shareholders.

And as you likely know the government and big business are part of the same cabal, notwithstanding the often heated rhetoric between the two. It's not a coincidence that labor (wages) are taxed at relatively very high rates with few deductions, but rents are taxed at extremely low rates with loads of phoney deductions, or that government uses "net profits" to tax business (the most phoney tax possible since "profits" are so easy to manipulate), but working stiffs are subject to regressive payroll and sales taxes that don't allow any deductions.

But nice spin job about your "wealth creating" offspring. Since the country's business and government leaders have done such a great job of enabling companies to easily shift jobs and profits overseas, about the only decent paying jobs left involve rhetoric and spin - advertisers, politicians, business leaders, and lawyers.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 6:21 pm

Those who deliver value have nothing to fear from competitiors. Those who merely consume wealth, on the other hand . .

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 5:05 am

Thank you, sir, for your insightful commentary on my undergraduate thesis work. I just wanted to comment briefly that I'm disappointed in your lack of respect for the individuality that young people can exhibit in today's world and workforce. While I value my father's opinions on a number of subjects, I am by no means simply a "chip off the old block", and I would encourage you to read my research yourself in order to understand the more fine-tuned policy point that I attempt to make. I would very much value some criticism that approaches the content rather than personally attacking someone you know nothing about.

In any case, I look forward to meeting your son in law school.

Posted by Breanna Jones on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 7:55 pm

No, not law school, it permanently warps the mind. Congrats on a major milestone!

Posted by marcos on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 8:03 pm

A Stanford degree is very impressive.

Posted by The Commish on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 5:46 pm

The article's author states: "revenue measures that need only a simply (sic) minority to be approved (a once-every-four-years opportunity)."

I believe this is a once every two-year opportunity (based on whenever politicians who can raise taxes are up for election, which happens every two years for state assemblymembers and local supervisors). The voter turnout is often highest for presidential elections, which often attracts more liberal voters, so it may be easier to pass general tax increases every four years, but I believe if you recheck your sources you'll find that it's every two years when a state or local general tax increase can pass with a simple majority.

Regardless, the most important issue these days (and for the past 50 years beginning in the late 1950's) isn't simply "more taxes" (unless you're been completely brainwashed by reading too many Tim Redmond articles over the years), it's "different taxes." The local, state and national economy would produce tremendous benefits for working people, small businesses, and homeowners if the politicians would simply eliminate all regressive payroll and sales taxes, replacing them with an equal amount of tax imposed on landlord's gross rents and businesses' gross receipts. The disposible income of a huge percent of the population would soar, invigorating the local and national economy, whereas the top 10% of the population that controls the vast majority of the real esate and corporate wealth would see their net worth reduced by a nominal amount.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 6:53 pm

I just checked with the Secretary of State's Office and you are correct about when simple majorities can pass revenue measures, so I've deleted that line from my post. Thanks for keeping me in honest.

Posted by steven on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 9:04 am

so I can't imagine any renters voting for that!

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 9:27 am

Not if the market won't bear higher rents it won't.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 9:38 am
Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 9:57 am

Yes, but if the market won't bear the increase in price, then the landlords will not be able to pass parcel taxes through to the tenants.

Don't you understand the basics of market economics or is it all just economic sharia for you, a bestowal from god that we humans needn't worry our pretty little heads about?

Posted by marcos on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 10:31 am

passthru under rent board rules. There's a form for it. And since RC units are under market, your point is moot.

If it's a market rent then the LL may decide to not pass thru a tax. But if a rental isn't profitable, he may take it off the market, thereby reducing the supply of housing.

So either way a new tax on rental housing would be inflationary and bad for renters, which is why no liberal politicians is even thinking about proposing such a thing.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 11:00 am

Not all rent controlled housing is renting for way way below market. The average tenancy is 5 years in SF. That means that rent controlled apartments turn over all the time. For tenants for whom their rent would increase beyond what they find worthy, they will just move and the landlord will be holding an apartment at market rent trying to get more than the market will bear.

It is like Prop 13, for folks who bought decades ago it is great. For those of us who bought recently, even 2% increases in assessments, compounded, add up to some serious money.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 11:18 am

In recent years, allowable increases have been as little as 0.1%

So in practice almost every RC units rents for less a LL could get in an open market, especially now as jobs are returning.

Regardless, all taxes are inflationary - you cannot conjure up limitless tax hikes and expect there to be no adverse consequences.

There is zero political support for a tax on rents that isn't passed thru. and it's probably constitutionally dodgy too.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 11:27 am

Do the words "like" or "as" not have any semantics to you? Do those words mean "the same" to your small brain?

Maybe one day all words will mean the same thing, precisely what you want them to mean, no more, no less.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 11:50 am

Just petty quibbling.

QED.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 11:58 am

You've done an amazing thing, earned a Stanford degree and written a exceptional thesis. You give us all hope for the world.

 

Posted by tim on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 9:06 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.