Political Science 326 California Government in Comparative Perspective

Political Science 326

California Government in Comparative

Perspective

Topics

We will cover California government and compare it to other states. Two recurrent themes will be: How close does the behavior of California voters and the institutions and processes of California government come to the goals of (1) equal representation for citizens and (2) fair public policies? How close do other states come to these two goals?

Grading System - 1

I. Grading System

A. Unannounced Quizzes – one-third of

your grade

B. Term Paper – one-third of your grade

1. Divided into three parts

Grading System - 2

2. Examples of all three parts – including a sample outline and sample term paper – are in the coursepack

C. Cumulative Final Exam – one-third of your grade

Preparing for Quizzes - 1

1. Be able to answer the study guide questions.

2. Be able to explain any concept or term on the slides and why that concept or term was important enough to be

discussed.

3. What was the impact of a law, policy or event?

Preparing for Quizzes - 2

3. Be able to “compare and contrast” concepts or ideas. For example, how are Republican budget priorities different from Democratic budget priorities?

4. What’s related to what? For example, as a person’s income increases does their probability of voting increase or decrease?

Materials

I.Materials

A. The coursepack (which contains the syllabus),non-textbook readings and datasets are available at my website:

www.csulb.edu/~cdennis - Click on “Courses”

B. Textbook: Politics in States and Communities, 15th ed. by Thomas R.

Dye and Susan A. MacManus

Materials

By the beginning of next week you will also need to read the first of a series of weekly newspaper columns. Questions from each column will only appear on quizzes during the time period mentioned at the beginning of the column. The columns are in a file at my website. Look under POSC 326 for a file entitled, “Newspaper Columns”.

Downloadable Readings

The following downloadable readings are in password protected files: 326 California Budget, 326 California Challenges, 326 California Taxes and Newspaper Columns. Since the password is not available in any of the downloadable material you need to write it down.

Materials

For each newspaper column be able to do the following: (1) summarize the column in two sentences; and (2) explain why the column was important enough that I assigned it. If you can do these two things you should be able to answer any question I’ll ask from the newspaper columns.

Make Use of Me!

I. Office Hours: 8:00-9:30 & 10:45-11:00 M,W in SPA-241

II. Phone: See Email I Sent Containing My Phone Number (which isn’t available in downloadable material) - call times: 1:30-2:30 & 3:30-4:30 Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday (No Messages - I Don’t Return Phone Calls) Call – Email Isn’t Good for Questions

Make Use of Me!

You can download ALL of the PowerPoint slides for this course at my website (look under the appropriate course). However, knowing these slides is NOT NEARLY sufficient. The slides are outlines and DO NOT contain much of the lecture material that is on the quizzes and tests. I’m glad to help you but for that to happen you’ll need to take notes in class.

Need for Government - 1

I. NEED FOR GOVERNMENT

A. Free Market: voluntary exchanges

between mutually consenting individuals

B. Capitalism: private ownership of

production and distribution

C. THE FREE MARKET/CAPITALISM NEEDS GOVERNMENT!!!


1. Without the government DEFINING what constitutes private property (e.g., the air waves), the SCOPE of private property (e.g., the sidewalk on your property is not under your control) and PROTECTING private property rights (e.g., by the police) the free market/capitalism COULDN’T function.


2. To Provide Public Goods – Characteristics of Public Goods:

a. No one is excluded


b. One person’s consumption of the

good does not reduce the amount available for someone else.


1. Examples: (a) Clean Air – Why would one individual, or group, provide it when everyone else could benefit for free?

(b) National Defense – Would you want private individuals to control nuclear weapons?

(c) Tennessee Valley Authority

(d) Some Medical Research


3. Economic Regulation

a. Natural Monopolies - Government regulation to counteract price gouging by monopolies

b. Where harm is caused by agents who don’t bear the true cost of their action – e.g., individuals and firms that pollute justify a carbon tax


4. Macroeconomic Management

a. Countercyclical spending to offset a recession

1. Balancing the federal budget during a recession would be a disaster!


b. Employer of Last Resort

1. The goal of a business is profit NOT providing jobs.

2. Because government is NOT profit driven, it can create jobs when it is NOT economically profitable for the private sector to do so.


3. It’s well documented that persistent unemployment results in a permanent loss of output and

labor productivity.

4. The U.S. had successful government employment programs during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

So have many other nations.


5. Social Values

a. The ingenuity of capitalism’s “creative destruction” means that business

CANNOT pursue social values/goals over profitability. Thus, the very strength of capitalism is a prime reason why it can be argued that a strong social safety net is absolutely necessary.

B. Example: Increasing Income Inequality


Share of Income Going to the Richest 1% of American Households:

1970 – 9.0%

1990 -14.3%

2012- 21.5%

The above figures are about TWICE as high as in Europe. Should Government Reduce this Huge Increase in Inequality?


Tax rates as a percentage of the economy are much lower in the U.S. than in most wealthy democracies:

U.S. – 32.2%, Canada – 38.3%,

Great Britain – 41.2%, Germany – 44.6%,

Italy – 47.8%, Sweden – 50.9%,

France – 52.9% and Denmark – 57.4%.

Source: OECD as reported in NY Times

11/16/14


Federal Taxes as a percentage of our economy are lower today than they have been in over 60 years.

1951- 16.1 % (before Medicare enacted)

1971 – 17.3%

2001 – 19.5%

2011 – 15.4%


Effective Tax Rates on Income of

$100,000 in 2012

Nation Income Tax Social Security

U.S. – 26.0% 18.7% 7.3%

G. Brit.- 31.4% 24.1% 7.3%

Sweden- 36.3% 36.3% 0%

France – 42.0% 20.0% 22.0%

Germany-43.8% 28.3% 15.5%


Government Mandated Paid Annual Leave and Paid Days of Vacation

U.S. - 0

Great Britain - 20

Sweden - 25

German - 30

France - 31


c. Effects of Globalization or Internationally Mobile Capital on the Rich and Poor

1. The internet/advanced communications permits emerging nations to rapidly import new technologies.


2.Opening nations such as China to international trade greatly

increased the supply of low skill workers which reduced the income of low skill/income Americans.

3. Governments have competed for capital by lowering taxes, labor standards and government regulation of

business.


4. Lowered labor costs reduce product prices which much more benefits high income Americans whose income aren’t reduced much by international competition.

5. Thus, a very good case can be made that the “winners” under this

scenario should compensate the “losers.”


d. In a private market each person’s “worth” is determined by how much money they have whereas in a political market each voter has one vote. Thus, votes are distributed more equally than money.


e. Therefore, the electoral incentives of government produce a distribution of goods/services that more favors middle and low income groups than occurs in a private market.

f. This is one fundamental reason why liberals like government more than conservatives.

Need for Government – 21

6. Lack of Information

Example: Health Care


Comparison of U.S. and Foreign Health Care Systems (2009-2013)

Per Capita WHO

Spending Ranking

U.S. $8,895 37th

France $4,690 1st

Canada $5,741 30th

U.K. $3,647 18th


What incentive do U.S. insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and physicians have to tell you the preceding information?

Importance of State Government- 1

I. Why Study State and Local Politics?

A. Because They Impact Your Life in Very Important Ways

B. In the U.S. Government Spends 31% of GDP with State and Local Govt.

Spending 10%


C. States Dominate in Many Policy Areas

1. Education – Approximately 90% of funds from state and local

government

2. State are Important in Regulation


a. States led in Environment Policy

during the Bush Administration

Studying State Government - 1

I. Think In Terms of a Model

A. Dependent Variable

B. Independent Variable

C. Hypothesis: The wealthier the state the lower the poverty rate.


D. Model would typically involve several independent variables.

E. Proposition 8 – Subject of the Sample Term Paper – there is a negative

relationship between the county

educational level and the countywide vote in favor of Proposition 8.


II. Role of Socioeconomic Status and Demography

A. SES – a person’s level of education, income, and occupational status

1. These three factors are very good predictors of many behaviors we will study.

State Government - 1

I. California Political History

A. California’s First Constitution - 1849

1.Setup a government similar to today


B. Domination by California’s “Big Four” (Huntington, Hopkins, Stanford and Crocker) and a Recession lead to the Adoption of California’s Second Constitution.


1. A poor economy made the “Big Four,” foreigners and members of minority groups “targets” for the resentments of those having economic difficulty.

a. Same with Proposition 187


C. Second California Constitution - 1879

1. Although the new constitution did adopt measures against the railroads (owned by the Big Four), foreigners and to reduce economic inequality, it didn’t accomplish much.


II. State Constitutions – including California’s - are Much Different than the U.S. Constitution

A. State Constitutions Average about

3 Times the Words of U.S. Constitution


B. State Constitutions typically contain Policy Details (e.g., California Banning Gay Marriage) that Aren’t in the U.S. Constitution

C. State Constitutions are Subordinate

to the U.S. Constitution


D. Scholars Typically Make the Following Recommendations for Changing State Constitutions

1.Single Elected Executive (i.e., governor would appoint many currently elected officials)


2. Supreme Court appointed by the governor subject to legislative approval.

3. Elected state legislature with the treasurer reporting directly to the legislature.

4. Most of the above recommendations haven’t been adopted!


III. To Understand Today’s California Government it is Useful to Begin with the Progressive Era of Governor Hiram Johnson

A. Elected in 1911, Johnson wanted to limit corruption and restore democratic principles.


B. Johnson saw education as the key to upward mobility.

C. Johnson’s Reforms (1911-1916)

1. Direct Democracy


a. recall – 12% of the voters in the statewide election for that office

b. referendum – bills where the legislature needs a majority vote - 90 days from the passage of the law to obtain signatures of 5% of the number of voters who voted in the last gubernatorial election


c. initiative – ballot measures initiated by public signatures – 5% of those voting in the last gubernatorial election for a statewide statutory initiative

and 8% for constitutional initiatives

1. Much too easy to amend the

California Constitution


2. Among the 24 states that permit initiatives, California is

the only one that does NOT permit the legislature to amend or repeal them.

d. Women were given the right to vote.

e. To weaken political parties, a

nonpartisan ballot for local

elections.


f. To further weaken political parties –

Cross-filling permitted - a candidate might win the nomination of both parties

g. Railroad Commission

h. Child labor laws/minimum wage


IV. Progressive Era had a Negative View

of Politics

A. They felt there was “one best policy” and that “politics” often

prevented it’s adoption.

B. So, remove “politics.”


C. The Progressives did not see politics

as competition between different interests/classes.

1. Economically, progressive policies

weren’t helpful to the working

class.


2. Later, Johnson tried to ban activities

working class people enjoyed –

prize fighting, horse race betting, etc.

Politics of State Adoption of Direct Democracy – Initiative - 1

Progressives and Median Voter Agree

Median Voter in Power – No need to adopt

initiative – elites and voters agree

Narrow Interests in Power – Progressives push for adoption of the initiative process - crusade against corruption and malapportionment

Politics of State Adoption of Direct Democracy – Initiative - 2

Progressives and Median Voter DisagreeMedian Voter in Power – Progressives don’t

push for initiative process because they don’t share the goals of ethnic voters who are served by party machines

Narrow Interests in Power – Lack of the initiative favors progressive leaders – progressives would sacrifice policy goals to poor

agrarian white voters – especially relevant to the South

Political Participation - 1

I. Political Participation – “Big Picture”

A. Types of Political Participation


B. Who Participates?

1. Basic rule: while voting is positively related to socioeconomic status (SES) non-voting forms of political participation are even more strongly positively related to socioeconomic status.


C. “60-30-10” Diagram

1. SES Composition of the Highest Participating One-Fifth of Adult Americans


Highest 1/3 SES - 60%

Middle 1/3 SES - 30%

Lowest 1/3 SES - 10%


D. Consequences

1. Since income is negatively associated

with economic liberalism and education is positively associated with noneconomic liberalism, the message received by elected politicians through participation is too economically conservative and socially liberal


E. Comparison

1. Only In India was the Relationship between SES and Participation As Strong as in the U.S.


F. Why?

1. Relative Absence of Class-Related

Politics in the U.S.

2. Relative Lack of Work Organizations/Unions in the U.S.


II. Political Participation in California

A. Selecting Candidates for the General Election

1. Until Progressive Era – Candidates

Chosen by Political Parties


2. Cross-Filling - from in 1914 to 1959 candidates could win the nomination of both parties – weakens party

control over nominations.

3. During the cross-filling period partisanship in the California legislature virtually collapsed.


4. When cross-filling was abolished, interests external to the legislature (interest groups, activists, etc.) became important either by running “their people” for nominations or by the implicit threat to do so.


5. Partisanship reasserts itself after crossing-filling is abolished in 1959.

6. Impact of cross-filling on representation?


a. Possibility 1: Since the interests of the rich and poor differ, by permitting candidates to be nominated by both parties, these class divisions aren’t

reflected by the parties (i.e., that the election ISN’T a referendum on policy).


b. Potentially, this reduces both the representation of the poor and the likelihood that “fair” policies will be adopted.


c. Possibility 2: Since participation is positively associated with SES, cross-filling reduces the likelihood the interest groups necessary to boost the participation of

lower SES groups will be able to “play that role.”

d. As with Possibility 1, both representation and

policy “fairness” would be reduced.


e. Possibility 3: Since there is really “one best policy,” by decreasing the role of interest groups, cross-filling will increase the likelihood the “best” policy will be adopted.


C. Primaries

1. Currently “open” for partisan state and federal offices except president

and party nominated committees. Anyone can vote in the primary and the two candidates receiving the highest percentage of the vote face each other in the general election.


2. For nonpartisan offices a candidate can win “outright” in the primary if they receive over 50% of the primary vote.


D. Nonpartisan elections

1. About 90% of elections in California are nonpartisan

(e.g., judges and all local and county elections).

2. Missouri Plan for Judicial Selection


E. Absence of party labels increases the independence of voters from parties.

1. Is this good for representation and/or fairness?

2. Policy change requires an executive/legislative team.


3. Nonpartisan elections discourage candidates campaigning on common policies.

4. For example, in the last governor’s race, did you see either Brown or Whitman commercials emphasizing the need for members of their party to be elected to the state legislature?


5. The nonpartisan system helps Republicans because: (1) there are more Democrats than Republicans - revealing party

affiliation would help the more numerous party; (2) Democrats tend to be of lower SES than Republicans, have less

information and are less likely to vote in the absence of party “cue.”


F. Turnout

1. Large problem for both representation and policy fairness: relative to California’s population California’s

electorate is too white, too wealthy and too well-educated.


2. The “basic” relationships between opinion and SES are as follows: economic issues – as SES increases

support for liberal positions (e.g., government provided health care) decreases; noneconomic issues - as SES increases support for liberal positions (e.g., gay marriage) increases.


3. Thus, a nonpartisan ballot reduces both representation and fairness.

4. There is also a tradeoff between participation and representation: increasing participation does not always lead to a greater degree of representation.


a. For example, allowing internet voting would increase the number of votes cast but increase the over-

representation of the more well-educated.

5. Turnout levels by race aren’t “that different” once you adjust for SES.

Initiative Process - 1

I. Direct Democracy in California

A. Since the referendum and recall are rare, we will focus on the

initiative.

B. Initiative – Voters can directly enact laws and constitutional

amendments.


C. Rules: 150 days to obtain signatures of 5% of number who voted in the last governors race for a law – 8% for a constitutional amendment

1. An initiative to amendment California’s constitution only requires a majority vote – much too easy


D. Initiatives must have a single-subject and not name a person to office or grant a power to a corporation.

E. Increased use of initiative over time.

1. 1960s – 9 initiatives proposed and 33% passed


2. 2000-2006 – 41 initiatives – 29% passed

F. Initiative use stems from increased “legislative failure” which likely stems from

increased socioeconomic division, ethnic diversity and economic unrest.


1. The first section of your term paper should explain why your issue couldn’t be successfully handled through the legislative

process (see sample term paper)


G. All or part of an approved initiative may be overturned by another initiative or a successful legal challenge.

1. Legal challenges to voter passed initiatives more likely at the federal than state level.


2. Since 1986, nearly two-thirds of all initiatives approved by voters have been partially or totally invalidated

by the courts.

3. Reasons for invalidation often center on a lack of representation or fairness

(e.g., Proposition 187 denying services to illegal immigrants).


H. The passage of Proposition 13 demonstrates the keys to successfully passing an initiative measure:

1. Keep the campaign message simple (e.g., “Vote yes for

lower taxes.”).


2. Create an organizational framework or committee that can spark interest.

I. The Tremendous Cost of Attaining the Necessary Signatures and the Subsequent Campaign (minimum of 1-2 million dollars) Raises Important Questions about How the Initiative Process Affects both Representation and Fairness.


J. Voters in States that Use the Initiative

are More Likely to Vote and are Less Susceptible to “Framing” Effects than Voters in Non-Initiative States


1. Changing “Public Health Funding and Pregnancy Termination” to “Repeal the Prohibition of Public Funding for Abortion” caused

support levels to vary less in initiative states than in non-initiative states.

2. Votes in initiative states are more familiar with making complicated policy choices.

Political Opinion - 1

I. Public Opinion

A. Economic and Noneconomic

B. Abstract and Specific

Public Opinion - 2

1. Basic rule: People give more tolerant

or “democratic" responses in the abstract than they do in the specific.

C. Liberal and Conservative

1.Relative not Absolute Definitions

Public Opinion - 3

2. Liberal - greater commitment to reducing economic inequality and maintaining economic

security/greater support for the noneconomic freedom to differ

Public Opinion - 4

3. Conservative – greater individual free choice-less commitment

to equality in economics/less commitment to the freedom to differ in noneconomics

Public Opinion - 5

D. If Asked Their Political Orientation

Conservatives Outnumber Liberals

Two to One.

1. Symbolic Conservatism (they say they’re “conservative”) but

Operational Liberalism (support greater government spending on education, health care, etc.)

Public Opinion - 6

2. Conservatives have, with much success, attempted to switch the notion of an “elite” from an economic elite (which politically hurts conservatives) to a cultural elite (which politically helps conservatives).

a. Sarah Palin/Rick Santorum – the well-educated are “against us”

Public Opinion - 7

E. Public support for greater government spending on social welfare programs moves opposite the partisanship of the president (i.e., public support for more government spending on environmental protection increases under Republican presidents because the public feels the Republicans aren’t very environmentally oriented).

Public Opinion - 8

F. Citizens Often Hold Competing Values Such as Freedom and Equality (e.g., desiring both tax cuts and increased government services)

1. Public opinion can often be easily manipulated.

Public Opinion - 9

G. Public Opinion is Individually Irrational but Collectively Rational

1. Most people don’t follow politics

closely and aren’t well-informed.

However, a small group of voters are well-informed and this means that

overall opinion moves in a rational direction.

Public Opinion - 10

H. Political Parties and Voters - Specific Issue Positions – “Four-Celled

Diagram”

The Voters:

Economic - Liberal/

Noneconomic -Conservative

Public Opinion - 11

Democratic Party:

Economic – Liberal/

Noneconomic – Liberal

Public Opinion - 12

Republican Party:

Economic – Conservative/

Noneconomic – Conservative

Public Opinion - 13

Libertarians –

Economic – Conservative/

Noneconomic – Liberal

Since political support is often based upon intolerance, libertarianism will have difficulty building much mass support.

Public Opinion - 14

H. Relationship Between Socioeconomic Status (SES) and Political Opinions

1. Socioeconomic Status - income, education and occupational status

Public Opinion - 15

2. Economic Issues – Negative Association - As SES increases

support for liberal positions decreases

Public Opinion - 16

3. Noneconomic Issues - Positive

Association – As SES increases

support for liberal positions increases

Public Opinion - 17

4. Typically, a party will “frame” an issue as an issue they “own.” Democrats would frame universal health care

as either security for workers losing insurance and/or fairness, while the Republicans would frame universal health care as either a tax increase and/or the size and scope of government (i.e., “big government”).

Public Opinion - 18

a. Republicans are perceived as better able to handle foreign policy and defense issues, reducing taxes, controlling inflation, reducing government spending, reducing crime and promoting moral values than Democrats.

Public Opinion - 19

b. Conversely, Democrats are perceived as better able to handle social

welfare policies and/or “fairness” issues such as protecting Social Security, improving health care, helping the poor, supporting public schools, reducing unemployment, solving farm problems, and protecting the environment than Republicans.

Political Parties - 1

I. Why Political Parties are Important

A. Provide Candidates for Office

1. Importance of opposing candidates – even in lopsided elections


B. Provide Policy Alternatives

1. Election should provide a referendum on policy

2. Information Reduction Device for Voters


2008 Presidential Candidates

L= AFL-CIO (Labor)

E = League of Conservation Voters (Environment)


Democratic

Edwards Clinton Obama

L E L E L E

97% 88% 94% 87% 98% 86%

2004 Democratic Ave. LCV – 85%


Republican

McCain Thompson

L E L E

17% 24% 8% 6%

2004 Republican Ave. LCV – 10%

Note: McCain Changed Virtually Every Moderate Position to Appease the Republican base: Bush Tax Cuts, Off Shore Drilling, etc.

Political Parties – 5 (Continued)

Republican - 2012

Gingrich Santorum Paul Ryan

L E L E L E L E

10% 29% 13% 0% 18% 30% 14% 24%

NOTE: Gingrich’s record became consistently less environmental over time. In 1995 the LCV called the Gingrich-led legislative agenda “an environment train wreck.”

Political Parties – 5 (Continued)

Republican - 2016

Rubio

L E

11% 9%


1. California Legislature: Chamber of Commerce Scores – All

Republicans 80%-100%; All Democrats 0%-20%

C. Accountability

1. Republicans in California after Republican defections in the state legislature over 2009 budget


3. Most Party Platform Pledges are Honored


I. Political Party Systems

Cadre Mass Membership

Where All other Wealthy

Found: U.S. Democracies


Goal: Winning Greater Emphasis on

Standing for

Something Different

than the Opposition

Traits: Few Dues Many Dues

Paying Members Paying Members


Little Public Much Public

Education Education

Policy

Flexibility High Low


II. Why the U.S. Developed a Cadre rather than a Mass Membership Party System

A. "Absolutist Individualism" – to make the individual as self-reliant as is

practically possible

B. Little for the Political System to do –

among wealthy democracies, the U.S. is a low tax, low government

service nation.


III. Why the U. S. Has Such a Strong

Commitment to Absolutist Individualism

A. Great Wealth


B. Frontier Experience

1. Self-Sufficiency

2. Ease of Owning Property


C. Agrarian Experience

1. Difficult to Organize Farmers


D. Ethnic Diversity

1. Basic Rule: A society divided on racial, ethnic or religious lines is more difficult to divide on social class lines


E. Lateness of the Industrial Revolution

1. Strong Commitment to Absolutist Individualism Prior to Industrialization

2. Reliance on “Craft” Unions

California Politics - 1

I. Let’s Apply the Preceding Discussion of Public Opinion and Political Parties to

California Politics

A. Cadre Parties

1. Candidates Tend to Run

Independent of Party


2. Did Brown’s or Whitman’s Commercials Mention either their Political Party Affiliation

or Why We Should Elect Members of Their Party to the State

Legislature?


B. Strong Democratic State

1. Very Strong 2010 National Republican Tide Produced No Republican Victories for Statewide Offices, No Gain in State Legislative Seats and

only One House Seat.


C. Current California Political Alignments are Related to Politics in 1896!

1. In 1896 Republic William McKinley

Elected President Winning Almost Exactly the Same States as Democrat Al Gore Won in

2000.


2.Republican Party was More Inclusive

than the Southern-Based Democratic Party.

a. Republican Coalition included both African-Americans and Labor


3. Great Depression Changed the Coalitions of the Two Parties

a. African-Americans and Labor

Moved into the Democratic Party


4. Republican Party then reduces It’s commitment to civil rights because (a) reduced support of African- American voters; (b) the Civil Rights movement began to involve business regulation; (c) opportunity to pickup disaffected white voters.


5. Thus, both the Civil Rights Movement and the Women’s Rights Movement would go through the Democratic Party much more so than the Republican Party.

6. Additionally, since Women are much more supportive of abortion rights and gun control than men, these positions would become identified with the Democratic Party.


7. The “disaffected” white voters who moved into the Republican Party over Civil Rights tended to be less well- educated and less tolerant.

a. This made the Republican Party a political vehicle for anti-illegal

immigrant sentiments.


8. As the anti-abortion movement develops, the Christian Right moves into the Republican Party.

9. From public opinion discussion: as a person’s education increases their tolerance increases.


10. Thus, being the more socially tolerant party, the Democrats will begin to appeal to more well- educated higher-income voters.

11. More highly educated voters are also more supportive of environmental, health and safety regulations.


a. Both environmental protection and health/safety regulations involve a common trait: delayed

gratification (e.g., using less gasoline now for a better

environment years from now; eating healthier food now for better health later)


b. The more well-educated the voter the more likely they are to

support delayed gratification.


12. Relative to the nation as a whole, California is: more well-educated (i.e., socially tolerant), has a higher percentage of minority voters (who gain from civil rights and Democratic social welfare programs). These are the reasons California is a Democratic state.


II. Statistical Analysis of California Politics

A. Correlation – the degree of association between two variables

B. Correlation Range: +1.0 to -1.0

with 0 indicating no association


Correlation between the Percentage of a County’s Population, 25 or older, Who have at least a Bachelor’s Degree and the Percentage of the Countywide Vote for: Brown = .68

Boxer = .74

Whitman (Republican Primary) = .56

Fiorina (Republican Primary) = -.44

Graph of .97 Correlation of Brown10 and Boxer10

2040

6080

20 40 60 80brown10

Fitted values boxer10

Graph of .74 Correlation of Coll00 and Boxer10

2040

6080

10 20 30 40 50coll00


Graph of -.58 Correlation of %White in 2005 and Boxer10

2040

6080

60 70 80 90 100white05


Graph of -.23 Correlation of %Senior in 2005 and Boxer10

2040

6080

8 10 12 14 16 18senior05



Prop. 19 (marijuana) = .74

Prop. 21 (fees for state parks) = .84

Prop. 23 (suspend global warm) = -.81

Prop. 24 (elim. bus. tax breaks) = .70

Prop. 25 (majority budget) = .72

Prop. 26 (2/3rds vote for fees) = -.79

ECOLOGICAL FALLACY?


Kathleen Brown (1994) = .71

Jerry Brown (1974) = .09

Edmund G. Brown (1966) = .22

Proposition 13 (1978) = -.23

Proposition 14 (1964) = -.20


Democratic Presidential Vote Relative to the Nation as a Whole

1984-1996 +2.1%

2000-2008 +6.4%


The correlation between the difference in the percentage of the countywide presidential vote for the Democratic presidential candidate in 2008 (Obama) and the Democratic presidential candidate in 1988 (Dukakis) and county education attainment is .63 and with median household income is .64. What does this mean for redistribution under the Democrats?


C. Davis Recall – Since Republican Primaries typically produce candidates too socially conservative to win statewide, the Republicans decide to dilute the impact of the conservative vote through the recall (i.e., have the Republican Primary include all voters) so they can nominate a less conservative, but more electable, candidate: Arnold Schwarzenegger.


I. Question – If poor people disproportionately vote Democratic and richer people disproportionately vote Republican, why do Democratic Presidential candidates win the richer states and Republican Presidential candidates win the poorer states?





I. Voting and the Culture War

A. The culture war is fought by the wealthy, in part, because their economic needs are met.

B. The wealthy have sufficient money to move to an area that is culturally suitable for them.


I. The Issue Positions/Ideology of Today’s Voters More Accurately Reflect the Views of Their Party than during the 1950-1980 period.

A. During the 1960-1980 period the message from party elites became more consistent

within each party.


B. Two Fundamental Causes

1. Reaction to the Civil Rights movement – the South becomes much more Republican

2. Political losses by business cause it to spend much more on lobbying for a message of low

taxes and regulation


C. As the cues from party officeholders become more similar within each party, there are fewer voters whose issue positions/ideology don’t fit their political party (i.e., liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats).


1. Independent voters who “lean” toward a party typically behave as partisans (i.e., hold opinions similar to their party and vote for that party).

2. If faced with a conflict between their ideology and their party, most

voters change their ideology to fit their party rather than vice versa.


D. All these factors, plus the greater turnout rate among partisans, have caused campaigns to increasing focus on activating their “base” rather than appealing to independent voters.


E. All of these factors greatly increase the “cost” to politicians of compromising with the opposition party (e.g., you may get a primary election challenge within your party).

Governor - 1

I. Governor of California

A. Governors, including California’s governor, typically do NOT have the power necessary to meet public expectations.

B. Limited to Two 4-Year Terms

Governor - 2

C. Overall Power

1. Relative to governors of other states California’s governor

has about average power.

a. His degree of power varies in different areas.

Governor - 3

D. Specific Components of Gubernatorial

Power

1. California’s plural executive

weakens the governor’s control over the executive branch

Governor - 4

2. Having a 4 year term and being able to be reelected is a source of greater power than many other governors.

3. Appointment power of California’s governor is high relative to governors in most other states.

Governor - 5

4. California’s governor has greater budgetary power than most governors.

a. Good analytic staff to obtain information

b. Line-item veto (can reject any item in a spending bill)

Governor - 6

5. For reasons mentioned earlier, candidates in California campaign independent of party – which reduces the governor’s control over their party.

Governor - 7

6. Given California’s size and national importance, California’s governor receives much more media attention than the typical governor. They frequently run for president. This is a significant source of power.

Legislature - 1

I. California Legislature: General Perspectives

A. Term Limits have reduced the legislature’s power.

1. Substantially reduced legislative changes to the governor’s budget

1. After Term Limits: Committee system weakened - fewer bills die in committee and bill passage rates increase from 76% to 84%

Legislature - 2

2. Increased the power of interest groups

B. High Level of Political Polarization

1. Cohesion within each party has increased and the distance between the parties has widened.

Legislature - 3

2. Chamber of Commerce Scores:

All Democrats 0% - 20%

All Republicans 80%-100%

3. Reasons:

a. Party electoral coalitions have become more dissimilar

b. Increasing income inequality

Legislature - 4

4. Compromise could lead to a challenger in the next primary

C. Anticipated, Not Current Public Opinion Matters Most

1. Traceability: Example – Three Strikes and You’re Out

Legislature - 5

2. Negative effects of three strikes occur after the legislator is term-limited

out of office.

3. Avoid actions which have negative short-term effects but positive long- term effects.

Legislature - 6

a. Problem compounded because the

beneficiaries often don’t know they benefit (e.g., someone whose life would be saved by

a smoking ban) but the “losers” (e.g., smokers) under the

policy know who they lose.

Legislature - 7

D. Responsiveness Without Responsibility

1. Vote the way constituents want (i.e., responsive) but don’t tell them adverse long-term consequences (i.e., not responsible).

Legislature - 8

E. Restrictions on the Majority Party in the Legislature

1. Two-thirds vote to raise taxes/fees

2. Possible gubernatorial veto

Legislature - 9

F. Political Activity and the the Popularity of the Legislature

1. Almost always below 50% approval

2. Much lower approval rate than courts and somewhat lower than

the governor

Legislature - 10

3. People see the legislature argue/not reach a decision (not so for courts/governor)

4. People dislike conflict – which is the very essence of the political process

5. Thus, legislature will remain unpopular

Legislature - 11

G. Elections

1. Few competitive seats

2. Over 90% of incumbents who run for reelection win.

3. Real battle is in the primary

Legislature - 12

4. Proposition 14, 2010, changes primary selection process – all voters vote for two candidates with the two highest vote getters meeting in the general election.

a. Candidate don’t have to list their party affiliation.

Legislature - 13

b. Since they will have to appeal to the entire electorate in the primary, legislators may

moderate their behavior.

c. Since the Democratic Party is more diverse than the Republican Party, it will probably effect Republicans more.

Legislature - 14

d. Judging from contributions to the Proposition 14 campaign, Republican business groups wanted to dilute the power of social conservatives in order to select more electable Republicans (economically conservative, but socially moderate).

e. Could lead to more expensive campaigns and increased reliance on interest groups.

Legislature - 15

f. Since most districts are still lopsidedly for one party, there will probably be little change.

Legislature - 16

II. Organization of the California Legislature

A. Two Houses: Assembly (80 members)

and Senate (40 members)

1. Senate has greater experience because many are termed-out Assemblymen

B. Leadership (Assembly Speaker and Senate Pro Tempore)

Legislature - 17

1. Power

a. Scheduling Legislation

b. Fundraising

Legislature - 18

C. Dyadic vs. Collective Representation

D. Delegate vs. Trustee Model

1. Too little information to use

Delegate model

Legislature - 19

2. Use newspaper editorials as a measure of public opinion.

3. However, state legislators are good predictors of district voting sentiments.

Interest Groups - 1

I. Power of Interest Groups

A. Greater Over Time – Due to

Increase Need for Campaign Funds

B. Less in More Economically Diverse

States

Interest Groups - 2

C. Less in States with Strong Political

Parties

D. Less in States with Highly

Professional Legislatures

1. Term Limits increase the power of

interest groups

Interest Groups - 3

E. Less in States with Strong

Governors

II. Lobbying

A. Providing information to legislators, rather than threatening them, is the best approach.

Interest Groups - 4

1. Reduces legislators’ uncertainty

about both the policy outcomes and political effects of the legislation.

B. Campaign contributions appear to have little impact on legislators’ votes.

1. Contributions buy access and are given to those ideologically predisposed to

support the interest group’s goals.

Interest Groups - 5

C. The greater the “net” lobbying in favor

of a bill (time lobbying “for” minus time lobbying “against”) the more likely the bill will pass.

D. The greater the “net” number of groups in

favor of a bill (number of groups “favoring” minus number of groups “opposing”) the more likely the bill will pass.

Interest Groups - 6

E. Among those groups that lobby on a

large number of bills, the greater the “net” balance of interest groups in favor of a bill the more likely the bill will pass.

1. Legislators value repeat, powerful players.

Interest Groups - 7

F. The more salient the bill the less the impact of lobbying.

1. If a bill is an important part of the governor’s agenda this increases the visibility of the bill and increases the cost to the legislator of making an “unpopular” vote.

California Budget - 1

I. Why it is Difficult for the California Legislature to Adopt a Budget

A. Public Expectations


1. 50% of California Voters thought that State Spending

Could be Reduced 20% Without Reducing Services


2. Voter Backed Initiatives Mandate Spending and Reduce the Options of the Legislature

a. Among the 24 states that permit initiatives, California is the only one that does NOT permit the legislature to amend or repeal them.


B. Two-Thirds Vote of Both Houses of the California Legislature is

Required to Raise Taxes and Many Fees

1. Only 7 States Require This


2. The Majority Party Typically Holds Less Than 2/3rds of the Legislature

3. Very Different Party Coalitions Reduce Chance of Republican Support for Tax/Fee Increases


C. Most Legislative Districts are Not Politically Competitive

1. Greater Socioeconomic Difference Between Counties Over Time


2. Real Election is Often in the Primary

3. Compromising with the Opposition Party Could Lead to a Primary Challenger


D. As the Distribution of Income has Become Much Less Equal in California, the Policy Differences Between the Two Major Political Parties have Noticeably Increased.


1. This Reduces the Ability to Achieve Compromise

E. About the Only Policy Area Californians are Willing to Cut is Prisons

1. Don’t Want to Cut Education – Which is a Big Budget Item


1. Voter Backed Initiatives Require Long Prison Sentences

2. Think of the Public Outrage if We

Released Prisoners Early Who

Then Committed Crimes.


II. California’s Structural Budget Deficit is Approximately 15 Billion Dollars.

A. The Structural Deficit is about 10%-15% of the Size of the Budget


B. Solutions: Short-Term

1. Formula from the Past: Temporary Tax Increases and Spending Cuts


C. Long-Term

1. Spending Cuts Alone Won’t

Work

a. Firing ALL State Workers Paid from the General Fund

would save about

9.2 billion


(California Currently Ranks 46th in State Employees as a Percentage of the Population – Not “Big Government!)

b. Eliminating ALL funding for CSU and UC would only save 5.4 billion.


c. Eliminating the ENTIRE Cal Works Welfare Program would save 3 billion.

d. Closing ALL Prisons would save

9 billion.


D. Public Employees

1. Government typically pays LESS

than the private sector for comparable work.

2. Top Government Officials are paid MUCH less than Private Sector.


3. State Workers in California are Typically Paid More than in Most States.

a. However, 50% of the difference is due to the higher cost of living in California.


4. Pensions

a. Few State Workers can Retire at

age 50!

b. Pensions were one of the few politically accepted ways of increasing compensation.


c. Thus, if we reduce pensions, then we owe state workers the pay they gave up in order to get better pension benefits.


E. Revenue Increases Will be Needed

1. Overturn the 2/3rds Vote

Needed to Raise Taxes and

Fees

a. Representation/Fairness –

majority vote needed


2. Taxes are NOT High or Very Progressive in either the United States as a whole or in California

a. Tax rates as a percentage of the economy are much lower in the U.S. than in most wealthy democracies: U.S. - 27%, Canada – 34%, Germany – 35%, Great Britain – 37%, Italy – 41%, France – 44% and Sweden - 51%.


b. Federal Taxes - All federal taxes together (i.e., income taxes, Social Security taxes, etc.) take approximately 9.4% of the income of households making $16,000 per year, approximately 20.5% of the income of households making $52,000, approximately 27.2% of the income of households making $200,000 per year and approximately 34% of households making $18,000,000 per year.


It is very important to mention that federal taxes have been made much LESS progressive over time. To demonstrate the impact of reduced federal tax progressivity consider the following: In 2000, the richest 1 household in 1,000 (i.e., .1 of 1%) had about 7.3% of total national after-tax income. If the effect of taxes on their income had remained what it was in 1970, they would have had about 4.5% of after-tax national income.


C. State and local taxes are even LESS progressive than federal taxes. Thus, if you add state and local taxes to federal taxes (i.e., to obtain “total taxes”) the tax burden is less favorable to the poor (i.e., less progressive) than for federal taxes alone. State and Local Taxes are a greater percentage of personal income for the poorest 20% of a state’s households than for the wealthiest 1% of a state’s households in virtually every state.


In California state and local taxes take approximately 11.3% of the income of the poorest 20% of households while taking only 7.2% of the income of the richest 1% of households.


In California, the wealthiest 10% of the taxpayers pay approximately 75% of the state income tax. While true, this argument is misleading for two reasons: (1) the most important consideration is taxes as a percentage of income and not the percentage of a tax borne by a particular income group – thus, if California’s state income tax was only to raise $1 and Steven Spielberg paid that $1 he would have borne 100% of the state income tax burden –


however, $1 would be virtually 0% of his income – thus it’s the percentage of income paid in a tax and not the percentage of a tax that a particular income group pays that is the important consideration; (2) this calculation excludes all taxes except the income tax (e.g., state sales taxes, property taxes, etc.) – when we include all state and local taxes and fees, state and local taxes are a higher percentage of income for the very poor than the very rich.


F. Some state tax increases would IMPROVE the functioning of California’s economy and raise revenue:

a. tax services – no economic rationale for not taxing them


b. change business property taxes annually (i.e., not only when the property is sold) - current practice favors those who hold a property longer – harms new businesses;


c. tax carbon, pollution and oil - from an economic standpoint, the cost of pollution should be taxed to provide the appropriate disincentives to reduce pollution. Currently, California is the only oil producing state that does not have a severance tax on oil.

1. New “Cap and Trade” System.


G. State Spending Has NOT kept pace

with either Inflation/Population or Personal Income

1. Adjusting for population growth and inflation, to maintain the SAME level of service in 2009 that the state of California provided in 1999 state spending would have had to

increase by 53%. It only increased by 29%.


2. In 1980 California General Fund Expenditures (i.e., state spending) was 7.4% of personal income. For 2009-2010, this figure had dropped to only 5.5%.


3. As a share of personal income, California typically ranks about 18th (out of 50 states) in state and local tax burden with state and local revenues equal to approximately 17% of personal income.

Tax Perceptions -1

I. Taxpayer Resistance

A. Voter resistance to income tax increases rises if the income tax is above about 4%.

B. Resistance to sales taxes rises above about 5%.

Tax Perceptions -2

II. Perceived Tax Fairness

A. Federal Level – most fair to least fair: individual income tax, Social Security, cigarette/beer/wine,

corporate income tax, gas tax and

estate tax

Tax Perceptions -3

B. State & Local – sales tax, motor vehicle tax, income tax, property tax, cigarette/beer/wine and gas tax

Tax Perceptions -4

C. Taxpayer revolts do NOT seem to be highly related to the level of taxation

1. High income earners are only slightly more supportive of tax

limits than lower income earners

Judiciary/Crime - 1

I. The California Judiciary

A. Superior Courts – “the facts” (i.e., evidence taken,

witnesses heard) - who did what to whom and with what intent?

Judiciary/Crime - 2

1. Judges, not juries, typically decide cases

2. Disposition of Criminal Cases: 90.5% enter guilty pleas, 5% are dismissed before the trial begins (usually by a motion from the district attorney), 3.7% are convicted as a result of a trial, and .7% are acquitted after a trial. DNA evidence has shown numerous innocent defendants plead guilty.

Judiciary/Crime - 3

B. Courts of Appeal

1. Basic role: correction of errors of law by the Superior Courts

2. Rarely look at or gather “facts”

3. Most disputes are about the “facts,” not

the law

Judiciary/Crime - 4

C. Supreme Court – decides about 100

cases per year (only grant about 4% of appeals)

1. Death sentence automatically taken up by the Supreme Court

2. Resolve questions of California law

Judiciary/Crime - 5

D. Judicial Selection – by the governor

1. Election by Missouri Plan: Shall justice X be elected to the full term of office?

Judiciary/Crime - 6

E. Jury Service – one day, one trial

a. Missouri Juror (show me) vs. Neighborhood Watch Juror

(looks for suspicious activity)

b. Your background may disqualify

you for some cases

Judiciary/Crime - 7

c. Standard in Criminal Cases: beyond a reasonable doubt” - not a “preponderance of the evidence”

1. If you think there is an 80% chance the accused is guilty you should vote “not guilty.”

d. Jury Service leads to a more favorable view of the court system.

Judiciary/Crime - 8

F. Role of Judicial Partisanship on State Court Decisions.

1. Democratic state court judges are

more like than Republican state court judges to: find a violation of

defendants rights; side with tenants in landlord/tenant cases; side with workers in worker’s comp cases and side with the government in tax cases.

Judiciary/Crime - 9

G. Role of Community Socioeconomics

1. In tort cases (where someone has suffered a loss) the following

community characteristics are associated with higher jury awards: larger minority populations, more urbanized and lower educational levels.

Judiciary/Crime - 8

I. California’s Three Strikes Law – 1994

A. 25 years-to-life for three felonies - even if the third felony was nonviolent

1. Cost: about one-half billion per year (14% of

prison budget)

Judiciary/Crime - 9

2. Cost would be higher if prosecutors typically included non-violent third strikes.

3. Increased jury trials by 10%

Judiciary/Crime - 10

B. Impact

1. Difficult to tell – crime rates heavily

influenced by the economy

2. Third Strikers don’t commit that high a percentage of the crimes


C. Many law enforcement officials are not always supportive of harsh laws (e.g., sex offender laws – what communities welcome such people?)

D. Public may not want to pay the costs of incarceration (prisons are about the only state budget item that voters want to reduce spending on)


E. May 2011 Supreme Court ruling gives California 3 years to reduce the prison population from approximately 200% of capacity to 137% of capacity.

1. There is a high cost in sending nonviolent drug offenders and low-level theft offenders to prison for life.


2. By restricting where sex offenders can live, it is difficult for California’s

92,000 released sex offenders to comply with parole conditions.

3. In part due to California’s tough parole regulations, approximately 70% of

parolees are back in prison within 3 years of their release.


4. Lack of money has significantly reduced

prison construction.

II. Cost of Capital Punishment in California

A. U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge

Arthur Alarcon and Loyola Law Professor Paula M. Mitchell estimate

$184,000,000 annually.

Benefit/Cost Analysis of Police-1

I. The Relationship between the Size of the Police Force and Crime

A. On average, a 10% increase in the size of a police force decreases

the rate of homicide by 9%, robbery by 6% and vehicle theft by 4% per year.


II. Costs of Crime

A. Each homicide costs communities an average of $8 million (not a misprint).

1. Costs: adjudication, coroners, medical costs, incarceration (the study, by

Rand, also factored in the intangible costs of victims’ pain and suffering).


2. At this rate, in 2006 homicides cost Los Angeles more than $4 billion (about 2% of the city’s economic output).


II. Cost/Benefit Analysis of Police

A. Los Angeles added 725 officers over the 2006-2010 period.

B. Rand’s estimate is that, after removing the effects of factors, these 725 additional officers resulted in 35 fewer homicides for a savings of $280 million.


1. The 725 extra police cost Los Angeles about $110 per year.

C. When Rand researchers factored in all serious crimes, these additional officers saved Los Angeles about $415 million per year. This is a 280% return on investment.

1. Not all the savings accrue to the city of Los Angeles. Some of the savings go to individuals and businesses.


D. Where police departments are small and crime burdens larger, taxpayers could reap a good return on investing in additional officers.

1. Each additional police officer could reduce crime costs $600,000 per year in Houston, Atlanta, Miami, Baltimore and Kansas City.


2. In severely understaffed cities, such as Oakland and St. Louis, the savings per additional officer could be more than $1 million dollars per year.

3. In cities with large police forces and very low crime rates, each additional officer might not recoup the $178,000 costs per officer (salary - $50,000 plus benefits, equipment and training in the first year.

(LA Times, 11/22/11 p. A17 by Greg Ridgeway and Paul Heaton)

Community Power - 1

I. Community Power

A. Do the people we elect actually make the policies we live

under?

Community Power - 2

B. The Elitist Theory of Community Power

1. Sociologists: viewed society as ruled by a relatively small group - typically business leaders with elected public officials subordinate – so the public doesn’t rule

Community Power - 3

C. Pluralism

1. Political Scientists: different actors are important in different policy areas with an elected official “on top” in each policy area – hence the public rules

Community Power - 4

II. Elitist View of Community Power

A. Floyd Hunter’s study of Atlanta,

Georgia in the 1950s

Community Power - 5

B. Hunter used a Reputational Methodology: (1) He began by asking, “Who runs Atlanta?” – (2)

To identify the leadership, he compiled lists of prominent leaders in civic affairs, business, and society – (3) He then selected a panel of

knowledgeable people to examine the lists and to identify the influential individuals and organizations;

Community Power - 6

(4) from these selections, Hunter identified 40 individuals who,

in his opinion, constituted the top power structure in Atlanta.

Community Power - 7

C. Hunter concluded that Atlanta was controlled by a small, closely knit group of elites – predominantly the people who ran the major business and economic institutions

D. Power was cumulative: powerful in one area then powerful in another area

Community Power - 8

E. This elite initiated the projects it wanted and prevented those it didn’t want.

F. Elected officials took their orders from

this unelected elite – so, the public didn’t rule

Community Power - 9

III. Pluralist View

A. Robert Dahl: Hunter didn’t study power, he studied the reputation for power

B. To study power we need to look at specific governmental decisions.

Community Power - 10

C. Working inside the mayor’s office in New Haven, Connecticut, Dahl and associates studied policy-making in each of three issue areas: political nominations, urban redevelopment and pubic education.


D. Dahl interviewed 46 decision-makers and found: (1) power wasn’t cumulative – i.e., with the exception of the mayor, those involved in one area, were not typically important in another area; (2) the elected mayor was the most important individual in each policy area – therefore, the public rules.


IV. After Hunter and Dahl

A. Subsequent research cast some

doubt that most cities were governed by a tiny elite.

B. Alternatively, the decision-making approach of Dahl also has problems.


1. The concentration on highly visible governmental decisions ignores the fact that power is often exercised by “Nondecisions” – i.e., confining the scope of decision-making to relatively “safe” issues.


2. “Nondecisions” typically harm the poor - who have fewer political resources.

3. Additionally, the wealthy can manipulate public opinion through advertising in order to reduce the likelihood that unwanted policy options will be considered.


4. Not all important decisions are made by government (e.g., a business owner’s decision to close).

a. Just the fear that a business might close/leave can be an exercise of power.


IV. Conclusions

A. The role of business is a great deal more complex than both elitists and pluralists had portrayed it.


B. Elitist (i.e., highly stratified power structures) are most likely to be found in: (1) isolated communities dominated by a single industry; (2) small homogenous communities particularly in the South; and (3) where city leaders share a consensus on the role of government with reformed governmental structures.


C. Pluralist power structures are most likely to be found in: (1) metropolitan areas; (2) communities with more heterogeneous populations; and (3) communities with a diversity of economic foundations and social divisions.


I. In Many Cities Older Economic Elites have been Replaced by a Newer Political Elite

A. Locally owned stores became chain stores

B. The managers of the chains are more likely to close local stores

C. The above results in an elite less oriented toward the local area.


D. Professional politicians have moved into to fill this void in local leadership.

E. These previous points lead to a local elite which is not necessarily as inclined to favor economic growth as did the older elite that owned local businesses.


1. Thus, the old consensus in favor of economic growth has been successfully challenged by political elites in a number of communities.

II. The No-Growth and Slow Growth Movements

A. The opposition to growth typically comes from upper-middle and

upper class residents who are financially “secure.”


B. The interests of this secure group are often in conflict with the interests of lower-middle class residents who would gain more from increased economic growth and a tighter labor market.

Metropolitan Government - 1

I. Metropolitan Government as Marketplace

A. The Tiebout Model – the existence of many local governments offering

different levels of taxes and services provides a competitive and efficient government marketplace.

1. Citizens “vote with their feet.”


B. Criticisms

1. Mobility – the poor lack the money to “shop for the best government services.”

2. Equity

a. many government services (e.g., mass transit) cannot be provided by small local governments.


b. Suburbanities use public facilities and services of cities when they work

or receive entertainment in the city. If they don’t pay for these benefits, they are “free riders.”

c. The major social problems of the city- poverty, racial tension, poor

housing and crime are really problems of the entire metropolis.


3. Satisfaction – While families take taxes and services into account when choosing where to live, self-professed “satisfaction” is not a useful criteria for evaluating cities. Even low- income people living in poor housing indicate “satisfaction” when surveyed.

Education - 1

I. Education – Largest State Expense

A. Education - Approx. 51% of the State Budget (K-12 – 39%,

Higher Education – 12%)

Education - 2

B. California spends more “per capita” on education than most states but about $825 less “per student” (California’s population is younger than most states)

1. High Student/Teacher Ratio

2. 2008 – K-12 spending was 3.7% of personal income; 1970 – 5.6%

Education - 3

2. Higher Teacher Pay – but 50% of the above average pay is attributable to the higher cost

of living

Education - 4

C. Hidden Success Story

1. 2002-2010 – student test scores have increased each year

a. 2003 – 35% of students scored either proficient or advanced in reading

b. 2010 – 52% were proficient

Education - 5

c. Math: 2003 – 35%; 2010 – 48%

2. The gap between White/Asian students and African-American/Latino students has narrowed

a. Proficiency rates for both groups nearly doubled from 2003-2010.

Education - 6

3. Smaller class sizes – threatened by budget cut backs – appear to have helped.

Education - 7

3. Whose Tested?

a. One of the reasons the U.S. seems to do poorly in international comparisons is that we test all our students – not just those likely to go to college

Education - 8

D. Higher Education

1. We are producing far too few college graduates

a. By 2025 – to meet demand approx. 41% of California’s workforce would need at least a bachelor’s degree

Education - 9

2. Meeting the 41% target would require about 50% of young workers to have bachelor’s degrees.

Public Assistance - 1

I. Public Assistance

A. 1996 Change in Federal Law Sets Time Limits

B. Medicaid – younger population means lower cost but California covers more of it’s poor than most states


C. CALWORKS program spends less than most states (shorter stays on welfare, larger families, etc.)

1. Cannot earn more than $1,218 per month or have more than $2,000 in cash or property, not including their home


D. Food Stamps

1. Monthly Income <$2,298


E. Public Attitudes Toward Welfare Do NOT Reflect Policy Changes

1. Survey data indicates that roughly 80% of the public doesn’t know about the work/education requirements/time

limits

2. Thus “old stereotypes” are still popular

Poverty Measures - 1

I. Poverty Measures

A. Absolute measure – A single standard through time

1. If you have food, shelter and clothing you’re

not poor.


2. Favored by Conservatives

B. Relative Standard – Can you reasonably participate in society during the

time period you are living?


1. Wouldn’t the lack of internet access put you at a

tremendous competitive disadvantage even if you had food, shelter and clothing? Would you be “impoverished”?


II. The Official Poverty Measure

A. Absolute Measure

1. 1963 – Democratic Administration interested

in reducing poverty


2. Based on a family spending one-third of their income on food, the measure is 3 times the USDA’s “economy food

plan” (which is 25% below the “low cost food plan”)


4. Excludes “in-kind” benefits (e.g., food stamps)

B. Politics – the Johnson Administration wanted a poverty measure they could show decent progress in reducing.


C. Scholarly Consensus

1. Most poverty scholars prefer a relative measure of poverty.

2. The “standard” is typically that your family is impoverished if it has an

income lower than 50% of the median household income.


II. U.S. Poverty Rates in Comparative Perspective

A. The U.S. poverty rate is the highest of any wealthy democracy and is typically

200% to 400% of the rate of comparable nations.

DON’T TAKE NOTES! JUST LISTEN! THE MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE IN A FILE ENTITLED “326 POLICY DIRECTIONS” AT MY WEBSITE

(www.csulb.edu/~cdennis click on “Courses”). I’M NOT GOING TO ASK YOU SPECIFIC NUMBERS. RATHER I’D ASK WHAT THE NUMBERS INDICATE.

Income Inequality Over Time - 1

Richest Richest Richest

Year 10% 1% ½ of 1%

1920 39.0% 14.8% 11.1%

1970 32.6% 9.0% 6.3%

2008 48.2% 21.0% 16.9%

SHARES FOR THE RICHEST 1% AND ½ OF 1% ARE ABOUT TWICE AS HIGH AS IN EUROPE

Income Inequality Over Time – 2California

Richest

Year 1%

1920 7.7%

1970 5.5%

1990 9.7%

2010 21.3%

Changes in California - 1

In California, between 1987 and 2009, more than 33% of the income gains went to the richest 1% of Californians, and almost 75% went to the richest 10% while the bottom 90% received just over 25% of the growth in incomes. During the last two decades, the average income of the richest 1% of Californians increased by more than 50%,

Changes in California - 2

after adjusting for inflation, while the average income of the middle fifth (i.e., the 40th – 60th percentiles) decreased by 15%. In 2009, the average income of the richest 1% of Californians was $1.2 million – more than 30 times that of Californians in the middle fifth. California’s income gap is wider than most other states.


If you include government transfers and subtract taxes from 1979 to 2006, the richest 1% of households had a 256% increase income while middle-income households (40th-60th percentiles) had a 21% increase and low-income households (1st-20th percentiles) only an 11% increase. In the United States today, the richest 1% of households have over 1.5 times as much income as the entire poorest 40% of households combined.


In the United States the wealthiest 1% of households have over 33% (2006-2007, 35%) of the national wealth while the poorest 50% of households have approximately 7% of the national wealth.

Comparative Living Standards

The median Swedish family has a living standard roughly comparable with that of the median U.S. family: wages are, if anything, higher in Sweden, and a higher tax burden is offset by public provision of health care and generally better public services. As you move further down the income distribution, Swedish living standards are much higher than in the U.S.: at the 10th percentile (poorer than 90% of the population) the Swedish living standard is 60% higher than in the U.S.

The Social Safety Net - 1

The obvious “solution” is to have government provide the benefits that the private sector use to provide.


Broad-based government programs, such as Medicare (a government health care program for senior citizens), have two big cost saving advantages over a completely free market social insurance system: (1) compulsion – i.e., requiring everyone to buy health insurance lowers the cost because the cost of the “expensive” individuals (e.g., those likely to be ill) is spread over a large group (e.g., the healthy) and;


(2) administrative cost (e.g., the typical private health insurer spends about 10% of its outlays on administrative costs, weeding out sick people, etc. whereas the government run Medicare program spends between 2%-3% of its budget on administrative costs). Such programs AREN’T socialism. Rather than “own” the hospitals and hire physicians, the government contracts with private hospitals and physicians.


One of the primary difficulties the United States faces in confronting growing inequality and poverty “head on” is the following core set of beliefs about poverty: (1) poverty is the fault of the victim; (2) economic growth will greatly reduce poverty; (3) government intervention will increase poverty. Each of these beliefs, at best, is “suspect. ”


Greater economic growth does reduce the poverty rate in the U.S. However, what this means is that the U.S. poverty rate (typically around 17% of households - Great Britain and Canada around 12%, and the Scandinavian countries – Norway, Sweden and Denmark – around 6.5%) fluctuates around a much higher average than in other wealthy democracies and even at it’s lowest level, is much higher than most all other wealthy democracies.


The “big picture”: the main reason that the U.S. has a much higher poverty rate than the vast bulk of wealthy democracies is that we don’t spend nearly as much of our economy in the following programs as do other wealthy democracies on income transfers (i.e., direct cash payments to either the unemployed or the working poor and the elderly) and do not providing comprehensive health insurance and childcare to all.


The next several slides outline policies that either the federal government or state governments could undertake that would significantly increase living standards for the working poor and middle class. Economic growth rates for the other rich democracies that have similar programs are virtually the same as for the U.S. Thus, the higher taxes required to pay for these programs doesn’t translate into lower economic growth.


As economist Peter Lindert of the University of California at Davis put it, “No matter how you torture the data, there is no negative relationship between a commitment to the welfare state and the growth rate in how well off we are.” While taxes may reduce the willingness of some to work as hard, many of the purposes for which tax dollars are spent (e.g., education, infrastructure, etc.) increase the growth rate. One of the reasons the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland) spend about TWICE the percentage of GDP (3%-4%) on research and development as the U.S.


Wage Subsidy: Assuming a minimum wage of $8 per hour, here’s how such a plan might operate: a worker earning the minimum wage of $8 per hour would receive a $4 per hour subsidy from the federal government (i.e., their “total wage” would be $12 per hour - $8 per hour from their employer plus $4 per hour from the federal government = $12 per hour) with the subsidy decreasing by 10% for each additional dollar per hour they earned.

Value of Education

It is very important to mention the tremendous impact education has on earnings. In 1975 those with a bachelor’s degree out earned those with a high school diploma by approximately 60%. By 2008 this differential rose to approximately 100%. Unfortunately, the United States ranks 12th in the percentage of 25 to 34 year olds with at least an associate’s degree.


In addition to the wage subsidy, other programs that would greatly benefit low and middle-income earners are universal childcare and fully funding the Obama Health Care plan (or having California offer a Massachusetts style health care plan).


The annual costs of these programs if the federal government provided them are:

1. wage subsidy ($150 billion)

2. universal childcare ($150 billion)

3. Obama Health Care Plan ($96 billion)

Total Annual Cost: $396 billion

Note: wage subsidy costs over time are likely to be much lower than listed above


If the state of California undertook these programs the cost would be less than one-fifth what was mentioned on the previous slide. Installing a Canadian style health care plan in California would more than recoup the entire cost of these policies. Alternatively, if the wage plan paid for itself


(which the Nobel Prize winning economist Edmund Phelps – who formulated the plan thought it would through reduced crime and increased economic growth generated by greater spending by middle and low income households) and if taxes in the state of California where the same share of personal income as they were 40 years ago, we could finance all of this with no help from the federal government.


Paying for the these programs at the federal level:

1. Allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire

will bring in approximately $363 billion

per year.

2. Ackerman and Alstott’s Wealth Tax - a 2% annual wealth tax on households owning more than $7.2 million in assets (the richest ½ of 1% of households) would bring in at least $70 billion dollars per year – France, Norway and Switzerland have this


If repealing the Bush Tax Cuts and instituting Ackerman and Alstott’s wealth tax seems “too hard” on the wealthy, consider the following: (1) the wealthy did very well, as did the economy as a whole, under the tax rates that would be in effect if the Bush Tax Cuts were allowed to expire (i.e., economic growth was greater under the higher tax rates of the Clinton Administration than during the Bush Administration);


(2) over the 1980-2008 period 98% of the income gains went to the richest 10% of American households (i.e., exactly those that gained, by far, the most under the Bush Tax Cuts); (3) the share of income going to the richest 1% of American income earners more than doubled between 1970 and 2010 (from about 7% to over 18% of personal income);


and (4) reducing the concentration of income and wealth at the top of the income distribution would likely improve the performance of our democracy by reducing the previously discussed “debilitating cycle” (i.e., where the increasingly concentration of income and wealth among the very rich increases the reliance of politicians on campaign contributions from the very rich which, in turn, leads politicians to enact policies which further advantage the very rich).


Relative to the average American, the very wealthy (net worth of $40 million or more) are: (1) much more concerned about budget deficits; (2) much more favorable to cutting social welfare programs, especially Social Security and health care; (3) are considerably less supportive of an above-poverty-level minimum wage, or having the federal government “see to” or provide jobs for the unemployed;


(4) much less supportive of providing broad educational opportunities; (5) much less willing to redistributive income to those poorer than themselves; (6) less willing to raise taxes on high income groups (e.g., less supportive of having an estate tax); and (7) are less willing to regulate either the stock market or businesses.


Even if all of the preceding policy and tax changes were adopted, by comparison to the other wealthy democracies of the world the U.S. Social Safety net would still be “weak” and taxes would still be “very low.” It’s not “big government.”

Government Benefits - 1

The following slide contains the percentage of people who (a) benefit from various programs, and (b) claim in response to a government survey that they 'have not used a government social program.’ Government social programs are stigmatized as “welfare.” But many people benefit from such programs without realizing it.

This results in a likely underprovision of such benefits.

Government Benefits - 2

529 or Coverdell - 64.3

Home mortgage interest deduction - 60.0

Hope or Lifetime Learning Tax Credit- 59.6

Student Loans - 53.3

Child and Dependent Tax Credit - 51.7

Earned income tax credit - 47.1

Pell Grants – 43.1

Medicare – 39.8

Food Stamps – 25.4

Policy Logic - 1

HOMELESSNESS:In 2005, Utah calculated the annual cost of E.R.

visits and jail stays for an average homeless person was $16,670, while the cost of providing an apartment and social worker would be $11,000. Each participant works with a caseworker to become self-sufficient, but if they fail, they still get to keep their apartment.”

Due to drug and alcohol use shelters are much

less beneficial than individual apartments.

Policy Logic - 2

Will poor people make better decisions if they have greater economic security (e.g., guaranteed housing, food, medical care, etc.) or less economic security? The evidence we have is lopsidedly on the side that says poor people will make better decisions (e.g., decisions concerning employment, health, etc. that involve current sacrifice but have greater

Policy Logic - 3

long-term benefits) under conditions of greater rather than lesser security. In reviewing a recent study by an economist and psychologist, Tina Rosenberg notes, “Worrying about money when it is tight captures our brains. It reduces our cognitive capacity — especially our abstract intelligence,

Policy Logic - 4

which we use for problem-solving. It also reduces our executive control, which governs planning, impulses and willpower. The bad decisions of the poor, say the authors, are not a product of bad character or low native intelligence. They are a product of poverty itself. Your natural capability doesn’t decrease when you experience scarcity.

Policy Logic - 5

But less of that capacity is available for use. If you put a middle-class person into a situation of scarcity, she will behave like a poor person.”

Reasons for Policy Change Over the Past 40 Years - 1

Why Not Policies that Would More Help Middle and Low-Income Households?

While both our strong commitment to absolutist individualism and the framework of our political system (e.g., the separation of powers), make it difficult for the government to pass laws, there are important changes in the balance of domestic political power that have taken place over the past 40 years that make it even more difficult for the federal government to act on


behalf of the interests of middle and low-income citizens.

In a “nutshell,” here’s what happened: (1) after suffering a large number of political defeats through the 1960s under both political parties, during the mid-1970s business groups (the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National of Manufacturers, the National Federation of Independent Business, etc.)


decided to invest tremendous amounts of money both in lobbying members of Congress and contributing to political campaigns; (2) the relative strength of the counter-weight to business, labor unions, declined precipitously (in 1954 – 32% of the workforce was unionized - today only 13%), and with it a tremendous loss in both political information supplied to middle and low- income households and political participation by these citizens


(i.e., unions contacting their membership with information on political issues, the membership then contacting elected officials); (3) the interest groups that have formed on the political left have dealt more with the concerns/interests of well-educated higher income voters rather than the working class (i.e., environmentalism, women’s rights and gay rights do not deal with the distribution of the tax burden,


subsidies for low-wage workers or extending governmental provided health care); (4) due to the increased share of income going to the rich and greatly increased campaign costs – Democrats have had to turn more to business and upper-income groups for campaign contributions; and (5) due to factors 1-4, the political position of business has become much more advantaged relative to labor.


Think of the political consequences of policy philosophies such as The Bush Tax Cuts, The Ownership Society and The Roadmap for America’s Future. All of these policies accomplish three goals of many (but not all) conservative leaders: (1) they shift the distribution of the tax burden away from taxing investments (i.e., money made with money – income sources primarily of very high-income households)


toward higher taxes on labor (i.e., taxes more paid by income from wages and salaries – the principle sources of income for the poorest 90%, or more, of households - by relying on consumption taxes); (2) reduce the amount of money redistributed to middle and low-income groups through public programs (e.g., mass transit, job retraining, guarantees for Social Security, Medicare, etc.); and


(3) increase the size of the federal deficit to the point that future Democratic Administrations will have difficulty in undertaking programs primarily benefitting middle and low-income households. For example, notice how difficult it is for Obama to get the necessary funding to implement his health care plan due to the size of the federal deficit (greatly swelled by the Bush Tax Cuts).


The political consequences of the above mentioned policies significantly reduce the incentive for low and middle-income people to participate in the political process (e.g., vote) because they will perceive that government is not that helpful to them (i.e., their taxes will increase and the value of their government benefits will decrease). So, why invest time and effort in politics?


This protects high-income households from future adverse political events. Thus, if increasing income inequality might cause low and middle-income people to desire income redistribution, make it difficult for the government to accomplish this and reduce the incentives for low and middle-income people to get involved in the political process.


What could we do? The basic answer is to undo the changes of the past 40 years. While any proposed “reforms” would spark opposition from those who do well under the current system, I’ll mention two possible changes that would greatly alter the political landscape in a direction much more favorable to middle and low-income groups. First, make it easier for workers to unionize.


Canada offers a compelling lesson. According to the survey evidence, American workers are as favorable to unionization as Canadian workers. However, over the past 40 years, the gap between the percentage of the Canadian workforce that is unionized and the percentage of the U.S. workforce that is unionized has steadily increased (Canada: 1960 - 32%, 2000 – 32%| U.S.: 1960 - 31%, 2000 – 13%).


Without a lengthy discussion, the differences over time are mostly attributable to differences in public policies governing the unionization process. Not surprisingly, this was one of the earliest results of increased business political strength: make it more difficult for workers to unionize.


The second change would be to enact Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman’s “Patriot Dollars” proposal for campaign financing: have the federal government give each voter an ATM valued at $50 for each federal election cycle (i.e., every two years). This money could only be used for campaign contributions (i.e., all unused money would be returned to the federal government – “yes” it could be done – i.e., the technology to ensure this does exist).


A voter could give their contribution to one, or a series, of candidates. By not limiting how much individuals, businesses or unions contribute, this policy would not be invalidated by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has ruled that restricting how much an individual, or group, can contribute violates their free speech (i.e., money equals speech). Since Professor Ackerman’s proposal does not limit speech, it is constitutional.


By greatly increasing the amount of campaign money available, Professor Ackerman’s proposed policy would reduce the tremendous monetary advantage of both business and the wealthy. The cost of this program for the federal government is low (about 4 billion dollars per year). California could operate such a plan for less than 1 billion dollars per year.

Thiessen’s Comments - 1

Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican Presidential nominee, said the following: “We have a very ample safety net, and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. But we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor.”


Now the reaction to Romney’s comments from Washington Post editorial writer Marc Thiessen. “So Romney is fine with an entire class of Americans being permanently on food stamps, Medicaid, housing vouchers and other government welfare programs? His solution for our fellow citizens trapped in poverty and dependency is to find holes in the safety net and repair them? That is not conservatism.


That is liberalism. The left judges compassion by how much money we spend, which is why the liberal project is to strengthen the safety net and grow the nanny state. The conservative project is to help people escape the safety net. Conservatives seek to create an opportunity society where we can lift people out of lives of dependency.


That is liberalism. The left judges compassion by how much money we spend, which is why the liberal project is to strengthen the safety net and grow the nanny state. The conservative project is to help people escape the safety net. Conservatives seek to create an opportunity society where we can lift people out of lives of dependency.


We are not okay with having millions of Americans trapped in poverty and living on the dole. We are not okay with multiple generations trapped in government welfare. We believe in a society where the poor have opportunities for advancement.


We want them to have the education and skills they need to find good jobs, get off public assistance and to move up to the middle class and beyond-as far as their ambition and ability will take them.”


First, our economy does not, and will not, generate sufficient jobs to employ all of the poor who want to work. The Great Recession, which began in late 2007, caused the economy to lose 8 million jobs. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the unemployment rate is NOT expected to get as low as even 5% by 2016.


Put another way, for the nine year period from 2007 through 2016, the unemployment rate would be high enough to leave several million job seekers without employment. How could these people be expected to work over this period when the jobs simply aren’t available?


Furthermore, as explained very early in this writing, Republican/Conservative Administrations and politics weight reducing inflation more highly than Democratic/Liberal Administrations. Think back to the Obama Stimulus plan’s effect: unemployment was 1.7% lower than it otherwise would have been.


As much research by political scientists and economists has found, more liberal administrations typically produce lower unemployment and higher inflation than conservative administrations (see earlier discussion and sources cited therein). So, the policies of the very philosophy Thiessen favors actually produces less employment, and hence, less opportunity for the poor than more liberal administrations/politicians.


If the growth rate in the economy appeared to be high enough to actually employ all those who wanted to work, the inflation rate would move into, as policymakers see it, a danger zone. What would happen is that as economic growth exceed about 4% per year the federal reserve would raise interest rates, making borrowing more costly and, thus, ultimately reducing the economic growth rate and employment.


Since the Great Recession started, millions of Americans cannot find work and the economy will not likely grow sufficiently to employ them for many years, if ever.


Second, many jobs simply do not provide the level of compensation necessary to provide workers with a standard of living that Americans would consider “decent.” Working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year, at $9 per hour translates into an income of $18,000 per year. Most such jobs do not come with either health care or retirement benefits.


Think of your family living on such an income. Is this how you want low wage workers to live? The very government programs Thiessen refers to are the only bulwark such low workers have against living on an income that does not adequately provide even the “essentials” of life. Think back to the discussion of the wage subsidy program.


Take the food stamp program. Food stamps only provide approximately 70% of the money necessary to provide what the U.S. Department of Agriculture says is a nutritionally adequate diet Over three times as many households that receive food stamps had at least one worker than relied solely on government assistance.


Finally, each $1 spent on the food stamp program generates $1.72 in economic activity. Think back to the previous discussion of how much economic activity per dollar spent was generated by other programs that benefit the poor (e.g., extending unemployment compensation - $1.60; payroll tax reduction - $1.09 or the wage subsidy program) versus


the economic stimulation per dollar of the Bush Tax Cuts ($.35). Thus, the food stamp program helps generate the very economic activity that helps reduce the unemployment rate.


Generations of the same family could not be on cash welfare for entire lifetimes because each person is restricted to 5 years. Second, Mitt Romney supports the previously discussed Ryan Budget, which will require large reductions in what is, by far, the weakest social safety net of any wealthy democracy in the world.


No other wealthy democracy has pursued the type of system Thiessen desires. Third, the Ryan Budget, will require large spending reductions in exactly the types of programs (e.g., education) that would make the poor/unemployed more competitive in today’s labor market.


Fourth, the previously discussed wage subsidy plan increases the incentive for people to work because it “makes work pay more” for low-income workers than it current does. Thus, if we adopted such a plan, it would use government programs to increase, not decrease, work effort.

Wage Subsidy: Assuming a minimum wage of $8 per hour, here’s how such a plan might operate: a worker earning the minimum wage of $8 per hour would receive a $4 per hour subsidy from the federal government (i.e., their “total wage” would be $12 per hour - $8 per hour from their employer plus $4 per hour from the federal government = $12 per hour) with the subsidy decreasing by 10% for each additional dollar per hour they earned.


Assignment 6 - 1

DON’T TAKE NOTES! ALL THAT FOLLOWS IS IN THE COURSEPACK! On the date this assignment is due (check coursepack) you to send me an email that contains each of the following: (1) the number (e.g., Proposition 8 – can’t use Proposition 8), election year and brief description of your ballot initiative; (2) the percentage of the statewide vote in favor (i.e., “yes”) on the initiative (remember at least 30% of the statewide vote must have been on the losing side – not 30% in each county);

Assignment 6 - 2

(3) a description of your policy scale (i.e., what each score means and the logic of why a score of “2” is greater than a score of “1” – thus a score of “2” is greater than score “1” in terms of what? Why?); (4) Excel spreadsheet “326ComparativePolicyAnalysis” with the scores on your policy measure for all 50 states entered in the order mentioned previously; and

Assignment 6 - 3

(5) Excel speadsheet “326CaliforniaDataset” with the percentage of the countywide vote in favor (i.e., “yes”) for each county in California on your ballot proposition with the counties in the order mentioned previously. Send me an email with the previous 5 items by the date due and you’re done!

NOTE: You will use the other columns of data in both spreadsheets later in the semester. So, don’t delete them.

Assignment 6 - 4

Pay careful attention to the example in the coursepack of a student’s policy scale that I questioned.

Assignment 6 - 5

Using the information from the aforementioned publication “Patchwork Policies: State Assistance for Immigrants under Welfare Reform” I have designed a policy scale that assesses each states welfare policy towards immigrants. The scale involves both Pre-enactment of PRWORA state policy and Post-enactment of PRWORA state policy.

Assignment 6 - 6

Furthermore, there are two types of welfare that are most consistent across the states. These two types of welfare are: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Medicaid. Therefore, the scale assesses whether the state funds both these services for legal immigrants or not.

Assignment 6 - 7

0= none pre & none post

1= 1 pre & none post

2= 1 pre & 1 post

3= both pre & none post

4= both pre & 1 post

5= both pre & both post

Assignment 6 - 8

(1) Why be concerned with policy prior to the 1996 reforms (i.e., “pre”)?

(2) You don’t have a category of none pre and 1 post? (i.e., look at “1= 1 pre & none post”) Did any state have this combination?

Assignment 6 - 9

(3) If you use both pre and post 1996, how should the eras be weighted (i.e.,

should each era count the same)?

(4) Why is category 3 (both pre & none post) more supportive of immigrant rights than category 2 (1 pre & 1 post)?

Assignment 6 - 10

A note on the policy scale: just because the sample term paper uses a 5 step scale doesn’t mean that’s what you should use. A logical scale might be dichotomous (e.g., a state is either right-to-work – coded “1” or non-right-to work- coded “0”), or an amount of money (e.g., amount of a cigarette tax), a percentage or a rate (e.g., crimes per 1,000 people).

Assignment 6 - 11

If your policy scale measures state spending you need to adjust for population (i.e., a per capita measure). What about state income/wealth? I can perform these adjustments. You need to explain why they should, or should not, be adjusted.

Assignment 6 - 12

You CAN’T just use an interest group’s justification for a rating. Thus, if a group rates a state’s abortion policy as “very restrictive” what specific policies would that entail? What would the difference be between say “moderately restrictive” and “very restrictive”? Avoid both abortion and marijuana as topics. I get way too many of these. Also, you need a topic where each state has a policy. For example, most states don’t have policies on Indian Casinos.

Assignment 6 - 13

Your best approaches to finding a policy scale are: (1) google – by the policy area by state (e.g., cigarette taxes by state), by policy (e.g., cigarette policy by state), by law (e.g., cigarette laws by state); and by interest group (e.g., environmental interest groups – many interest groups list policies by state;

Assignment 6 - 14

and (2) the state policy index website: (http://www.statepolicyindex.com – on the left side of the screen click on “Data” and then make sure you click on “this codebook” – so you’ll know what the data listed below are on).

Assignment 11 - 1

DON’T TAKE NOTES! ALL THAT FOLLOWS IS IN THE COURSEPACK!

Assignment 11 is to write the outline for your term paper. Your outline needs to show the major ideas for each section of the term paper and to include the statistical results.

Assignment 11 - 2

I. Outlining the Term Paper

A. MOST IMPORTANT: READ THE SAMPLE TERM PAPER (Coursepack, pp. 43-56) AND SAMPLE OUTLINE (Coursepack, pp. 37-40)

B. Beginning of the Paper

Assignment 11 - 3

From the coursepack:

I. Brief Discussion of Proposition 8

A. Proposition 8 was a response to the

California State Supreme Court’s ruling in In re Marriages (2008) which affirmed the right of same-sex

couples to marry.

Assignment 11 - 4

B. Proposition 8 Banned Same-Sex Marriage

C. Proposition 8 Approved by a 52.3% to 47.7% margin

Assignment 11 - 5

II. Why Same-Sex Marriage Was Not Satisfactorily Handled through the

Legislative Process in California

Assignment 11 - 6

A. Since majority public opinion was in opposition to the opinion of the majority party in both houses of the California legislature (i.e., Democratic state legislators), the state legislature would not produce the two-thirds vote necessary to

start the procedure to amend the California Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage.

Assignment 11 - 7

1. Gay voters and civil libertarians are a fundamental part of the Democratic electoral coalition in California.

a. Thus, Democratic legislators who support a same-sex marriage

ban could face a difficult primary challenge.

Assignment 11 - 8

III. Analysis of the Public Vote on Proposition 8

A. Since more highly educated voters tend to be more socially tolerant, we can hypothesize that the more highly educated the voters in a county the lower the percentage of the countywide vote in favor of Proposition 8.

Assignment 11 - 9

1. The -.85 correlation between the percentage of those 25 and older holding at least a bachelor’s degree and the percentage of the countywide vote in favor of Proposition 8 offers strong support for the hypothesis.

NOTE: the coursepack discussion shows

how to obtain correlations in both Excel and Stata. START EARLY – EXPECT DIFFICULTY!!!

Assignment 11 - 10

B. Since the Democratic Party is more supportive of gay rights than the Republican Party, we can hypothesize that the higher the percentage of the

countywide Presidential vote for Barack Obama the lower the percentage of the countywide vote in favor of Proposition 8.

NOTE: Section “Political Concepts and Relationships” is very useful for defending your hypotheses (Coursepack, pp. 22-30).

Assignment 11 - 11

1. The -.88 correlation between the percentage of the countywide Presidential vote for Barack Obama and the percentage of the countywide vote in favor of Proposition 8 offers strong support for the hypothesis.

NOTE: Your grade is NOT affected by whether your hypotheses are supported.

Assignment 11 - 12

IV. Policy Models and the Same-Sex Marriage Issue in California

A. Group Model - Since there was more money contributed by groups favoring Proposition 8 than by groups opposing Proposition 8, it could be argued that if Proposition 8 is not overturned by a later court ruling, same-sex marriage policy would relatively accurately reflect the balance of power among the participating groups.

Assignment 11 - 13

B. Partisan Model - Democratic Governor Gray Davis and Democratic majorities in both houses of the California legislature greatly expanded gay rights over significant Republican opposition. The unpopularity of same-sex marriage probably precludes the Democrats from attempting to pass a constitutional amendment to reverse the same-sex marriage ban imposed by Proposition 8.

Assignment 11 - 14

C. Median Voter Model – Since Proposition 8 would seem to reflect the current views of a majority of the voters, it could be argued that the although it did not occur by political parties pursuing the median voter, current same-sex marriage policy is, nonetheless, congruent with the views of the median voter.

Assignment 11 - 15

D. Incremental Model - As with civil rights, the pattern of small changes in policy and moving from less controversial to more controversial policy areas seems to apply rather well to change in gay rights.

Assignment 11 - 16

E. Elite/Mass Model

1. Elites tend to be more socially tolerant than non-elites.

2. As with civil rights, an unelected court took the lead in securing fundamental rights of an unpopular group.

Assignment 11 - 17

F. Rational Model - One could certainly argue [as has Congressman Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)] that same-sex marriage has no effect on heterosexual marriage. By such reasoning, since same-sex couples would “gain” from an officially recognized marriage and heterosexual couples would be unaffected, the “rational” policy would seem to be to legalize same-sex marriage.

Assignment 11 - 18

However, opponents of same-sex marriage would argue that this would lead to moral decline in society and would, hence, not be “costless.”

Assignment 11 - 19

V. Explaining Variation in State Policy Concerning Gay Unions

A. Since more highly educated voters tend to be more socially tolerant, we can hypothesize that the more highly educated the voters in a state the more supportive a state’s policy will be toward gay unions.

Assignment 11 - 20

1. State policy toward gay unions was coded as follows:

5 = state recognizes same-sex marriage, 4 = state recognizes civil unions and/or

domestic partnerships,

NOTE: SAMPLE OUTLINE EXPLAINS EACH STEP IN THE SCALE. YOUR SCALE DOESN’T NEED 5 STEPS. COULD BE TWO STEPS, A PERCENTAGE, ETC.

Assignment 11 - 21

a. The higher a state scores on the scale above (i.e., 2 is greater than 1 and

3 is greater than 2, etc.) the more supportive a state’s policy is toward gay unions (i.e., the more liberal a state’s policy toward gay unions).

Assignment 11 - 22

2. The .52 correlation between the percentage of a state’s population 25 and older who have a least a bachelor’s degree and that same state’s policy toward gay unions offers rather strong support for the hypothesis.

Assignment 11 - 23

B. Since the Democratic Party has been more supportive of gay rights than the Republican Party we can hypothesize that the higher the percentage of a state’s vote for Barack Obama the more supportive that state’s policy toward gay unions.

Assignment 11 - 24

1. The .63 correlation between the percentage of a state’s presidential vote for Barack Obama and a

state’s policy toward gay unions offers rather strong support for the hypothesis.

Assignment 11 - 25

C. A state’s policy toward gay unions could likely be related to the types of policies that state has adopted in other policy areas. Therefore, a reasonable hypothesis would be that the more liberal a state’s policies the more liberal that same state’s policy will be toward gay unions.

Assignment 11 - 26

1. The .60 correlation between the liberalism of a state’s policies and that same state’s policy toward gay unions offers

rather strong support for the hypothesis.

Remember!

1. Do NOT advocate a particular policy or make “value judgments.” Remember, you’re an analyst, NOT an advocate.

2. Do NOT make statements that imply there is only one correct viewpoint (e.g., do NOT say something such as “any rational educated mind …”).

3. Do NOT use the first person or offer opinions (i.e., do NOT say “I think that …” or “I feel that”).

Assignment 14 - 1

DON’T TAKE NOTES! ALL THAT FOLLOWS IS CONTAINED IN THE COURSEPACK! SO, THERE IS NO NEED TO WRITE ANY OF THIS DOWN. YOU ALREADY HAVE IT!

Assignment 14 - 2

The submitted version of the term paper is worth 90 points. The points are distributed as follows: (1) 20 points for the discussion of why a ballot initiative was used (5 points for the sources you used); (2) 20 points for the analysis of the countywide vote on your initiative; (3) 20 points for the analysis using the policy models; (4) 20 points for the section on comparative state policy; (5) 10 points for mechanics (e.g., writing style).

Assignment 14 - 3

Late papers lose 10 points per day late. Make sure that you read the sample term paper (which appears in the coursepack) very closely.

Assignment 14 - 4

Notice each of the following: (1) the paper does not advocate a “position” on the topic of the ballot initiative – you are a scientist, NOT an advocate; and (2) the paper contains a very SHORT discussion of the ballot initiative (i.e., just tell me what it does – don’t put a copy of the exact wording in the paper); (3) the paper does not use the first person or offer opinions (i.e., do NOT say “I think that …” or “I feel that”);

Assignment 14 - 5

and (4) the paper does NOT make statements that imply there is only one correct viewpoint (e.g., do NOT say something such as “any rational educated mind …”).

Rainbows and the Politics of Race

Tom Bradley’s Rainbow

The End of the RainbowThe Riots and Their Backlash Wedge Issues and Their Backlash

Rainbows within Rainbows

Los Angeles City Coalitions:Tom Bradley’s Rainbow

After losing to Sam Yorty in 1969, Tom Bradley defeated him in the 1973 mayor’s race. Black voters, Jews, and other Westside liberals coalesced behind Bradley.

The rainbow coalition was based on the common goals of activist government and political inclusion, rather than any class solidarity.


The “senior partners” in the coalition were blacks and Jews.The percentage of city commission

appointments going to blacks rose from 6% under Yorty to 20% in 1991, and affirmative action expanded opportunity in jobs like police and fire departments.

Jewish commission appointments rose from 9% under Yorty to 36% in 1991.


The “junior partners” in the coalition were Latinos and Asians.By 1991, Latinos made up 16% of

commission members and Asian Americans made up 13%, both up from negligible numbers under Yorty.

Both groups also increase their proportions of city jobs.


The coalition fractured over growth. In order to gain financial support for his runs

for the governorship in ’82 and ’86, Bradley became more closely tied to downtown developers. Leveraged growth to pay for making LA a “world class city.”

This led to challenges from the Westside (Zev Yaroslavsky’s 1986 Prop. U) and the black community (Nate Holden in 1989).


Electoral Support

Contributions & Organization

Who Got What?

• Black and Jewish base• Slight edge with Latinos and Asians• Weak with conservative WASPs

• Westside money, Jewish and black leadership• Old growth machine no longer in control

• Political inclusion for all minority groups• Police reform• Federal money for redevelopment

The End of the Rainbow:The Riots and Their Backlash

After a Ventura Co jury found four LAPD officers not guilty of beating black motorist Rodney King, violence swept LA from April 29-May 2, 1992.Most of those arrested were black and

recent Central American immigrants.50 people died, 1000 structures burned, and

$450 million in damage was done.


The rioting and increasing crime rates further divided the Bradley coalition.2500 Korean American merchants lost their

businesses, and many didn’t support Mike Woo in 1993 mayor’s race.

Growth in Jewish law-and-order conservatism, especially among those who moved to the Valley. Woo only got a narrow majority of the Jewish vote.


Richard Riordan’s election in 1993 brought an end to the rainbow coalition.Riordan was an investment banker who had

become one of LA’s leading philanthropists.A political moderate, he was pro-choice,

tough on crime, and promised to be fiscally conservative.

The End of the Rainbow:Richard Riordan’s Coalition

Electoral Support

Contributions & Organization

Who Got What?

• His base was white conservatives• Nearly half of Jewish and Latinos supported Riordan

• Self-funded• Backed by the “growth machine”• Democratic political consultants

• Everyone got more cops, some police reform• Growth continued• Less inclusion for blacks, Jews

The End of the Rainbow: Wedge Issues and Their Backlash

A wedge issue is used by candidates of one party to attract voters who usually support the other party – in effect, driving a wedge between the opposition and its normal supporters.

A wedge can split the other party, a minority group, or a group coalition.


Passed by a 59-41% margin in 1994, Prop. 187 would have prevented state and local governments from providing social services, education, and non-emergency medical care to noncitizens. It fueled Pete Wilson’s dramatic comeback, with 36% of

Democrats supporting it and 19% of Dems supporting Wilson over Kathleen Brown.

Opposition to 187 was highest among Latinos (77%), Jews (55%), and blacks and Asians (53%).


Passed by a 55%-45% margin in 1996, Prop. 209 ended gender and race preferences by state and local governments, in fields such as public universities, public employment, and government contracts. Favored 51-36% by whites, opposed 57-27% by

Latinos, opposed 66-18% by blacks, and opposed 53%-31% by Asians.

It failed to help Bob Dole as a wedge issue, because it did not win many Democratic votes.


Since the Prop. 187 campaign, Latino voters have been energized Democrats.The number of new citizens in the state

jumped from 178,000 in 1993-1994 to 515,000 in 1995-1996.

In 1996, 67% of newly registered Latinos voted, up from 43% in 1994.

Latinos voted 73-21% Democratic in 1996, after voting 52%-40% Dem in 1992.



LA’s Jewish community has split into Valley moderates, Westside liberals, and conservative Iranian immigrants.

Black leadership split between Mark Ridley-Thomas and Maxine Waters.

Latino splits between poorer, more recent immigrants with ties to service labor (Molinistas) and middle class with ties to business (Eastside PRI)


In the 2001 mayoral race, the growth machine and conservatives sat on the sidelines as Steve Soboroff, Riordan’s protégé, failed to make the run-off.

Jimmy Hahn narrowly defeated Antonio Villaraigosa to win, claiming 59% of white voters, 80% of blacks, 18% of Latinos, and 65% of Asians.


In 2005, Antonio Villaraigosa beat Hahn in a rematch to become L.A.’s first Latino mayor of the modern era.Hahn’s firing of African-American police chief

Bernard Parks cost him with the black community

Hahn’s successful opposition to Valley secession hurt him with Valley voters

Villaraigosa the “energizer bunny.”

Business Influence in Los Angeles - 1

II. The Business Community has less influence in Los Angeles politics than it did many years ago.

A. In the 1960s a small group of about 25 business executives held regular meetings with the mayor, city council members and school board members.

A


I B. Business influence was also strong during

the 20-year administration of Tom Bradley and his successor, Richard Riordan.

C. However, business influence waned as Los Angeles became more Latino and Asian, and labor unions formed new coalitions

with environmentalists and neighborhood activists.

A


D. Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce

President Gary Toebben sees this as part of a national shift as companies focus on

global markets. Some have even moved their headquarters out of Los Angeles.

Toebben suggests that there “… is probably no city in the nation in which business has as much clout as it did 20 years ago.”


E. Mayoral contests in Los Angeles illustrate this change: (1) Riordan’s choice to succeed him in 2000, Steve Soboroff, was defeated in the primary; (2) in 2004 former labor activist Antonio Villaraigosa was elected mayor; (3) in 2012 pro- business candidate and former Wall Street success Austin Beutner withdrew;


(4) in 2012 the mayoral candidates claiming to represent business frequently appeared before labor groups and sided with public employee unions against balancing the City of Los Angeles budget through new layoffs.


F. Former mayor Richard Riordan says

groups such as the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce have been “essentially not involved” in local politics.

Documents

Political Science 326 California Government in Comparative Perspective