California is a trendy place, with a communal sense of fashion that extends to such things as taxing and spending.
Last fall, several economists from Indiana attended an academic conference largely dedicated to the 30th anniversary of
California’s Proposition 13. For those of you not of a certain age, Proposition 13 was the first statewide property-tax
cap passed by referendum.
The Indiana delegation was especially welcomed at this conference because our state was
the most recent to pass similar legislation—the tax reform of 2008.
The months since the anniversary have
been far more instructive than anything the past 30 years has provided. For you see, California state government is dead broke.
Its debt alone is twice the annual expenditure of Indiana, and its bond rating now hovers at the same level as Guatemala’s.
California can no longer sustain its government. Workdays at state government agencies have been trimmed by 10
percent with unpaid furloughs in every branch. All university staff face a 10-percent pay cut, and the greatest public university
system in the world is about to shed talent at an unrecoverable rate.
Why is this happening, and what lessons does
it hold for Indiana?
Proposition 13, which limited property taxes to 1 percent of residential value, was passed
in the wake of huge tax increases. The lure of California caused a real estate boom accompanied by big bumps in school spending.
The Legislature as well as local governments did a poor job of internalizing this lesson. Over the next three decades, other
taxes spiked. Sales and especially income taxes were increased to meet the demands of a government unwilling to constrain
spending.
Californians responded. The state permits a broad referendum process. Voters have rebelled, limiting
discretionary tax increases to less than 40 percent of total revenues. In other words, elected leaders have repeatedly failed
to heed the warning of voters on taxes. Voters have responded by repeatedly limiting the powers of elected leaders to raise
taxes. The result is a government unaccustomed to the rigors of fiscal debate.
This is the lesson for Indiana.
What has happened in California can also happen here. The next few years are equally critical in crafting local governments
in particular that are responsive to voter needs. The unseemly scramble for extra revenue sources does not portend well for
this process.
It is important to note also that my comments here are not a blanket call for low taxes. In the two
years before moving to Indiana, I twice supported referendums to increase my property taxes, which were already higher than
in any Indiana community at any time in history.
Now, as then, I am untroubled to be taxed, perhaps heavily, to
receive high-quality public services. But I have to trust that the spending will be wise. My hope is that the debate turns
from tax rates to how we spend those tax dollars.•
__________
Hicks is director of the Center for Business
and Economic Research at Ball State University. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at cber@bsu.edu.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.