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) is available at my website:
http://web.csulb.edu/~cdennis/
(under “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: M, W 9:00-9:30, 10:4511:00, 1:50-2:20 in SPA-241
II. Phone: See Email I Sent Containing My
Phone Number (which isn’t available
in downloadable material) - call times:
3:00-4:00 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!!!
Need for Government - 2
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.
Need for Government - 3
2. To Provide Public Goods –
Characteristics of Public Goods:
a. No one is excluded
Need for Government - 4
b. One person’s consumption of the
good does not reduce the amount
available for someone else.
Need for Government - 5
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
Need for Government – 6A
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
Need for Government – 6B
c. Government Regulation can help
the free market perform better.
1. One of the assumptions of the
free market is that both
buyers and sellers have
perfect market knowledge.
Need for Government – 6C
2. Government regulations requiring
restaurants to list the fat and
calorie content of their meals on
menus means that customers
have better information upon
which to base their decisions.
3. While restaurant owners may not
like the requirement it fits
perfectly with the assumptions of
a free market.
Need for Government - 7
4. Macroeconomic Management
a. Countercyclical spending to offset
a recession
1. Balancing the federal budget
during a recession would
be a disaster!
Need for Government - 8
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.
Need for Government - 9
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.
Need for Government - 10
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
Need for Government - 11
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?
Need for Government - 12
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
Need for Government - 13
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%
Need for Government - 14
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%
Need for Government - 15
Government Mandated Paid Annual Leave
and Paid Days of Vacation
U.S.
- 0
Great Britain - 20
Sweden
- 25
German
- 30
France
- 31
Need for Government - 16
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.
Need for Government - 17
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.
Need for Government - 18
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.”
Need for Government - 19
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.
Need for Government - 20
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
Need for Government - 22
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
Need for Government - 23
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%
Importance of State
Government- 2
C. States Dominate in Many Policy
Areas
1. Education – Approximately 90% of
funds from state and local
government
2. State are Important in Regulation
Importance of State
Government- 3
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.
Studying State Government - 2
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.
Studying State Government - 3
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
State Government - 2
B. Domination by California’s “Big Four”
(Huntington, Hopkins, Stanford and
Crocker) and a Recession lead to the
Adoption of California’s Second
Constitution.
State Government - 3
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
State Government - 4
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.
State Government - 5
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
State Government - 6
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
State Government - 7
D. Scholars Typically Make the
Following Recommendations for
Changing State Constitutions
1.Single Elected Executive (i.e.,
governor would appoint many
currently elected officials)
State Government - 8
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!
State Government - 9
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.
State Government - 10
B. Johnson saw education as the key to
upward mobility.
C. Johnson’s Reforms (1911-1916)
1. Direct Democracy
State Government - 11
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
State Government - 12
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
State Government - 13
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.
State Government - 14
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
State Government - 15
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.”
State Government - 16
C. The Progressives did not see politics
as competition between different
interests/classes.
1. Economically, progressive policies
weren’t helpful to the working
class.
State Government - 17
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 Disagree
Median 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
Political Participation - 2
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.
Political Participation - 3
C. “60-30-10” Diagram
1. SES Composition of the Highest
Participating One-Fifth of Adult
Americans
Political Participation - 4
Highest 1/3 SES - 60%
Middle 1/3 SES - 30%
Lowest 1/3 SES - 10%
Political Participation - 5
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
Political Participation - 6
E. Comparison
1. Only In India was the Relationship
between SES and Participation
As Strong as in the U.S.
Political Participation - 7
F. Why?
1. Relative Absence of Class-Related
Politics in the U.S.
2. Relative Lack of Work
Organizations/Unions in the U.S.
Political Participation - 8
II. Political Participation in California
A. Selecting Candidates for the
General Election
1. Until Progressive Era – Candidates
Chosen by Political Parties
Political Participation - 9
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.
Political Participation - 10
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.
Political Participation - 11
5. Partisanship reasserts itself after
crossing-filling is abolished in 1959.
6. Impact of cross-filling on
representation?
Political Participation - 12
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).
Political Participation - 13
b. Potentially, this reduces both the
representation of the poor and the
likelihood that “fair” policies will be
adopted.
Political Participation - 14
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.
Political Participation - 15
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.
Political Participation - 16
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.
Political Participation - 17
2. For nonpartisan offices a candidate
can win “outright” in the primary if
they receive over 50% of the primary
vote.
Political Participation - 18
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
Political Participation - 19
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.
Political Participation - 20
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?
Political Participation - 21
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.”
Political Participation - 22
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.
Political Participation - 23
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.
Political Participation - 24
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.
Political Participation - 25
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.
Initiative Process - 2
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
Initiative Process - 3
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
Initiative Process - 4
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.
Initiative Process - 5
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)
Initiative Process - 6
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.
Initiative Process - 7
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).
Initiative Process - 8
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.”).
Initiative Process - 9
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.
Initiative Process - 10
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
Initiative Process - 11
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
Political Parties - 2
B. Provide Policy Alternatives
1. Election should provide a
referendum on policy
2. Information Reduction
Device for Voters
Political Parties - 3
2008 Presidential Candidates
L= AFL-CIO (Labor)
E = League of Conservation Voters
(Environment)
Political Parties - 4
Democratic - 2008
Edwards
L
E
Clinton
L
E
Obama
L
E
97% 88%
94% 87%
98% 86%
2004 Democratic Ave. LCV – 85%
Political Parties – 5A
Republican - 2008
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 – 5B
Republican - 2012
Gingrich Santorum Paul
Ryan
L
E
L
10%
29%
L
13%
E
L
E
E
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 – 5C
Republican - 2016
Paul
Rubio
Graham
L E
L
E
L
E
4% 9%
6% 9%
16% 11%
Cruz
L
E
0% 11%
Kasich
L
E
0% 13%
Jindal
L
E
21% 6%
Political Parties – 5D
Democratic - 2016
Clinton
Sanders
Warren
L
E
L
E
L
E
94% 87% 98% 95% 100% 94%
Biden
L
E
85% 83%
Warner
L
E
86% 89%
Webb
L
E
95% 81%
Political Parties - 6
1. California Legislature: Chamber of
Commerce Scores – All
Republicans 80%-100%;
80% of Democrats 0%-40%
C. Accountability
1. Republicans in California after
Republican defections in the
state legislature over 2009
budget
Political Parties - 7
3. Most Party Platform Pledges are
Honored
Political Parties - 8
I. Political Party Systems
Cadre
Where
Found:
U.S.
Mass
Membership
All other Wealthy
Democracies
Political Parties - 9
Goal:
Winning
Greater Emphasis on
Standing for
Something Different
than the Opposition
Traits: Few Dues
Many Dues
Paying Members Paying Members
Political Parties - 10
Little Public
Education
Policy
Flexibility High
Much Public
Education
Low
Political Parties - 11
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.
Political Parties - 12
III. Why the U. S. Has Such a Strong
Commitment to Absolutist Individualism
A. Great Wealth
Political Parties - 13
B. Frontier Experience
1. Self-Sufficiency
2. Ease of Owning Property
Political Parties - 15
C. Agrarian Experience
1. Difficult to Organize Farmers
Political Parties - 16
D. Ethnic Diversity
1. Basic Rule: A society divided on
racial, ethnic or religious lines is more
difficult to divide on social class lines
Political Parties - 17
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
California Politics - 2
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?
California Politics - 3
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.
California Politics - 4
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.
California Politics - 5
2.Republican Party was More Inclusive
than the Southern-Based Democratic
Party.
a. Republican Coalition included both
African-Americans and Labor
California Politics - 6
3. Great Depression Changed the
Coalitions of the Two Parties
a. African-Americans and Labor
Moved into the Democratic Party
California Politics - 7
4. Republican Party then reduces It’s
commitment to civil rights because
(a) reduced support of AfricanAmerican voters; (b) the Civil Rights
movement began to involve business
regulation; (c) opportunity to pickup
disaffected white voters.
California Politics - 8
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.
California Politics - 9
7. The “disaffected” white voters who
moved into the Republican Party over
Civil Rights tended to be less welleducated and less tolerant.
a. This made the Republican Party a
political vehicle for anti-illegal
immigrant sentiments.
California Politics - 10
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.
California Politics - 11
10. Thus, being the more socially
tolerant party, the Democrats will
begin to appeal to more welleducated higher-income voters.
11. More highly educated voters are also
more supportive of
environmental, health and safety
regulations.
California Politics - 12
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)
California Politics - 13
b. The more well-educated the voter
the more likely they are to
support delayed gratification.
California Politics - 14
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.
California Politics - 15
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
California Politics - 16
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
20
40
60
80
Graph of .97 Correlation of
Brown10 and Boxer10
20
40
60
brown10
Fitted values
boxer10
80
20
40
60
80
Graph of .74 Correlation of
Coll00 and Boxer10
10
20
30
coll00
Fitted values
40
boxer10
50
20
40
60
80
Graph of -.58 Correlation of
%White in 2005 and Boxer10
60
70
80
white05
Fitted values
90
boxer10
100
20
40
60
80
Graph of -.23 Correlation of
%Senior in 2005 and Boxer10
8
10
12
14
16
senior05
Fitted values
boxer10
18
California Politics - 17
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?
California Politics - 18
Kathleen Brown (1994) = .71
Jerry Brown (1974)
= .09
Edmund G. Brown (1966) = .22
Proposition 13 (1978)
= -.23
Proposition 14 (1964)
= -.20
California Politics - 19
Democratic Presidential Vote Relative to
the Nation as a Whole
1984-1996 +2.1%
2000-2008 +6.4%
California Politics - 20
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?
California Politics - 21
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.
California Politics - 22
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?
California Politics - 23
California Politics - 24
California Politics - 25
California Politics - 26
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.
California Politics - 27
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.
California Politics - 28
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
California Politics - 29
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).
California Politics - 30
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.
California Politics - 31
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.
California Politics - 32
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
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 Republicans 80%-100%;
80% of Democrats 0%-40%
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 longterm 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
California Budget - 2
1. 50% of California Voters thought
that State Spending Could be
Reduced 20% Without
Reducing Services
California Budget - 3
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.
California Budget - 4
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
California Budget - 5
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
California Budget - 6
C. Most Legislative Districts are Not
Politically Competitive
1. Greater Socioeconomic Difference
Between Counties Over Time
California Budget - 7
2. Real Election is Often in the Primary
3. Compromising with the Opposition
Party Could Lead to a Primary
Challenger
California Budget - 8
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.
California Budget - 9
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
California Budget - 10
1. Voter Backed Initiatives Require
Long Prison Sentences
2. Think of the Public Outrage if We
Released Prisoners Early Who
Then Committed Crimes.
California Budget - 11
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
California Budget - 12
B. Solutions: Short-Term
1. Formula from the Past: Temporary
Tax Increases and Spending
Cuts
California Budget - 13
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 Budget - 14
(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.
California Budget - 15
c. Eliminating the ENTIRE Cal Works
Welfare Program would save 3 billion.
d. Closing ALL Prisons would save
9 billion.
California Budget - 16
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.
California Budget - 17
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.
California Budget - 18
4. Pensions
a. Few State Workers can Retire at
age 50!
b. Pensions were one of the few
politically accepted ways of
increasing compensation.
California Budget - 19
c. Thus, if we reduce pensions, then we
owe state workers the pay they gave
up in order to get better pension
benefits.
California Budget - 20
E. Revenue Increases Will be Needed
1. Overturn the 2/3rds Vote
Needed to Raise Taxes and
Fees
a. Representation/Fairness –
majority vote needed
California Budget - 21
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%.
California Budget - 22
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.
California Budget - 23
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.
California Budget - 24
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.
California Budget - 25
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.
California Budget - 26
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 –
California Budget - 27
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.
California Budget - 28
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
California Budget - 29
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;
California Budget - 30
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.
California Budget - 31
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%.
California Budget - 32
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%.
California Budget - 33
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
Judiciary/Crime - 11
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)
Judiciary/Crime - 12
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 lowlevel theft offenders to prison for life.
Judiciary/Crime - 13
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.
Judiciary/Crime - 14
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.
Benefit/Cost Analysis of Police-2
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).
Benefit/Cost Analysis of Police-3
2. At this rate, in 2006 homicides cost
Los Angeles more than $4 billion
(about 2% of the city’s economic
output).
Benefit/Cost Analysis of Police-4
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.
Benefit/Cost Analysis of Police-5
1. The 725 extra police cost Los Angeles
about $110 million 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.
Benefit/Cost Analysis of Police-6
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.
Benefit/Cost Analysis of Police-7
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.
Community Power - 11
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.
Community Power - 12
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.
Community Power - 13
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.
Community Power - 14
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.
Community Power - 15
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.
Community Power - 16
IV. Conclusions
A. The role of business is a great deal
more complex than both elitists
and pluralists had portrayed it.
Community Power - 17
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.
Community Power - 18
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.
Community Power - 19
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.
Community Power - 20
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.
Community Power - 21
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.”
Community Power - 22
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.”
Metropolitan Government - 2
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.
Metropolitan Government - 3
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 citypoverty, racial tension, poor housing
and crime are really problems of the
entire metropolis.
Metropolitan Government - 4
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 lowincome 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
Public Assistance - 2
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
Public Assistance - 3
D. Food Stamps
1. Monthly Income <$2,298
Public Assistance - 4
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.
Poverty Measures - 2
2. Favored by Conservatives
B. Relative Standard – Can you reasonably
participate in society during the time
period you are living?
Poverty Measures - 3
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”?
Poverty Measures - 4
II. The Official Poverty Measure
A. Absolute Measure
1. 1963 – Democratic
Administration interested in
reducing poverty
Poverty Measures - 5
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”)
Poverty Measures - 6
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.
Poverty Measures - 7
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.
Poverty Measures - 8
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
Year
1920
Richest Richest
10%
1%
39.0% 14.8%
1970
32.6%
9.0%
Richest
½ of 1%
11.1%
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 – 2
California
Year
1920
Richest
1%
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.
Income Inequality Over Time - 3
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 lowincome 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.
Income Inequality Over Time - 4
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.
The Social Safety Net - 2
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;
The Social Safety Net - 3
(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.
The Social Safety Net - 4
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. ”
The Social Safety Net - 5
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 Social Safety Net - 6
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 Social Safety Net - 7
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.
The Social Safety Net - 8
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.
The Social Safety Net - 9
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.
The Social Safety Net - 10
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 Social Safety Net - 11
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
The Social Safety Net - 12
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
The Social Safety Net - 13
(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.
The Social Safety Net - 14
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
The Social Safety Net - 15
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);
The Social Safety Net - 16
(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);
The Social Safety Net - 17
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).
The Social Safety Net - 18
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;
The Social Safety Net - 19
(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.
The Social Safety Net - 20
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
Reasons for Policy Change Over
the Past 40 Years - 2
behalf of the interests of middle and lowincome 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.)
Reasons for Policy Change Over
the Past 40 Years - 3
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
Reasons for Policy Change Over
the Past 40 Years - 4
(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,
Reasons for Policy Change Over
the Past 40 Years - 5
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.
Reasons for Policy Change Over
the Past 40 Years - 6
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)
Reasons for Policy Change Over
the Past 40 Years - 7
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
Reasons for Policy Change Over
the Past 40 Years - 8
(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).
Reasons for Policy Change Over
the Past 40 Years - 9
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?
Reasons for Policy Change Over
the Past 40 Years - 10
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.
Reasons for Policy Change Over
the Past 40 Years - 11
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.
Reasons for Policy Change Over
the Past 40 Years - 12
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%).
Reasons for Policy Change Over
the Past 40 Years - 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.
Reasons for Policy Change Over
the Past 40 Years - 14
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).
Reasons for Policy Change Over
the Past 40 Years - 15
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.
Reasons for Policy Change Over
the Past 40 Years - 17
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.”
Thiessen’s Comments - 2
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.
Thiessen’s Comments - 3
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.
Thiessen’s Comments - 4
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.
Thiessen’s Comments - 5
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.
Thiessen’s Comments - 6
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.”
Thiessen’s Comments - 7
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.
Thiessen’s Comments - 8
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?
Thiessen’s Comments - 9
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.
Thiessen’s Comments - 10
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.
Thiessen’s Comments - 11
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.
Thiessen’s Comments - 12
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.
Thiessen’s Comments - 13
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.
Thiessen’s Comments - 14
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.
Thiessen’s Comments - 15
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.
Thiessen’s Comments - 16
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 - $1.09 or the wage subsidy
program) versus
Thiessen’s Comments - 17
the economic stimulation per dollar of the
Bush Tax Cuts ($.35). Thus, the food
stamp program helps generate the very
economic activity that helps reduce the
unemployment rate.
Thiessen’s Comments - 18
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.
Thiessen’s Comments - 19
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.
Thiessen’s Comments - 20
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.
Thiessen’s Comments - 21
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 Postenactment 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 (DMassachusetts)] 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
 The
Bradley’s Rainbow
End of the Rainbow
 The

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.
Los Angeles City Coalitions:
Tom Bradley’s Rainbow

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.

Los Angeles City Coalitions:
Tom Bradley’s Rainbow

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.

Los Angeles City Coalitions:
Tom Bradley’s Rainbow

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).

Los Angeles City Coalitions:
Tom Bradley’s Rainbow
Electoral
Support
• Black and
Jewish base
• Slight edge
with Latinos
and Asians
• Weak with
conservative
WASPs
Contributions &
Organization
Who Got
What?
• 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 End of the Rainbow:
The Riots and Their Backlash

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.

The End of the Rainbow:
The Riots and Their Backlash

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
• His base
was white
conservatives
• Nearly half
of Jewish and
Latinos
supported
Riordan
Contributions &
Organization
• Self-funded
• Backed by the
“growth
machine”
• Democratic
political
consultants
Who Got
What?
• 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.
The End of the Rainbow:
Wedge Issues and Their Backlash

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%).
The End of the Rainbow:
Wedge Issues and Their Backlash

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.
The End of the Rainbow:
Wedge Issues and Their Backlash

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.

Rainbows within Rainbows
Rainbows within Rainbows
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)

Rainbows within Rainbows
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.

Rainbows within Rainbows

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
Business Influence in Los
Angeles - 2
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
Business Influence in Los
Angeles - 3
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.”
Business Influence in Los
Angeles - 4
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 probusiness candidate and former Wall
Street success Austin Beutner
withdrew;
Business Influence in Los
Angeles - 5
(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.
Business Influence in Los
Angeles - 6
F. Former mayor Richard Riordan says
groups such as the Los Angeles Area
Chamber of Commerce have been
“essentially not involved” in local
politics.
Libertarianism - 1
I. Libertarianism
A. World View – Most Everything
flows from selfishness
B. Goal - Maximizes the "Freedom
To“ in both economic and
noneconomic situations
Libertarianism - 2
B. Method – The Free Market
1. Definition – voluntary exchanges
between mutually consenting
individuals
C. Economic freedom (the free market) is
part of total Freedom and a
precondition of political freedom
Libertarianism - 3
1. In this view political freedom
depends upon economic
freedom – not the other
way around.
2. When the Soviet Union
collapsed the opposite
happened: political freedom
preceded economic
freedom.
Libertarianism - 4
D. An individual must be able to
earn a living in order to use
political freedom.
E. The Free Market accomplishes this
by two methods:
Libertarianism - 5
1. It increases the number of decisions
necessary to restrict, or eliminate,
someone’s livelihood.
2. It encourages economic decisions
(buy/sell decisions) to be made on
the basis of production factors (e.g.,
quality or price) as opposed to nonproduction factors (e.g., the race or
political views of the workforce).
Libertarianism - 6
3. Since government can only
institute one set of priorities
libertarians see governmental
action as a restriction of
individual free choice.
4. Therefore, libertarians largely
reduce the government to
umpire like functions (e.g., antitrust, police, military)
Libertarianism - 7
II. Critique of Libertarianism
A. Goals – Doesn’t any goal other
than free choice matter (e.g.,
political and economic
inequality, mobility, security or
stability)?
Libertarianism - 8
B. Methods – Is an extremely strong
reliance on the free market the
best way to maximize freedom?
C. Libertarians assume that at any
one point in time the number of
free decisions is fixed – thus if
government makes more of
them individuals will make
fewer of them.
Libertarianism - 9
1. The number of decisions isn’t fixed.
For example, consider public
transportation: while the taxes paid
to build it may reduce personal
freedom the public transportation
system increases personal freedom.
2. How much freedom to use the beach
would we have if the beaches were
privately, rather than governmentally,
owned?
Libertarianism - 10
3. By not having universal health care
in the U.S. we have
approximately 18,000 additional
deaths per year. You can’t
make many free decisions after
you’re dead!
Libertarianism - 11
4. Even if you accept the goal of maximizing
individual free choice: Is the “freedom to"
maximized by (1) removing force (e.g., not
having to pay Social Security taxes) - with
the possibility of economic hardship, or
(2) reducing economic hardship - with the
possibility of political restraints (e.g., not
protesting government policy because you
fear the loss of government benefits) ?
5. Libertarians must opt for option #1 above.
Libertarianism - 12
6. Think of the reductions in personal
freedom through laws/political actions
that have resulted from economic
hardship (e.g., Hilter, Proposition 187
in California, etc.).
7. There is little evidence that citizens in
democracies with extensive social
safety nets (e.g., Sweden) are afraid
to speak out against government
policy.