Uneasy Rhetoric

If you’re the kind of person, like me, who tends to read a newspaper by reading the headlines and the first paragraph or two, you might be given a false impression by this article in the New York Times.

Based on the first few lines of the article, you might think that Arnold has slashed $150 million from California’s budget in order to help (in an oh so small way) allieviate the budget deficit.

You’d be wrong.

Yes, the Governator can and will cut $150 million from various budgets (most of it will likely come from higher education), but it isn’t to relieve the budget deficit. The so-called cuts are actually revenue redirections. The $150 million will go to help pay local governments for the revenue lost thanks to the unfortunate Vehicle Licence Fee (aka “car tax”) reduction.

The article does mention this, buried somewhere in the middle. I’m happy the Times managed to get it right, but I’m concerned about characterizing the equivalent of moving a quarter from your left to your right pocket as “cuts.” Sure, the state has a little less and the locals have a little more, but local governments in California don’t just suckle at the state teat — they have an umbillical cord.

The Governor is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The police and firemen may be happy (as someone said, you always want to keep the guys with guns happy), but the developmentally disabled kid who helped Schwarzenegger light the Capitol Christmas Tree may not be so lucky.

Maybe if we move revenue around fast enough it will look like there’s more!