The Prince and The Pauper

George Skelton writes:

There's ample baggage to hang around Jerry Brown's neck from his stint as governor way back when. But it does not include his being a tax-and-spender. Brown never raised general taxes. In fact, he reduced the income tax. If anything, Brown didn't spend enough. Ask anyone who was paying attention during that 1975-1983 period and you'll probably hear a complaint that the young governor allowed the state's infrastructure to begin decaying. He especially didn't invest enough in highways and universities. That was a mistake, he now concedes. But back then, he was preaching an "era of limits."

Jerry Brown was continually snubbing his nose at the political establishment, embodied by his father, Pat Brown, an admired, old-school former governor. That resulted in cute stunts such as serving Britain's bemused Prince Charles a soda-pop luncheon of cold cuts and tossed greens -- treating a prince like a pauper. It also led to Brown's disastrous stroke in appointing Rose Elizabeth Bird, a trusted aide with no judicial experience, as state Supreme Court chief justice. She later was ousted by voters. But a tax-and-spender? Hardly, even if such a charge does play well in Republican polling and focus groups.

That's one of the factors that made the California Chamber of Commerce's TV ad attacking Brown last week so hare-brained. "The ad sounded like it was written by someone who wasn't even born when Jerry was governor," says Tony Quinn, a longtime Republican political analyst. It was produced by an out-of-state ad maker, apparently with minimum knowledge or interest in California political history. But truth rarely ranks a priority in political advertising anywhere.

The other factor that made the spot seem dopey was that it was so out of character and unbecoming of its sponsor, the normally esteemed state chamber. This is a respected organization with a prestigious board that lobbies for business interests, but until last week had stayed above mud-wallowing. That was the shocker. It was as if some nice church-going family man had gotten drunk and was barking obscenities while chasing a bar wench in front of stunned friends. Chamber President Allan Zaremberg, of course, didn't see it that way. He contended the ad merely represented an effort to "educate" voters about the vital issues of job creation, taxes and spending.

Right. That's why the spot -- titled "Enough is Enough" -- was all about slamming Brown, the cinch Democratic nominee for governor. "To any reasonably minded person, this is nothing more than a typical political attack ad," complained four chamber board members in a letter to Zaremberg. "It undermines the chamber's credibility to justify it as anything other than that. . . . This is not the kind of 'education' approach with which . . . the chamber should be associated." After Brown and his wife worked the phones for hours asking board members "What gives?" and some of them griped to Zaremberg, he pulled the ad. It had run for only a few days around the state and was replaced with a neutral issues blurb.

But undoubtedly similar versions of the hit piece are being crafted by Republican front-runner Meg Whitman. If you missed the spot, which featured a '70s-era Brown mug shot, this was the narration by a female announcer:

"California's lost 1 million jobs. We're $200 billion in debt. And Jerry Brown has a 35-year record of higher spending and taxes. Gov. Brown opposed Prop. 13. Spending increased 163%. He turned a budget surplus into a massive debt."

The narrator also says that when Brown was Oakland's mayor, city taxes rose, spending increased 60% and "jobs vanished." Admittedly, I'm foggy on Oakland. But I do know that all the tax hikes were approved by at least two-thirds of the city's voters. I also know that Atty. Gen. Brown can't be blamed for California's job losses or debt.

And as often is recounted, Gov. Brown did oppose Prop. 13, the 1978 ballot initiative that drastically cut local property taxes. He supported a more practical alternative. So did the chamber, which now hypocritically criticizes Brown for a similar position. So did future Republican Govs. George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson and most of the political establishment. But Brown so enthusiastically implemented Prop. 13 that its co-sponsor, Republican Howard Jarvis, cut a reelection campaign commercial for the governor and voted for him.

Under Brown, spending did increase 161% (a hair short of the chamber's claimed 163%). One reason was that the state began shoving money out to local governments to make up for their property tax losses.

But if the business lobby and the GOP really insist on attacking tax-and-spenders, to be credible they should denounce Gov. Ronald Reagan. The conservative icon -- who governed as a moderate -- still holds the modern California record for a tax increase relative to the size of the general fund. It was 30%. Gov. Wilson's tax hike was 16% and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's last year was 14%. Reagan also was the biggest spender of the last half-century. Under him, spending leaped 177%.

By comparison, Brown was a right-wing kook -- not a liberal flake.

Privatisation, globalisation, deregulation and demutualisation have turned out, in the most spectacular fashion, to be anything but fiscally responsible. The same is true of a generation of scorn for full employment, leading to the massively increased benefit dependency of the 1980s and the institutionalisation of that mass indolence down to the present day.

The transfer of huge sums of public money to ostensibly private, but entirely risk-free, companies in order to run schools, hospitals, railways, rubbish collections, and so many other things: is that fiscally responsible? Bailing out Wall Street or the City at all, never mind so that it can carry on paying the same salaries and bonuses as before: is that fiscally responsible? Even leaving aside more rarefied academic pursuits, is it fiscally responsible to allow primary education, or healthcare, or public transport, or social housing to fall apart? Is that good for business?

Will it be fiscally responsible to allow the private health insurance companies to charge the American taxpayer whatever they like, because the absence of a public option or a single-payer system was the price of the votes of Blue Dogs who still voted against the Bill anyway and of wavering Republicans who turned out not to exist at all? It is no wonder that Jerry Brown turns out to have been far more of a fiscal conservative, as that term is generally employed, than Ronald Reagan. Even to a fault on occasion.

But what of the other two legs of the stool that was the Reagan Coalition? The only two conservatives things that Reagan ever did were to begin nuclear arms reduction in Europe and to withdraw from Lebanon because no American interest was at stake; Obama is the worthy heir of the first, but would that he were of the second. Reagan was no more a national security conservative, as that term in generally employed, than he was a fiscal conservative, as that term is generally employed, both uses being wholly erroneous and such as to render meaningless any concept of conservatism.

Bringing us to the third leg, the social conservatives, "the Religious Right". The moral, social and cultural consequences of massively increased welfare dependency and the glorification of selfish greed were wholly of a piece with the rise of Political Correctness in the 1980s, and with that decade's general moral chaos. Reagan was an extremely infrequent churchgoer and did not formally belong to any parish, congregation or denomination. He remains the only President of the United States ever to have been divorced. As Governor of California, he signed into law the legalisation of abortion in that state. Read that last sentence over again.