Whitman's Rebuttal? More Deception

Your integrity gets called into question when you lie and get caught, but you're in serious trouble when the defense of your lie is yet another lie and people notice. That's particularly true when you're a candidate for governor.

Avid LA Times readers probably appreciated George Skelton's recent insights on candidate Meg Whitman. Early in October, he took offense to Whitman's claim that state workers were "selfish and arrogant," arguing that the arrogance may be Whitman's for her, a political novice who has a scant voting record, to tell people who have been involved in public policy for much longer what they are doing wrong and how to do their jobs. That followed with relative silence from Whitman's campaign. They let this one go, which was probably wise.

The tension really became visible by the end of October when Skelton wrote an article dissecting every lie in Whitman's recent radio ads, which claimed that the state's spending has been out of control when in reality it's barely kept up with inflation and population growth. This time the campaign couldn't keep silent. Whitman's calls to slash state spending have been a staple of her campaign, and it's a position favored by California Republicans who she must woo to win her primary bid. The problem is it's a myth, but the solution is the public doesn't know that. So despite being called out on her lies, the campaign decided to double-down on their message. To drive home their point, Whitman's Policy Director Richard Costigan wrote a retort to Skelton's article and published it on Fox and Hounds, which had several rebuttals including:

Logic and government accounting schedules tell us that there will be no reliable numbers for the 2008-2009 fiscal year that ended June 2009 for at least another few months, and likely much longer. Since the start of the 2008-09 budget through today, there have been three separate budgets passed, and there could be a fourth one before June 30, 2010. The books are far from closed on the current fiscal year.

That doesn't really address Skelton's issue (nor that of the Republican analyst from the Department of Finance Skelton received his information from), which is that the decade Whitman picked includes a year that saw excessive spending while also excluding the year where the state saw excessive cuts in spending to skew her numbers. But ok. He also offers:

So using our ten-year time period gives Californians the most accurate picture available of state government spending habits. And the Times’ own reporting of spending patterns confirms it.

On May 28, business columnist Michael Hiltzik reported: “Analyzing the 2008-09 budget bill last year, the legislative analyst determined that since 1998-99, spending in the general fund and state special funds -- the latter comes from special levies like gasoline and tobacco taxes -- had risen to $128.8 billion from $72.6 billion, or 77%.’’

This one really caught my attention. It wasn't so much that Hiltzik's article seemed to completely contradict Skelton, but rather that I knew exactly which article Costigan quoted from. I'll never forget it. It's called, "California's problem is spending? That's a myth." If there was any doubt that Costigan wasn't purposefully trying to deceive readers in his retort by quoting Hiltzik the title should clear that up. Of course, Costigan was careful enough not to link the article he quoted from nor make any sort of reference or footnote of it because he knew that the title alone would get him into trouble if not the content. For your convenience, here's a more full quote from Hiltzik:

Indeed, the idea that California's budget has been out of control as measured against inflation and population growth is a deeply cherished talking point in the debate over the state's fiscal deficit.

Unfortunately, it turns out to be yet another infectious myth. The truth is that over the last 10 years, California's spending has tracked population growth and price increases almost to the penny.

This finding comes from the nonpartisan legislative analyst's office, which subjects the state budget to more careful scrutiny than almost anyone else in Sacramento.

Analyzing the 2008-09 budget bill last year, the legislative analyst determined that since 1998-99, spending in the general fund and state special funds -- the latter comes from special levies like gasoline and tobacco taxes -- had risen to $128.8 billion from $72.6 billion, or 77%.

During this time frame, which embraced two booms (dot-com and housing) and two busts (ditto), the state's population grew about 30% to about 38 million, and inflation charged ahead by 50%. The budget's growth, the legislative analyst found, exceeded these factors by only an average of 0.2% a year.

My calculations show that the combined growth factors would have allowed the budget to grow even more. But for the purpose of argument, let's use the legislative analyst's more conservative number. That punctures the notion that the state has been on a drunken spending spree out of proportion to these common multipliers.

That paints a much different picture than the one Team Whitman has been trying to sell and calls out a blatant lie and common conservative talking point the campaign has been shamelessly deceiving people with.

Contrary to popular belief, the budget is the single most important environmental bill (well, it's more than just an environmental bill) the State passes each year, and in recent years its has been hijacked by the Republican minority who have been holding it hostage in exchange for everything from CEQA exemptions of major projects to initiatives being put on the ballot. Meanwhile, our current governor has taken steps to gut environmental funding including taking $1.1 billion in funds specifically meant for transit to patch the 2007 budget. At the same time, both have opposed increasing taxes and blocked efforts to close tax loophole created solely for corporations and the rich few who fund their campaigns. Their justification? The same budget myth lie: California's problem is spending. If we're ever going to start solving the budget problems in California, it must begin with educating Californians about these lies that are so often assumed to be true.

The next governor is going to have to tackle some of the greatest budgetary hurdles that California has ever seen, and it's important that we have a green governor who's not only knowledgeable about the issues and willing to protect key environmental programs but is also someone who has the integrity to enter budget negotiations in good faith with the support of the public. Sadly, the more she campaigns, the further Meg Whitman gets away from that.