It might be bad government. One precedent frequently cited by approving conservative writers while discussing the Tea Parties is California's 1970s tax revolt and the resulting passage of Proposition 13, a referendum that severely limits property taxes and requires super-majorities in the state legislature to enact any tax increases. Here's Reihan Salam citing the proposition. Setting aside folks' views on what appropriate tax rates should be at any given time, hasn't Proposition 13 been a political disaster for California? The state has constantly struggled with deficits, and this year's budget battle in the teeth of the recession nearly had the state in default on its debt. It took one Republican state senator to cast his vote and get the budget passed; he was predictably and vehemently criticized by other members of his party. As a result of its inability to maintain stable revenue streams, the state has been having a hard time maintaining government service levels, particularly in the area of education. There are obviously some conservatives who are fine with this -- starve the beast, you know -- but there are practical conservatives (California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger?) who realize that whatever the goals of this referendum, the results have been to make California a debtor state. If that's the end result of an "anti-tax revolt," it doesn't sound too appealing. I'd be interested to hear an argument for how Proposition 13 made California government more effective, as opposed to having a state legislature that can adjust tax rates as the economic situation warrants. Here's an argument for repealing the measure, and here's the L.A. Times editorial board suggesting it be retained but modified.
-- Tim Fernholz
