Also In Today's Mail

I found this bit of political mail that I got recently to be particularly annoying, because I fundamentally agree with the point being made, but it bothers me that the authors of the mailer feel the need to distort the truth to reach that point. Here's the flyer I got:

As you can see, the flyer -- quite correctly -- points out that California's state government is spending money in an absolutely out of control manner. And, since the Legislature has been solidly under Democratic control the whole time, it is fair to blame this mainly on the Democrats. To drive the point home, the flyer says "Much of this spending occurred under Governor Gray Davis and a Democrat controlled Legislature."*

But, let's take a look at their graph, to see what they're talking about. As you can see, the graph has three points: the budget for fiscal years 1998-1999 ($57 billion), 2002-2003 ($77 billion), and 2007-2008 ($103 billion).

Which leaves me asking two questions. First, what was spending from 1999-2002, and 2003-2007? Second, does that fit in with the theory that Democrats alone are responsible for the out-of-control growth in spending?

As for blaming Democrats, we should not forget that Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, took office on November 17, 2003. Schwarzenegger has a line-item veto and could have trimmed the budget and gone to war with the Legislature on spending if he had wanted to. So for the years 2003-2008, at least some of the blame for the rise of spending from $77 billion to $103 billion must rest at the Governator's door.

Secondly, the graph suggests a steady rise, with a moderate rise in the rate of growth after Davis was recalled and Schwarzenegger became the Governor. But I don't know, and I haven't been able to easily research, whether there were peaks and valleys along those lines, and whether those years have been chosen for a reason. I can, however, see the omission of the first two fiscal years of Davis' first administration, and the first three years of Schwarzenegger's administration. If spending dropped in the omitted Davis years† but rose in the omitted Schwarzenegger years,‡ then the authors may fear that this sort of defeats the point of the ad.

Let's tell the truth here, the whole truth. Chances are good that it will be to the budget hawks' advantage. The state government is out of control and spending way more than we can afford. The Governor only has so much ability to stem the tide. The lion's share of the blame can be laid, with full disclosure, at the door of the Democrats -- people will vaguely remember that there were big budget fights, and the Governor had to give in at some point.

The point, after all, is to rally public support behind spending cuts because the Governor is finally showing a little bit of spine on the subject. If the Governor has to take a little heat, well, he's a crafty politician; he should be able to volley it back to the Democrats and if he can't do that, well, how does he expect to govern at all? We shouldn't need to lie with statistics to drive the point home that a generation of one-party rule in Sacramento has produced a horrific result.


* I'll not comment on whether it's appropriate to refer to "the Democrats" or "Democrats," or whether it's the "Democratic" party or the "Democrat" party, although I know there are those Democrats who are sensitive about that (and IMHO, they should grow up about it).
† This seems very unlikely.
‡ This, however, seems quite likely.