Anytime a member of the media says there are “inarguable facts” about the state’s economic and financial crisis, that’s usually a sign that you should be extra dubious of their claims. Steve Wiegand uses that phrase in his SacBee article today to essentially make the Parsky Commission’s case for it, in advance of whenever it is exactly that they’re going to produce an actual final proposal. Wiegand’s article essentially rehashes the basic center-right argument about state government: our taxes are too volatile, and combined with “reckless spending” and the severe economic crisis, that explains the state budget mess:

Three inarguable facts dominate California’s system of financing state government:

• It’s a mess.

• It’s currently a mess in large part due to the deepest and most pervasive global recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

• It’s been a mess for much of the past three decades because the combination of an out-of date tax system, reckless spending and fickle voters has made state government extremely vulnerable to the ebbs and flows of the economy.

I’ll grant Wiegand the first two points. Since 2007 California has had a total of about $60 billion in budget deficits. $47 billion of that is due to decline in taxes. But much of that decline is led by collapsing sales taxes. This recession is a balance sheet recession led by consumers working feverishly to pay down debt. Until the debt is purged and wages grow, the massive consumer spending binge of the last 20 years is never coming back.

That starts us down the path of realizing just how wrong Wiegand is in making his third point. Wiegand repeats the discredited “volatility” argument to infer that the reliance on personal income taxes is flawed:

Since California relies so heavily on those revenues – more than half of general fund income comes from income taxes – it makes state government extremely susceptible to swings in the economy.

“When the market tanks, those taxpayers sneeze,” said H.D. Palmer, the veteran spokesman for the Department of Finance. “And when those taxpayers sneeze, the state budget catches pneumonia.”

One of the reasons CA relies on that income is because Prop 13 has meant the state does not capture the wealth temporarily created by two massive real estate bubbles since 1978 (one in the 1980s and the other in the 2000s).

But Wiegand misses two other crucial points about income taxes. Both personal and corporate income taxes have held up better than sales taxes during this recession. This is an especially important point during this so-called economic “recovery” where those at the upper end of the income scale, along with large corporations, are weathering the storm pretty well. It is nutty to assume that they need their tax burden reduced.

Wiegand’s entire embrace of the “volatility” argument is of course flawed from conception, since there is no government budget out there that I’m aware of that has been able to resist the stress of the economic downturn. Those states that haven’t had significant budget crises, like North Dakota, also haven’t been hit as hard by the recession. The underlying economy in California is volatile and has been since about 1980. It makes perfect sense that tax collections would reflect a boom-and-bust economy.

The rest of Wiegand’s article focuses on the sales tax. As I argued above, any examination of state tax policy that does not examine the collapse of consumer spending, likely to be a long-term trend, is probably not going to be a very useful guide to what’s actually happening. After mentioning in passing the notion of modernizing the sales tax, he quickly shifts to a trip down memory lane, to the widely-mocked 1991 “snack tax” that Pete Wilson and the Legislature used in their solution to the budget deficit that year. The “snack tax” was repealed at the ballot box in 1992, and Wiegand uses it to argue that California voters are reluctant to extend taxes to untaxed goods and services.

But is still actually the case? Polls from 2009 suggest voters are willing to raise taxes to protect existing state services. Taxing accounting services, for example, in order to keep teachers in classrooms or taxing soda and junk food to keep parks open may well be more popular today than it was 17 years ago.

Wiegand closes his article by letting David Doerr of the right-wing California Tax Association repeat the totally unverified and undefended claim that the other element in our state’s fiscal crisis is “overspending”:

“The tax structure has been pretty consistent in providing income,” Doerr continued. “It’s spending. They (elected officials) just can’t say no.”

This claim isn’t supported by any evidence in the article, and as it’s the very last sentence in the article, it is not rebutted. California’s media takes it as a given – an “inarguable fact” as Wiegand said at the outset – that we have “reckless spending.” They believe this is so self-evident that they don’t actually have to prove it or explain it or justify the claim.

In fact, California’s spending over the last 6 or 7 years has been flat. The largest amounts of spending have actually gone to tax cuts, with Arnold Schwarzenegger’s $6 billion per year backfilling of the VLF cuts in 2003 being the most obvious example.

When will California’s major media outlets start questioning the “reckless spending” myth? As long as they treat that myth as an “inarguable fact,” it’s not something I’m going to hold my breath to see.