What’s the difference between California and New York?

The New York Establishment is mobilizing to try to save the state from its bush-league politicians. There doesn’t seem to be any hope at all for California.

Both states have governments that are hideously dysfunctional. But in New York, there’s still enough of an Establishment to try to do something about it. Not so in California.

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com

10 thoughts on “What’s the difference between California and New York?”

  1. Oh, for f***'s sake, you just argued a few posts down that trying to change the supermajority rule for taxes was a lost cause that shouldn't even be attempted. You have a brain tumor or something because the quality of your thinking has deteriorated over the last six months.

  2. But that post wasn't written by Mark Kleiman. I know the posts all look alike but they are attributed by name.

  3. He argued that it was better to successfully remove the super majority requirement for cutting spending, than to unsuccessfully attempt to remove it for both spending cuts AND tax increases. Which is a sensible position even if you don't think, as I do, that a super majority requirement for tax increases is a useful counter to the tendency of government to perpetually expand.

  4. things that make you go hmmmm….

    Speaking of California, I saw that they recently passed a type of parole supervision called "non-revocable parole". Isn't this in essence the antithesis of focused deterrence for parolees (a la When Brute Force Fails)? What's the point of parole supervision then. So now parolees know they can do whatever they want and the message is being sent that they won't be sanctioned unless it's a serious crime. Only in California

  5. Fred, he argued in the comments against his co-blogger's position. Mark, Bellmore is defending you!

  6. Well no, California Forward, started by Leon Panetta, Bob Hertzberg, and Chuck Poochigian is exactly that kind of effort. To a lesser extent the Bay Area Council's Repair California and its constitutional convention campaign qualifies. Ironically, neither has been able to raise enough money to get enough signatures for "citizen's" initiative on a ballot. We'll see how much traction Koch et. al. get.

  7. Possibly- Just possibly- Jerry Brown can fulfill at least some of the duties of "Establishment" – Once he becomes Gov again.

    Ironic, however, because Prop. 13 passed during his 6th year as Gov last time.

    His very large budget surplus (~ $4 billion) at that time was a major cause of the passage of that first step into chaos.

    However there are MANY other elements that need to be repaired if the Calif. political system is ever to become workable again.

  8. Only in California

    No. More-or-less similar measures are on the books or under consideration in other states.

  9. Reagan got to Sacramento quite a while before he got to Washington.

    The United States is just few years behind on the same Reagan Revolution path.

    Not pretty.

Comments are closed.