Matt Welch vs. the LA Times

My friend and former LA Times colleague Matt Welch, writing on his blog at Reason, the libertarian magazine he edits, makes a very good point about media commentary, particularly from our former paper, that voters are responsible for the state's fiscal fix because they vote for so many ballot measures that boost spending.

I think the line of commentary is right. But it's also new, and it's more than a little disingenuous for the LA Times to be making this argument. Welch looked back and discovered that the LA Times endorsed 20 of the last 22 bond measures on the statewide ballot. Patient, heal thyself. 

Welch also reveals that one of the two non-endorsements happened only becasue of his own work inside the editorial board.

From the blog: "The only other bond measure lacking support from California's premier newspaper was a $2.85 billion low-income housing initiative in 2006, one of five bonds on that particular ballot. Without boast or fear of contradiction, I can report that the paper would have hi-fived that measure, too, had I not been sitting on the editorial board then, arguing until I was Laker-purple in the face that incurring so much bond indebtedness so soon after Gray Davis' fiscal meltdown was courting budgetary disaster. It was because of this turd-in-punchbowlitis that the following sentence made it into the November 2006 endorsements editorial: 'But $42.7 billion in new bonds would mean that nearly 6% of the state budget would be claimed for debt service each year.' So instead, my colleagues went for $39.85 billion. It was the small victories that counted.

"I mention all this not to tweak the noses of my old pals back home, but rather to highlight a persistent mindset among California's political class: It's everybody's fault but mine, and there is no such thing as yesterday."