California Insider

I noted a change in the war protest message this weekend to one tinged with a newfound fiscal conservativism. The war, some protestors are saying, is a waste of tax dollars that should be spent at home, on health care or education. Am I the only one who finds this argument incredibly selfish, especially coming from a group that portrays itself as concerned, first and foremost, with the plight of humankind? No matter what you think of the motives behind the war, the fact is that today more than 20 millions souls who a week ago lived under the thumb of a dictator are now moving toward self-determination. And the economic sanctions that contained Saddam but were blamed for causing hundreds of thousands of deaths of Iraqi civilians, especially children, will soon be no more. If sustained by a serious effort to reconstruct a democratic Iraq, this seems to me to be an incredible victory for human rights on behalf of some of the most oppressed people in the world. If not for partisan politics, it would be a great liberal cause.

Beyond that, from a more hard-nosed geopolitical perspective, many of those millions freed last week share the same Shiite Muslim faith that is behind the revolution in Islamic Fundamentalism that has held this country out as the world's number one menace. If we can persuade those people that we support their right to worship as they please, and that in fact we will shed blood to create that right for them, isn't that a gesture that is likely to help us in the long run?

I think freeing 20 million people from Saddam is worth $100 billion by itself as a humanitarian measure. But if it also makes us millions of new friends in the Shiite community, it could be priceless.

Bob Salladay of the San Francisco Chroncile does a great job tallying up many of the $28 billion in potential fees and charges proposed in 117 bills pending in the Legislature. A partial list of items to be assessed: lightbulbs, beer, diapers, bullets, airplanes, bottled water, guns, dry cleaning, cigarettes, medical licenses, earthquake insurance, oil, hunting and fishing licenses, marriage counselors, nursing homes, imported electricity, public colleges, mercury lamps, cell phones, satellite TVs, library books, landscaping, court documents, lumber and delinted cottonseed. As far as I know, so far no surcharge on museum tickets to support the Arts Council.

While the current orgy looks grotesque, I'm not sure the fee concept itself is as bad as some taxpayer groups and fiscal conservatives suggest. Watchdogs obviously fear abuse, as these bills can pass the Legislature on a simple majority vote, without Republican support. And that fear is well founded. But the law does require fee revenue to go only to services related to the charge being levied. So if well policed and enforced, the practice represents a more entrepreneurial style of government, where the citizens, in theory, get what they pay for. And this makes the people who pay the fees more sensitive to ensuring that the services government provides are worth the money they are paying. The danger is that some fee revenue will go for things only loosely connected to those who bear the burden. Keep your eye on this issue. We could see billions in new fees by the end of the summer.

Here's today's column, on how the continuing survival of the California Arts Council symbolizes the state's refusal to set priorities in tough times.