AB 13 – my bill to grant #Veterans in-state tuition – just passed out of Asm. Vets Affairs Committee! Next stop, Assembly Approps
— Rocky Chavez (@AsmRocky) April 16, 2013
RIDER COMMENT
I found this Tweet rather unsettling. As I see it, this Rocky Chavez bill is a bad start for our new San Diego County GOP Assemblyman.
If one is a Republican in the CA state legislature, it’s hard to get any bill passed by the Democrat-controlled legislature. New Republican State Assemblyman Rocky Chavez was quick to discover the secret to legislative “success” — submit a bill for a new or expanded subsidy.
Now THAT’s something Democrats can get behind! After all, these clueless donkeys are convinced that our state is AWASH in taxpayer revenue. Doling out more subsidies is the favorite pastime in Sacramento.
Such is the case with Rocky’s bill above — AB 13. And, after all, don’t we owe our veterans?
Well, yes. And no.
To start with, we have a volunteer military. For most, the pay is good and the benefits are generous — at least it’s sufficient to fill our ranks with the needed quality volunteers. Prospective recruits are fully informed regarding the military’s popular education benefits — still called “the GI bill” — paid for by the grateful American taxpayers.
A four year veteran can receive almost $1,500 a month while going to college full-time — for up to 36 months. That’s a pretty darn generous benefit, which they certainly earned.
My concern is that this bill will encourage more people who are NOT California residents to come here to be FURTHER subsidized as an in-state resident. Each such recipient will cost CA taxpayers many more thousands of dollars per year in education costs (tuition covers a small fraction of the cost per student) — and often results in one more CA resident unable to gain admission to a CA public college. We can’t provide schooling for our EXISTING in-state population — we don’t need to go recruiting for additional subsidized students.
While tuition for our four year colleges and universities is approaching the national average, that can be deceiving. Our UC schools have a remarkable program where most students (especially those who are no longer being subsidized by their parents) with less than an $80,000 income will pay ZERO state tuition.
And while our community college tuition (called fees in CA) is now up to almost half the national average, over a third of our community college students will declare “hardship” and end up paying zero tuition. Most such vets probably qualify for this giveaway, even though they get the GI Bill cash flow.
Moreover, it’s not like we have some sort of labor shortage in California. Currently we have the third highest unemployment rate in the nation! Educating more people for jobs might be helpful to the OTHER states who receive many of today’s California college graduates, but it’s not helpful to the Golden State.
Rocky, good intentions are not enough. After all, there are an endless number of causes and “needy” people who “deserve” further funding. But our state’s finances are in disarray — in large part precisely because of such muddled thinking. Your top priority should be fiscal prudence — not trying to find new ways to drain Sacramento’s coffers.
I must say, Rocky Chavez’s chosen course is very disappointing. I had expected better.
Comments 48
In August, 2012, I submitted a motion to SAN DIEGO TAX FIGHTERS that we endorse Sherry Hodges in her race against Rocky, but my board wouldn’t buy it. They chose to make no endorsement at all.
In my (edited for civility) plainspoken plea for the endorsement, here’s what I said in my August, 2012 email to the board:
——–
“I hereby call for a vote on whether or not to endorse Sherry Hodges for her State Assembly race. She’s up against another Republican, Rocky Chavez.
“He’s a [fiscal] wuss. He’s in it for himself, and is considered one of the GOP candidates who could very well cave in to Democrats once in Sacramento — on a par with Abel Maldonado. The GOP will likely not take a position between these two GOP candidates, but we should.
“Jarvis has endorsed her. She dumped Tom Shepard as her consultant as soon as he announced his sellout to Comrade Bob Filner (something other GOP candidates did NOT do). Sherry signed the no tax pledge with enthusiasm — Rocky was dragged into signing it.”
———
As usual, I was right. What is UNusual is that my board was wrong. So very, VERY wrong. In the future, my board needs to take better guidance from their Dear Leader.
I will take the liberty of defending this decision, and further demonstrate that the Riders, and San Diego Tax Fighters, do not always agree.
In defense of the board, Richard is correct that he lobbied for Hodges, however an endorsement for Chavez was never discussed.
Hodges never had experience where we felt we could get a feel for how fiscally conservative she was. She wasn’t a regular in the DeMaio efforts (partly due to location), so she didn’t necessarily stand out as significantly better choice than Chavez. Chavez’s record in office was “okay” — it could have been better, but certainly he had a better record than the Republican my district elected.
An endorsement from SDTF typically is for a really strong fiscally conservative candidate, or when the opponent is tremendously bad. This race didn’t seem to warrant either condition.
I know Hodges far better than Chavez, and she’s probably in my top ten people to talk to at fundraisers. However familiarity shouldn’t automatically lead to supporting a candidate, which is often the case unfortunately. Nathan Fletcher and I have kids the same age, do similar workouts, and genuinely enjoyed each other’s company before “The Shift.” That said, I would have never voted for Fletcher over DeMaio, despite me having far less in common with Carl.
Rocky’s bill is disappointing but he’s not the first, nor the last Republican to push a spending agenda under the flag of “for the troops.” However, we don’t know what Hodges would have done, so the decision to stay out of the Republican District battle and focus on other election efforts still seems sensible.
Steve Rider
Issues Chairman of San Diego Tax Fighters
Don’t feel bad Mr. Rider, no one listened to me either….
I originally thought the same about this bill so I asked his Chief of Staff about it. The subsidy is limited to the first year; if the veteran hasn’t established residency, he reverts to out-of-state tuition. This is no small measure as many service members opt for Florida, Texas, or Nevada residency (no state income tax) while in service.
Am I thrilled about the bill? NO. Am I livid about the bill? No
When will most Reps. quit anteing up an automatic vote for the uniform instead of finding out what are the candidates’ explicit policies? Several years ago, while in Sacramento with a group to lobby for some issues, I stuck around later to ask a conservative Rep. office holder what his position was on a particular law enforcement pension issue. He answered,” You don’t think I am going to vote against people I worked with for thirty years do you?” I got the impression that no one had asked him that question before and he voted as he indicated he would. I don’t think anyone asked him why afterwards. Tax Fighters– Your just like everybody else–You get what you vote for.
Brian, establishing CA state residency for benefit purposes is all too easy. It’s hard to imagine any out of state college student who would NOT establish themselves as a state resident after one year.
The CA income tax is essentially zero for such students, and the benefits flow once a resident. Such students have to reregister their car in CA anyway, so there’s no reason NOT to be a CA resident.
And that brings up a second issue. Apparently there are a number of out of state students in our San Diego community colleges (a regular coven from Connecticut, I hear) who are “in-state” residents. They either pay the CA state tuition (the lowest in the nation), or they declare “hardship” and pay ZERO for tuition. It seems the word is spreading about this giveaway.
As we know, if you tax something more, you get less of it. But if you GIVE AWAY something, you get more of it. We are ENCOURAGING “furingers” from other states to move to CA for our cheap education.
Maybe the boys and girls at the U-T Watchdog or Voice of San Diego should be looking into this. I have a couple sources they can use, but it requires some digging.
“It’s hard to imagine any out of state college student who would NOT establish themselves as a state resident after one year”
I agree which is why I’m not aghast at the new law. I don’t necessarily like it though and I agree with you. Chavez introduced a companion bill (AB 258) which would allow only these words to be used for a question the state already asks: “Have you ever served in the military?”
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/02/rocky-chavez-proposes-telling-california-how-to-ask-a-question.html#storylink=cpy
You folks are castigating one of your own for introducing a bill that would encourage smart, disciplined and experienced students (veterans) to come to California for their higher education. Is someone celebrating April Fools Day late this year?
Sam, if we could develop some sort of EXCHANGE program where we deported to other states one of your worthless Democrat welfare recipients for each veteran coming here, that’s something I could get behind. But we don’t need to entice MORE people to come to CA specifically to be subsidized.
Wow, Richard Rider has taken his illegal immigration position to a new level. Now he opposes recently discharged veterans from another state,from going to school in California. Tough crowd. Yawn. Please tell me Rider has somebody better to attack than veterans who have served our country. Mr. Rider, when you were discharged where did you attend school?
Patricia, I WELCOME veterans to CA. We don’t need to PAY them to come here.
To equate not wanting to pay people to move to CA with wanting to PROHIBIT or DEPORT people already here speaks poorly of your cognitive capabilities.
Where on earth did YOU go do school? If you paid tuition, demand your money back.
What difference does it make if I served in the military? And where I went to school? Explain, and I will consider answering.
Oh, BTW, show me where I’ve written stuff against illegal immigrants.
There’s a new tool out there for you to use — Google. Best of luck!
Oh my, what a pile of crap these complaints are.
This bill will encourage vets to come here for their education. That brings their money with them. They will rent or buy houses; they will buy groceries, pay utility bills, buy gasoline, textbooks, go to movies and ball games and pay taxes at each activity noted here.
The complaints are crap.
Raoul:
We understand how you feel. Twice. Care to submit a guest column, maybe using some higher-brow language? Let us know.
Richard – I’m the third generation of my family to benefit from California’s exceptional, and exceptionally affordable, public higher education program. I’m also the third generation of my family to repay the investment that California’s taxpayers made in me by staying, paying taxes, raising a family and spending my hard earned dollars right here. This bill seeks to encourage more of the same from our veterans, a modest cost with a likely return on investment targeted toward a population that knows how to buckle down and work hard. Your opposition to it is utterly baffling and is speaks volumes about your party’s dismal present and worse future in this state.
Raoul, by your logic, we should provide in-state tuition subsidies to ALL out of state students attending CA public colleges. Stimulate the CA economy! Yeah, that stimulate thingy has been working out SOOOO well.
The worst type of crime is: Republican on Republican crime.
Lets attack all the wasteful spending of millions and billions.
I applaud Assemblymember Chavez for following his heart, this would cost the state what? Thousands? Lets look at it this way, once they graduate and start making more money those REPUBLICANS will be better able to contribute to society, economy, campaigns, etc. I feel like we are buying political capital and goodwill for pennies on the dollar.
With regards to ‘in-state’ tuition. The way I see it, if they are here, they are working and thus paying taxes, taxes that go to education. We are talking about the brave men and women that are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for our values and freedoms. They are the best we have in the country.
If this becomes a magnet for smart, disciplined people with a work ethic who want higher education, that is GREAT!!! California needs more of them… to pay for all the leeches.
The only thing we need to worry as Republicans is how we are going to win the rest of the decade, how do we groom the next generation of Republican Leaders, how do we recruit more voters, etc.
Author
Hector says “if they [veterans] are here, they are working and they pay taxes.” REALLY? If they are full-time students, they probably are NOT working more than a few hours a week (if that), and, while they will pay some trifling amount of sales tax, they will pay little or no state income tax.
More important, this bill is designed to get more vets in other states to come here for our low cost/free college education. We can’t make them stay after they graduate.
Don’t we have enough qualified college applicants already — applicants who already live here and whose parents pay high taxes for our colleges?
Again, by Hector’s logic, we should subsidize ALL out of state students. Indeed, maybe we should charge them an even LOWER tuition than in-state students!
You are correct — it will cost us thousands — PER STUDENT. PER YEAR. In-state students pay far less than half the cost of their CA college education.
MOST IMPORTANT: It’s a bad sign when a GOP legislator goes to Sacramento and his first significant effort is to INCREASE spending and taxpayer subsidies. Why elect such Republicans in safe Republican districts?
As I see it, fiscal frugality is the only real reason to elect GOP reps to office. If GOP legislators are not serious about reining in government spending, they should first be chastised, and later (assuming the pattern continues) replaced via the ballot box.
Wanting the state to pay for Veterans’ benefits is fundamentally flawed. Just as California should not be expected to write checks for Afghanistan troops’ supplies or predator drones. They are commendable people, and citizens should be encouraged to voluntarily support them, but it’s the Federal Government’s role to spend taxpayer money on them, not California’s.
I don’t buy the “Return on investment” argument either, although it’s perhaps the most credible of the complaints (the immigration comment doesn’t make ANY sense). If the ROR was positive on such things, private firms in California should be recruiting these folks to come here. Additionally, if such statements were true, states that offered the most subsidies, would see the lowest deficits, when quite the opposite is true.
That said, I would agree with Brady that this isn’t the worst legislation to hit Sacramento. It’s not good, but in the grand scheme of things there are a lot worse items to be focused on. It is a tens of millions of dollars issue, when the state needs to be focusing on billion dollar issues.
I think the whole point of Richard’s original post wasn’t to highlight this modestly bad legislation as the end of California, but rather brag about declaring that Hodges would have been a better choice than Chavez.
Riders are right. Attracting veterans to California is a great idea, and there are lots of ways to do it. Giving out freebies to them isn’t the right way to go about it. Here would be some far more effective methods:
Repeal AB32 — lowers upcoming utility cost increases and decreases the chances of less businesses leaving for other states.
Scrap HSR, reign in spending and in turn lower taxes — our nation leading sales tax and our highly progressive income taxes keep away productive people and productive business.
Remove the crippling bureaucracy California imposes on businesses. We have some four hundred business oversight agencies when the national average is like 50.
Veterans aren’t dumb, and a couple bucks for tuition isn’t going to offset the high taxes, lack of employment, and high cost of living. If we focus on fixing those elements of California, we’ll attract productive military people as well as civilians. And yes, Hodges knows that.
Hell the democratic controlled legislature has neutered the state GOP’s ability to reduce subsidies. Every dollar spent on the state budget that supports GOP sympathetic constituencies is one dollar less available to democratic friendly constituencies.
Here’s what this law will NOT do: influence anyone to go to school in California.
Nobody is going to benefit from this. It’s a total waste of time. The first year of out-of-state tuition isn’t the reason vets leave CA and getting in-state tuition their first year without actually being a resident won’t influence vets to come here or stay.
Our cost of living is too high for young adults. Our laws are too oppressive to appeal to veterans who just spent years fighting to defend the Constitution that Democrats in Sacramento routinely use as litter box lining. Our taxes are way too high.
And this won’t attract a single voter to the Republican Party because even if I am wrong and this program is wildly successful, nobody is going to remember who did it. The people who will remember? The other side who want to point out hypocrisy because it appears we are saying it is ok for us to give government handouts, but when the other side does, it is socialism.
Stop with the gimmicks. Balance the budget. Lower taxes. Allow more liberty and freedom. Create an environment where veterans can start a business without having to cut through miles of red tape and regulation. And work on a tax code that allows businesses to afford to hire vets.
Chavez’s action is typical RINO (Republican in name only) subterfuge – acting like a Democrat in the hope of passing feel-good legislation under cover of the Public Good, while using other people’s money. Rocky, we just can’t afford it. Every new state program increases the debt burden on our grandchildren. Republicans must be the adult influence in the legislature.
john
But the adults have no control over the state legislature. Many pragmatic Republicans such as Nathan Fletcher, Bruce Henderson and Steve Castaneda understand this. Using the phrase RINO turns away moderates, left and right alike. The situation sucks. But sometimes you have to eat your own limb in order to survive.
Author
Joe, don’t be lumping Bruce Henderson with Nathan Fletcher. Unlike Nathan, Bruce was and IS a solid fiscal conservative. That’s why the Dems moved Heaven and Earth to get him off the city council after only one term — and in the following few years our city raced into the exploding pension Ponzi scheme.
If you don’t like RINO, suggest a different term. But the point remains the same — if we elect “Democat Lite” Republicans, what’s the point? Slightly slowing the train barreling down the rails to disaster? I think not.
One COULD argue for such a wussy GOP choice in a “competitive district,” but most legislative districts today are firmly gerrymandered so that one party is assured the winning spot. Given that situation (Rocky’s district), it only makes good sense for us to pick the Republican with the stiffest spine — the one most ardent about fiscal sanity. Sadly, in Rocky’s case, we failed to do that.
RR said it first. Bruce Henderson? In what universe was he a moderate?
I thought we disliked Nathan because he was a liar? Not because he was a moderate?
I musta missed a memo.
Author
Michael — Among other things, Nathan was quite reluctant to actively support opposition to the Prop D San Diego city sales tax. He took no position on state Prop 1A, the extension of the state’s “temporary” tax increases (almost all GOP Assembly folks opposed it).
But it turns out that “moderate” is too kind a term to describe today’s Nathan Fletcher. He recently endorsed county labor boss Lorena Gonzalez for CA State Assembly.
Moderate, my ars!
Author
I always thought crusty old Wyoming U.S. Senator Malcolm Wallop said it best in his farewell speech to his colleagues:
[too often] “The difference between the Democrats and Republicans is that if the Democrats proposed a bill to burn down the White House, the GOP would say no and offer an amendment that would phase the program in over three years.”
Wallop was the kind of candidate we should be electing. The GOP reps he disdains should not.
Richard
This is what we are up against in this state when it comes to winning the hearts and minds of California voters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApskzEmCX9I&list=UUzUV5283-l5c0oKRtyenj6Q&index=3
Preaching conservative ideology hasn’t and won’t win those voters over, and there are too many of them out there to ignore.
My idea for a replacement for the phrase RINO would be Non-Establishment Republicans (NERs). Because when the pro-choice Pete Wilson and pro-gay marriage Carl DeMaio and Dick Cheney are not called RINOs, then what is a RINO?
As for Rocky Chavez. I would never call a former Marine Colonel a wuss or lacking a stiff spine, let alone one who spent 30 years in the corp. This line runs the risk of irritating a military constituency we cannot afford to loose.
Author
As you may know Joe, I’m NOT a social conservative — FAR from it. I’m more liberal than liberals on personal freedoms (not saying much, as today’s leading liberals have become bigger nanny’s [actually ninnies] than Republicans).
I don’t think that sort of criteria is crucial to being a Republican. Of course, some disagree.
But being FISCALLY conservative IS crucial. If we don’t have that to offer voters, we have NOTHING to offer. If I thought otherwise, I would never have reregistered GOP.
Serving in the military is of course honorable. I served a stint in the navy myself. But being in the service does not speak to one’s positions on political and economic matters — let alone the STRENGTH of one’s commitments to such positions.
Oddly enough, I like Rocky, based on brief meetings. I actually like a number of liberals, come to think of it. But should I support them politically, or point out their transgressions where apparent?
I go with choice Bravo.
I’m here to help. Think of me as your government.
Richard
Actually, my knowledge of you is limited. I run a small business in the private sector where today I spent my day working and talking about the NFL draft. That vast majority of voters like those I showed in the link. They see you guys as an irritant, and don’t care about this stuff at all. They also feel your disdain for them.
So the benchmark for not being a RINO (as you say). is fiscal conservatism? I believe there are many Hispanics within California’s ethnic majority who are socially conservative but fiscally liberal. Are we to ignore and exclude them too?
joe the small business owner:
You sound like you either are happy with big government and onerous taxation or you just do not have a clue as to how to get rid of either. Instead of giving a Marine who became a politician by choice and who makes bad fiscal decisions by choice a free ride you should give him a kick in the back side. Only two things get the attention of a politician: 1. Can you help me? 2. Can you hurt me? The latter is most important by far. They love making a living spending other peoples money. It beats the hell out of working for a living.
Go ahead make it easier for (soon to be Democrat) Nathan Fletcher to pick up votes by his fellow Marines by opposing benefits to veterans.
“I’m here to help. Think of me as your government.”
Okay, that made my day. I needed a laugh
Joe, Hispanics are WELCOME into the GOP. But if they are fiscally liberal, they should not be supported for public office. Do you not grasp the disctinction? I’m amazed that you think otherwise.
Consider this: If a Democrat candidate (of whatever demographic) who was great on Democrat social issues, but called for ending government payroll deduction for union dues, privatizing more government functions, reducing government pensions, lowering public employee salaries to reflect supply and demand — and lowering taxes, what do you suppose are the chances they would be supported by the Democratic Party? Do you think the Dems SHOULD support such a candidate?
Joe, you are a hypocrite. Granted, as you point out, an uninformed hypocrite, but a hypocrite nevertheless.
joe the small business owner:
The Nathan Fletchers of the political world will always trump your clever out maneuvering bribery of the constituency by out bidding you. If your creed is different from theirs, figure out how to educate the constituency as to the validity of your creed and how to lead them to take action by voting for your creed. If your creed is only different from theirs by degree then forget it. Why should they cast a vote for your watered down version when they can have the real thing?
Just to add some “facts” to the discussion…..
A) The way the residency requirement worked (at least 3-4 years ago when I last had to pay attention) would provide that any vet stationed LAST in California would likely meet residency requirements. The rules at that time required you to have lived in the state for 364 days and not be claimed as a dependent on someone elses taxes.
B) I do not know how this would impact vets either deployed overseas or on a ship deployment out of San Diego.
C) But where it would “screw” the vet is if, for example, they had been based in California and, during their last year, they had orders to an assignment out-of-state (for example, a Marine at Miramar whose last 6 months were done at Yuma since their residency was in Arizona for that time frame.
I have no strong opinions either way on the Assemblymember’s bill. I do think we are best off when we debate more from “facts” than not.
Richard
This might surprise you. But in principle I agree with you. But your arguments here are obsolete in this post Obama state, where narcissism and entitlement reign high over rugged individualism. If Jim Brulte and others ask social conservatives to compromise in order to win elections. What makes you think that they will abide when they see hard line fiscals such as yourself as the obstacle to winning the Hispanic vote?
Oh gee, here I am again. Boarding up my desert abode. Eagerly awaiting my cash offer on a couple acres of land in Cuyamaca Woods. Property owned in San Diego County is so far superior to most other counties in California.
Ekard guiding Filner, as he did with Roberts will be stellar. Some river property in Kern County will complete my goal of land ownership in California. Soon baby my residence will be zip code Idaho.
Swabbies and Political hacks give me heartburn. One must now savor the sweet moments with Herb Klein, Jack Murphy, Ira Copley, and General Krulak.
Gentlemen, this is the California Republic, love it or leave it. You can always come back.
Joe, you’re the only guy I’ve ever heard who thought being fiscally conservative would alienate the Hispanic vote. Opposing tax increases turns off minorities? You serious??
In the REAL world, our strident anti-immigrant, deport-the-illegal-alien GOP contingent is what alienates Hispanics from the party. I’m not in that contingent.
Michael Erl, I LOVE the land of California. Just don’t care much for the GOVERNMENTS of California.
For you, they are the same (I assume you are at the trough). For folks like me (most of the people on this board), they are not.
I’m not leaving. At least, not without a fight.
Besides, I can’t leave. It would make too many of you progressives deliriously happy.
Sorry to hear you so dislike Navy personnel. I suggest YOU leave California — or at least this area, where evil navy swabbies — active discharged, or retired — are concentrated. No WONDER you post anonymously!
Richard
If Hispanics do not feel entitled, there would have not been the furor of prop 187. They resent the wealthy and see Republicans as not ‘paying their fair share.” Immigration has something to do with it. But not exclusively. Entitlements and freebies drive illegal immigration. Whites have wealth. (Even amongst Mexican nationals) Most south of the 94 don’t. They want it. Hispanic Democrats promise it. Wealthy Republicans tell them to work for it. If you were them who would you vote for. It sucks but its reality.
Author
So, Joe, to compete for the Hispanic vote, we should offer them bigger subsidies (and higher taxes that fall primarily on evil whites and Asians) than the Dems offer? Is THAT the way the GOP is going to win the Hispanic vote? Oh my.
To what point? Why bother?
That, or institute a radically better marketting and pr campaign. Because currently, what you are selling. They ain’t buyin’
Joe, “better marketing” is always welcome. But you’re offering “try harder” advice that presents nothing of substance.
Hispanics “ain’t buying” because of the GOP’s perceived xenophobia and racism. Real, imagined, or someplace in between — such perceptions are everything.
Hispanics are NOT rejecting the GOP because of our fiscal policies. The other matters are the driving force in their decisions.
For those who are rejecting the GOP because we support fiscal sanity (and there are many in every demographic), then so be it. We can’t please everyone just to win — this ain’t high school football. The goal is to change the direction of our country — not just to bump up the won-loss record.
To change the GOP into Democrat Lite is the wrong path — and pointless.
If social conservatives are asked to compromise their positions to attract more voters … it is not unreasonable that fiscals do their share of compromising.
Not that it matters. This party has no power to promote or defend its fiscal positions.
Author
You seem to want the CA GOP to become Democrat Lite. But be aware that THIRTY of the states’ governorships are in GOP hands. MOST of those states’ legislatures are also controlled by the Republicans.
The GOP is still a major force in national politics. Remember who controls the House.
We California Republicans should stick to our guns (in more ways than one). You can wuss out in taxes and spending if you like to win a few more elections. I choose not to go down that path.
BTW, the GOP DOES have a way to promote its fiscal positions — the proposition system. The Dems controlled BOTH CA state legislative houses when in 1978 Prop 13 was passed by 65% of the voters. The same was true when in 1982 when over 62% of the voters all but did away with the California inheritance and gift taxes. Ditto in 1988 when the Gann spending limit prop was passed with over 61% of the voters supporting the measure. MOST state tax increases on the ballot fail.
I suspect you would have opposed the GOP supporting such “strident” measures. You badly misgauge the voter support for controlling taxes and spending.
If it’s wins the GOP wants, first and foremost, above all else, then everyone should just register Democrat and it would guarantee many wins for a bunch of former Republicans. That’s a lot easier than message and education.