# Jarvis: The Man and His Tax Cuts **URL:** **By** David Lampo **Published:** April 2, 1980 --- “The Proposition 13 campaign was truly a grass-roots movement.” _I’m Mad As Hell_, by Howard Jarvis (with Robert Pack). Times Books, 303 pp., $9.95. Anyone who was in California on election day, June 6, 1978, will never forget it. It was one of the most exciting and important days in California—even national —history. For on that day, the voters of California passed Proposition 13 by an overwhelming margin, and the modern tax revolt, which had been smolder-ing for a long time, finally exploded. Proposition 13 cut California property taxes by an average of 57 percent; and the marvelous thing was that, unlike so many other so-called tax reform measures, it didn’t merely replace the lost revenues with increases in other taxes. In fact, 13 mandated that any proposed new taxes had to be approved by two-thirds of the voters, which for practical purposes virtually insured that there’d be no new taxes. Proposition 13 was nothing less than radical tax reduction, which is why so many libertarians all over the state worked so hard for its passage. Even before it qualified for the ballot, Libertarian Party Presidential nominee Ed Clark (then in his race for the Governorship of California) spoke out in favor of 13 in dozens of speeches throughout the state. The massive opposition which arrayed itself against Proposition 13 was a veritable who’s who of California government and big business. The battle lines were drawn, in effect, between those two classes which John C. Calhoun described so well as the taxpayers and the tax-consumers. The latter group, including everyone from Bank of America (which holds billions of dollars in municipal bonds) to the public employee unions, waged an hysterical and deceitful campaign, lying about everything from the size of the state budget surplus to the effects Proposition 13 would allegedly have on employment in the state. Yet the more lies they spewed forth, the more determined taxpayers seemed to become to vote for their _own_ interests for a change, rather than for those of the special interests. An analysis of campaign contributions in the election reveals just who those special interests were. More than one hundred corporations donated $200 or more to defeat 13: Atlantic Rich-field, Bank of America, and Pacific Mutual Life contributed $25,000 each; Rockwell International, Bechtel Corporation, U.S. Steel, Coca Cola, and 20th Century Fox, among others, contributed lesser amounts. Only _two_ corporations contributed $200 or more in _support_ of Proposition 13— an ironic fact, in light of the often repeated charge that the big beneficiaries of 13 would be big businesses. In reality, it was every homeowner in the state who benefited the most; it was homeowners who had the most to lose if 13 failed—their homes. The Proposition 13 campaign was truly a grassroots movement. The co-author of Proposition 13, and certainly the most animated force behind it, was Howard Jarvis, a Southern California businessman and anti-tax activist. _I’m Mad As Hell_ is Jarvis’s recounting of the Proposition 13 campaign and his blueprint for what he believes has to be done at the federal level to cut taxes nationally and end inflation. Although _I’m Mad As Hell_ was written with the assistance of a professional writer, Jarvis’s unique verbal style and brashness come through loud and clear on its every page. And although every anti-tax activist would benefit from reading the book, it will be especially gratifying to those of us who were involved in the campaign: reliving the immense emotional satisfaction of 13’s victory is sheer pleasure. The Proposition 13 campaign was the first time in many years that the actual desirability of government’s much touted “essential services” was called into question. Everything from police and fire protection to the public schools suddenly came under public scrutiny and was found wanting. Jarvis cites several examples of the pervasive anti-government mood that characterized the campaign. > “During the campaign,” he writes, “I debated a school superintendent in southern California. He said, ‘Why, if you pass 13, we’ll have to shut down the schools.’ And everybody stood up and clapped. They wanted the damn schools shut down; even Richard Reeves wrote in that _Esquire_ article of his that Paul Priolo, the Republican leader in the Assembly, said ‘Whenever I tell an audience that Jarvis will bring local government to a halt, all I see is smiling faces.’ ” Proposition 13’s victory proved once and for all that radical political change is possible, not just in the distant future, but here and now, if those who want it will simply work hard enough to achieve it. Already 13 has inspired people all over the country to become active in the tax revolt and has spawned similar measures on other state ballots, many of them successful. Howard Jarvis, meanwhile, never stops fighting for what he believes. A second Jarvis Initiative, Proposition 9, will appear on the June 1980 primary ballot in California. Dubbed “Jaws II,” it would cut the state income tax rates in half, which would mean a loss in revenues to the state of about $5-billion the first year, and just over $4- billion per year thereafter. (Jarvis estimates the projected loss at only $3.2- billion due to the tax revenue which would be generated by the increased private economic growth he expects to follow the tax cut.) Jarvis II really continues the work that Proposition 13 began. As soon as 13 passed two years ago, local government officials traveled to Sacramento in droves, hats-in-hand. State “bailout” money has been between $4-billion and $5-billion per year since then. The education establishment feels that its empire is once again threatened (which it is) and it will be the real force behind whatever effort is mounted to defeat Proposition 9. The Governor’s staff, believing Jarvis II will pass, has already prepared an alternative budget, and the Governor himself has stated that should the initiative pass, he will seek $5-billion worth of spending cuts rather than $5-billion worth of increases in other state taxes to accomodate it. Jerry Brown knows a bandwagon when he sees one. Immediately after his Proposition 13 victory, Jarvis founded a national organization called The American Tax Reduction Movement. Its goal is to win reform of the federal tax laws—specifically, a cut in federal taxes of $50-billion and in federal spending of $100-billion, both over a four-year period. The tax cut would include a 25 percent reduction in personal income taxes and a reduction in the capital gains tax to a flat 15 percent. That translates into a spending cut of only $2.5- billion per year — a very modest beginning, to be sure. The Jarvis bill, H.R. 1000, will, happily, have to compete with a growing number of proposals in Washington to get a handle on federal spending and Federal taxes. Rival measures such as the Kemp-Roth bill, which would cut income taxes by one-third over three years, and the National Taxpayers’ Union’s balanced budget amendment also have some support in Congress. Jarvis himself doesn’t think much of the balanced budget amendment. In an interview in _The Libertarian Review_ (June 1979) he stated, > “I think it’s crazy. A balanced budget doesn’t necessarily mean any cut in taxes. If they’re spending $100-billion this year, they can balance the budget by collecting new taxes and bringing in $100-billion. Next year they can decide to spend $200-billion and raise the taxes again so they can collect $200-billion. The people in this country want a tax cut. In the second place, I think it would be ten years at least before you could get any federal constitutional amendment into effect in the United States, and we can’t wait that long. We’ve got to do something sooner. Only in the event that we can’t force Congress to do what it ought to do should we go for a federal constitutional amendment. Jarvis is quite right; a balanced budget doesn’t get is the beginning of a five-year plan to add an incredible $90-billion onto the Pentagon budget by 1985. In short, getting reform at the federal level is going to be a hell of a lot tougher than it was in California. If anybody can do it, though, it’s probably Howard Jarvis. Jarvis is by no means a libertarian, though he has expressed a good deal of admiration for Ed Clark and the Libertarian Party. In _I’m Mad As Hell_, he sums up his political philosophy this way: “People universally want taxes and services cut because government is providing them with services they don’t want . . . The problem is that property taxes has been used to pay for the special interests . . . such as social workers, food stamp recipients, and aid to dependent children programs—all of these people have lobbies of their own. They are the ones who want more services, not the people who pay the bills.” Unfortunately, but of course, Jarvis has the usual conservative blindspot where certain other lobbies and recipients of federal largess are concerned: defense contractors and big businesses are the most conspicuous. Whatever his philosophical idio-syncracies, however, all libertarians owe him a great deal. As a folk hero to taxpayers everywhere, Howard Jarvis will be a tremendous asset to the future of the American tax revolt for years to come. David Lampo is a veteran of the Proposition 13 campaign and a member of the national headquarters staff of Students for a Libertarian Society.