Show summary Hide summary
Steven Greenhut, western region director for the R Street Institute and a former California columnist for the Union-Tribune, argues in a recent column that California and national politics are suffering from regulatory excess, partisan inconsistency and a weakening of constitutional limits. His piece touches on a wide range of topics—from state land-use rules and pension reform to AI regulation, surveillance and the direction of the Republican Party—and frames many developments as the product of policy overreach or political theater.
State regulation, agencies and fiscal strain
Greenhut contends that California’s regulatory apparatus often produces costly delays and gives special interests tools to block projects they oppose, citing the California Environmental Quality Act as an example. He also describes some ballot measures and new requirements, such as those tied to Proposition 39, as unnecessary intrusions rather than productive reforms. Larger agencies and bigger budgets, he writes, do not automatically make government more effective and can instead entrench dysfunctional practices.
Federal Reserve’s FOMC leaves benchmark interest rate unchanged
Buttigieg backs independent candidate over Democratic pick in Montana Senate bid
On fiscal matters, Greenhut credits pension changes enacted in 2011 with averting a deeper fiscal crisis for taxpayers, while warning that some public-sector unions are now pushing to reverse those reforms. He also highlights complaints from local governments about budget shortfalls and points to state policy choices—such as a transfer tax on high-value real estate transactions—that, he argues, can reduce housing supply and discourage new construction.
Housing, local control and political contradiction
Greenhut notes what he describes as a tension among conservatives who demand local control over housing policy while tolerating state-imposed limits on when local governments can raise taxes. He frames this as a broader inconsistency in appeals to limited government, and warns that self-styled advocates of small government should be critical of policies that expand executive discretion or create large, discretionary funds—citing, for example, his objection to what he calls a $1.8 billion slush fund associated with the Trump administration.
Technology, surveillance and AI
Turning to technology, Greenhut cautions that heavy-handed or poorly designed rules aimed at slowing artificial intelligence development are more likely to prompt lawsuits than to produce useful safety gains, and could impede beneficial AI applications in health care, education and infrastructure. He raises civil-liberty concerns about commercial surveillance systems, echoing the American Civil Liberties Union’s warning that, in jurisdictions that deploy so-called Flock cameras, “they are tracking, logging and sharing your movements without a warrant,” and he urges scrutiny of such systems’ impact on privacy.
National politics and the rightward drift
Much of Greenhut’s column is devoted to national partisan dynamics. He criticizes what he describes as a MAGA-ified Republican Party that prizes winning over fairness, argues that some conservative factions have embraced large-government tactics on issues such as immigration enforcement, and calls out what he sees as authoritarian tendencies in trade rhetoric and policy proposals. He also disputes claims of a nationwide “voting crisis” and challenges alarmist talk about a GOP-driven crime wave, saying that facts do not support those feelings.
On free speech and partisanship, Greenhut contends that some conservative leaders have adopted a double standard—demanding free expression when it suits them while trying to silence opposing views—and he urges a consistent application of constitutional limits regardless of which party controls the levers of power.
Final prescription
Throughout, Greenhut frames his arguments around a preference for limited, accountable government and warns against public-policy gestures that are performative rather than effective. He invokes Alexis de Tocqueville to underscore a civic concern about authoritarian impulses: “A man’s admiration for absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for those around him,” and uses the aphorism to suggest that preserving constitutional limits and skepticism of centralized power should cross partisan lines.
These views appear in Greenhut’s recent column; he is identified in the piece as western region director for the R Street Institute and was previously the Union-Tribune’s California columnist. The column surveys multiple policy debates in California and nationally and presents a consistent, opinionated case for smaller, more accountable government and restraint in both regulation and rhetoric.
