The Los Angeles Times, which has been unyielding in its depiction of the recall as a giant hissy fit, and unprofessional in its last-minute airing of charges against the now-governor-elect, is facing not only the usual subscription cancellations but a loss of credibility because of its partisan and hectoring coverage of the race.

Even some conservative elites, such as columnist George Will (whose column is printed on Page 4 of today's Register Commentary section), are in high dither. Writes Will: "California's recall - a riot of millionaires masquerading as a 'revolt of the people' - began with a rich conservative Republican congressman, who could think of no other way he might become governor, financing the gathering of the necessary signatures."

That's not exactly true, given that the recall had long been under way, and was on schedule probably for the March ballot before Darrell Issa's dollars helped qualify it for October. But I do thank Will for reminding us that this was an imperfect revolt.

Perhaps we should have waited around for a perfect one.

Back to the Times. The day after Arnold Schwarzenegger won the race in a landslide, the Times - in all apparent seriousness - gave the man it tried so hard to destroy an outline for the future.

Of course if Der Gropenfuhrer, as one Times columnist graciously called him on Wednesday, puts the plan in place he will instantly become the source of another recall.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. In explaining "How the Engine Derailed," the Times editorial pins California's underlying fiscal dysfunction on several longstanding problems.

The recall has nothing to do with the outgoing governor's lack of leadership, or his commitment to showering special interests with special favors, or a left-leaning Democratic leadership that wants to tax and spend without any limits, or a souring business climate that has caused the state to hemorrhage manufacturing jobs.

It has nothing to do with the problem outlined by state Sen. Tom McClintock, who during his honorable but long-shot candidacy for governor, kept this key point on the table: "In the last four years, inflation and population have grown at a combined rate of 21 percent. Revenues coming into the state's coffers have increased 25 percent. ... We've had a 40 percent increase in state spending in the same period. And it is this rapacity and recklessness that turned a $12 billion surplus into a $35 billion operating deficit in a period of less than two years."

Nope, the problem isn't the spending. The problem is budgetary mechanisms make it too hard for the government to raise taxes every time it overspends its budget.

Problem No. 1, per the Times: term limits. They replaced professional legislators with novices. The pros, you see, were far better at raising taxes in a bipartisan manner, whereas their less-skilled replacements aren't as good at crafting tax-raising bipartisan budget deals.

Another key problem: The two-thirds vote rule. The newspaper calls it a "crippling restriction" that "allows for tyranny by a minority." Had it not been for the two-thirds vote requirement, however, Gov. Davis and the Democratic-dominated Legislature could simply have raised taxes by $38 billion to cover the budget gap. It would have been so easy. Actually, the rule is the ultimate protection by an unprotected majority (taxpayers) from a rapacious minority (state officials).

Next problem: Proposition 13. Never mind that mere mention of reforming it by Schwarzenegger adviser Warren Buffett almost cost the actor the election. This needs to be fixed. How dare the people put limits on property tax increases to protect themselves from being taxed out of their homes? Supporters of Prop. 13 aren't thinking about the hardships this imposes on bureaucrats who must now go to greater lengths to raise taxes, which we all know are too low (no matter how high they get).

To normal, hard-working, middle-class people, the problem is the political class and its zeal for showering influential groups with benefits, courtesy of the California taxpayer. It gets back to McClintock's point: The state has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

To elites, the problem is that the public, which selfishly doesn't want to be taxed at confiscatory rates, keeps revolting. It keeps imposing by initiative what state leaders won't do: namely, place restrictions on taxation and remove the most craven politicians from power.

It's not just the restrictions on taxation that bother the elites, it's the nerve of the peons for sticking up for their money and freedoms. Columnist Will disses the two-thirds supermajority, but he mainly seems angered by the presumptuousness of the public.

How dare these spoiled brats engage in "direct democracy," something the founders frowned upon. I agree that representative democracy is generally a better approach, but what does a public do when liberty-hating zealots control every lever of power?

Should we just sit back and take it? Direct democracy isn't ideal. But it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

Notice that attacks on the recall almost always drip with condescension. Will, writing from his home somewhere outside California, says "the people deserve to get what they demand. Don't they?"

To Peter King, in his Times column on Wednesday, the recall is the result of ungrateful Californians, who, instead of enjoying the sun and palm trees, are protesting "the car tax, which is used to finance firehouses, libraries and other local government endeavors," and "a new law that permits undocumented field hands, who make up the majority of the state's farm labor force, to obtain driver's licenses."

We're just a bunch of babies, you see. As long as the weather is nice, we ought to allow our earnings to be confiscated and our lives to be controlled by King's political allies. We're racists, too. All this anger, sparked I presume by the fascists on talk radio, is "aimed at the latest wave of new Californians," King intones. (Forget that nearly half of Latino voters voted yes on the recall.)

Now you understand. This recall had absolutely nothing to do with fiscal mismanagement, or a hostile regulatory climate that limits individual freedoms and punishes businesses, or a governor and Legislature completely controlled by some of the most aggressive special interests (unions, trial lawyers, Indian casinos), who claim to represent the "little guy" but seem mainly to fill their own pockets with cash.

Anger at the tripled car tax has nothing to do with people, already pinched by tough economic times, who don't want to spend hundreds of dollars more a year to pay for governments that neglect basic responsibilities yet shower their public-employee union workers with outrageously generous benefits. The license issue isn't about the rule of law or about pandering to ethnic groups. It's about racism and childish behavior. And rich guys wanting to be governor.

Fortunately, the governor-elect got a good taste right before the election of what the elite media are after (his hide) and should take their advice with as much seriousness as it deserves.