In theory the requirement in California to obtain the consent of two-thirds of the legislature to vote for a budget sounds like an idea that would promote consensus building and bipartisanship. I wish I could say that was in the intent, but it was more mundane. The intent was to prevent tax increases from being enacted. For many years it has accomplished exactly that; however as time has gone on, it has exacted a higher and higher price. It has prevented the type of wholesale structural changes that we need for reform to take place.
It has led to gridlock, forcing budget after budget to be adopted late. It has led to unnecessary delay, wasted time, and worse yet, in a crisis outright paralysis. An early February Public Policy Institute of California survey showed that for the first time, a majority of Californians supported altering the two-thirds vote requirement to require a 55% vote. That was before our latest drama with the budget.
For years Democrats have wanted to take it on. Now for the first time they are serious about doing so. The only question is how soon they do it and whether or not there is finally the political will for it to succeed.
At the core, were Republicans who seemingly were willing to plunge California into fiscal crisis rather than vote for a tax increase that their own leadership said they had no choice but to support because it was the only way to balance the budget. At which point, at least in the Senate, they got rid of their leadership and elected a more intractable leader.
It was a process that saw one Senator exact a high price in order to finally secure his, the 27th vote in the Senate, and secure the passage of the budget. The price is a constitutional amendment to have an open primary.
Without the two-thirds vote requirement it is clear that the open primary issue would have never come forward. Speaker Karen Bass at the post-budget vote press conference early Thursday morning expressed regret that it came forward in the manner that it did without the kind of public process she would have preferred.
“I will tell you that none of us felt very comfortable with putting a bill forward like the open primary because it was never heard by a committee, there was no public process, that’s not the way we like to do business. But the fact of the matter is that just represents one of the many many many difficult choices that we made over these last few weeks.”
She continued:
“If we didn’t have the two-thirds requirement to pass the budget tonight’s open primary issue would not have even been a concern. We would have passed a budget a long time ago. But you very well know that we needed one more Republican vote in order to pass this budget. And the requirement for that vote was to pass this bill.”
Indeed both Speaker Bass as well as Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg seem ready to lead the effort to repeal the two-thirds vote requirement.
As Pro Tem Steinberg said:
“The answer in my view is to take this two-thirds supermajority requirement. We are one of three states in the country that allows a small minority of members to hold up the progress…. It doesn’t really work for California; it worked this time barely because of the magnitude of the crisis… We need to take the question this two-thirds supermajority to the ballot. I feel even stronger now than I did when I started on December 1.”
Speaker Karen Bass was also ready for the two-thirds requirement to go.
“One of the things I want to be voting on, if not in 09, then 2010, and that’s the removal of the 2/3rds vote requirement so that California can be like 47 other states in the union. So the next time when we have a deficit like this we won’t go months and months for negotiations.”
The big problem is that two-thirds vote requirement does not produce consensus building, but rather political blackmail, horse trading, quid pro quo, and it often requires the passage of pork in order to secure votes.
To the hold outs get the spoils. Senator Lou Correa is getting an extra $140 million in property tax revenue for Orange County over the next two years and $50 million after that. You see, Orange County happens to have the second lowest per capita property tax revenue in the state. You know who has the lowest? YOLO COUNTY.
However Yolo County is not getting that help, despite a $22 million deficit for 2009-10 in a budget of $66 million. Why is Yolo County not getting that help? Because Senator Lois Wolk and Assemblywoman Mariko Yamada did not blackmail the Democratic leadership and holdout for pork or other promises.
Senator Correa was not alone. Senator Ashburn, one of three Republican votes got a $10,000 tax credit to people who buy new homes.
And of course it is well known about all the things that Senator Maldonado got in exchange for his vote. There is nothing new about this though.
There is concern that the deal cut with Senator Maldonado to enable the budget to be passed sets a bad precedent. That was downplayed to a large degree. Speaker Bass argued that these types of things always happen, although it is more likely to be a specific project or even policy.
“Every year the budget is debated and frankly at the end of every session there’s last minute horse trading. Until we get rid of the two-thirds vote requirement we will be doing the same thing.”
Senator Steinberg:
“I don’t like it and it was an unpleasant part of the process, but I’ll tell you what the answer is. The answer in my view is to take this two-thirds supermajority requirement.”
That movement is already underfoot.
The Courage Campaign has already launched a campaign to end the two-thids vote.
“The rule requiring a 2/3rds vote of the legislature to pass a budget allowed a small cabal of extremist Republicans led by Senator Abel Maldonado to hold the state hostage to their demands, as they have done year after year. As Rachel Maddow explained on her show, this is part of a pattern of Republican obstruction across America.”
They are not alone. Word is the Democrats in the legislature have already hired consultants to spearhead the initiative drive.
The League of California Cities recently put out a publication where the focus was on the two-thirds vote requirements. The side in favor of retaining the two-thirds requirement is represented by Assemblyman Roger Niello. At least give him credit, he was one of the three in the Assembly to vote for the bill.
John Laird, an Assemblymember and former League of California Cities board member writes for the opposing side.
One of the problems hanging over the process is the fact that Republicans who vote for these budgets put themselves in electoral jeopardy:
“After a 2001 budget in which four Assembly Republicans joined all Democrats in approving a budget, for various reasons not one of those Republican legislators returned after the next election. That experience hangs over every budget.”
Indeed this time we saw a conservative blogger put Republicans heads on the pike, threats from Rush Limbaugh, and the very real possibility of recall for Assemblyman Anthony Adams.
The Redlands Daily Facts reports:
Sen. Robert Dutton on Friday asked state Assemblyman Anthony Adams to resign as chairman of the San Bernardino County Republican Party after Adams voted in favor of nearly $13 million in temporary tax hikes.
…
“Anthony Adams has called Senate Republicans `recalcitrant’ because they won’t support a budget proposal that raises taxes on hard-working California families by more than $13 billion,” Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga, said in a prepared statement Friday. “It’s clear that Assemblyman Adams doesn’t represent the core values of the Republican Party and I am calling on him to immediately resign as chair of the San Bernardino Republican Party.”
As the Sacramento Bee reported in the Capitol Alerts, he knows this is probably the end of his political career :
Republican Assemblyman Anthony Adams cast his “aye” budget vote at dawn today with full knowledge that, as he has said, “this will probably be the end of a political career for me.”
…
“I think it’s important that people know that my caucus is supportive — that I’m not making any decision lightly,” Adams said on his way into a GOP member’s office Wednesday. “I’m also not making a decision outside the realm of our caucus. I’m not out there by myself or trying to engage in something that does not have the support of my caucus.”
The Bee article continues:
A recall effort against him is already afoot.
The 38-year old lawmaker has been in anti-tax advocates’ crosshairs ever since a Sacramento Bee story on Jan. 22 and an appearance later that day on the John and Ken radio show in Southern California. The shock jocks were blasting Republicans, including Adams, for telling The Bee that taxes were on the table in budget talks.
“I dare with the full knowledge that this will probably be the end of a political career for me,” Adams told the radio duo. “But the fact of the matter is California is in a place where they need people who are willing to sacrifice their own personal agenda for what’s right.”
The radio hosts responded by posting an image of Adams’ decapitated head on a stick on their Web site.
Truth be told, Anthony Adams is much closer to a hero in the budget battle than Abel Maldonado ever was. He never tried to hijack the process or hold the state for ransom. Instead, he did what he believed he needed to do to protect the state of California and exercise his constitutional duties as an elected official. For that he is probably looking at the end of his political career.
This weekend it is reported that at the Republican’s state convention that the six Republican lawmakers will face the possibility of censure by their own political party.
Who would want to subject themselves to that? Who will do so in the future the next time a budget fight comes down and the legislators have to grapple with unpleasant choices? This is not done. There is a possibility that the May revise will be bring even worse news.
The movement is already afoot to repeal the two-thirds vote requirement. On February 18k, 2009, a ballot initiative was already circulating with the California Secretary of State’s webpage to do exactly that.
In fact there are two of them.
The language of the first:
“STATE BUDGET. REPEAL OF TWO-THIRDS LEGISLATIVE VOTE REQUIREMENT. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Lowers the legislative vote requirement necessary to pass the state budget, and spending bills related to the budget, from sixty-seven percent (two-thirds) to fifty five percent. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Unknown changes in the content of the annual state budget. Fiscal impact would depend on the composition and actions of future Legislatures. (08-0022.)”
The second one would retain the two-thirds vote requirement for raising property taxes but remove it for the budget.
STATE BUDGET. TAXES. REPEAL OF TWO-THIRDS LEGISLATIVE VOTE REQUIREMENT. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Lowers the legislative vote requirement necessary to pass the state budget, spending bills related to the budget, and budget-related tax increases, from sixty-seven percent (two-thirds) to fifty-five percent. Retains sixty-seven percent (two-thirds) vote requirement for property tax increases. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Unknown state fiscal impacts from lowering the legislative vote requirement for spending and tax increases related to the budget. In some cases, the content of the annual state budget could change and/or state tax revenues could increase. Fiscal impact would depend on the composition and actions of future Legislatures. (08-0023.)
As this process shows us quite clearly, we need to change the system for so many ways. First, in an emergency we get a watered down budget that often does not fix the problems.
Second, it leads to delay. Had we passed this back in September of last year, the tax measures could have gone on the November ballot rather than this year’s May ballot, and the state could have saved the multimillion dollar cost of a special election. Moreover, the delay cost the state billions of dollars, it costs people jobs, it delayed infrastructure projects that will cost money as well.
Third, it leads to political blackmail. It encouraged holdouts to extort prices for their votes. It gave them perks and rewards for holdout and but the people in districts where the legislators did not hold out often need the help just as badly. The process is inherently unfair.
Fourth, it leads to death threats to politicians, usually Republicans, whose career are now threatened for doing the responsible thing.
And just for good measure, Assemblyman Laird mentions another drawback to the two-thirds process.
“As I write this, the budget is almost two months late. The Democratic legislative committees and the governor have long since proposed balanced budgets with some new taxes, none of which include borrowing.
If by the time you read this, there is borrowing in the budget, it is not what the governor or a majority of the Legislature wanted. It will be the two-thirds requirement that will have leveraged it in so the budget process can conclude. To add insult to injury, often the very interests that leverage borrowing into the budget won’t actually vote for the budget — leaving it to the rest of us to approve a budget that includes things we find distasteful.
It’s said the two-thirds requirement protects fiscal responsibility. I think the opposite is true. We got where we are now with the two-thirds requirement. This is no way to run the government of the eighth largest economy in the world. This needs to be changed. There’s a reason 47 other states do not do this — and that their budgets are adopted on time.”
Laird is exactly correct. We do not have fiscal responsibility. We did not pass a responsible budget in September of 2008 and we did not pass one now. We have more borrowing, added pork, we have not fixed the state’s structural problems, we have special measures on the ballot, etc. Nothing even resembling fiscal responsibility occurred due to this process.
There is always talk of ending the two-thirds requirement, this time, it appears that there just might be the political will to do it.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
While I don't appreciate what the Republicans have done to hold up the budget this year, I also think your suggestion is self-serving. We all know that the Democrats dominate the Legislature and that's unlikely to change in this decade or even this century.But if we take the supermajority requirement away, the Democrats will be free to go on the spending frenzies they love. I will pretty much eradicate any power or influence the Republicans have to curb Democrats' abuse. Their purpose as a party will be gone.Nice, self-serving suggestion DPD. Why don't you try coming up with punitive measures that apply to everyone if they don't pass a budget?? In my view, if the Legislators aren't upstanding enough to agree to Maldonado's proposed no pay if no budget they are in no place to propose eliminating the supermajority. Greedy and self-serving people shouldn't be allowed to take over, sorry.
You're forgetting there is still a Governor. Since 1982, a period of now 27 years, 22 of them have had a Republican governor. So to suggest that the Democrats could do whatever they want is false.The other point a Republican raised with me today is that if you eliminate the 2/3rds requirement, the majority party owns the budget, there is no fudging on that point.
I like the current system. It means at least once a year the Democrats have to at least discuss their excesses. For a brief moment there is at least the appearance that they are willing to rein-in their spending. I think dropping the super-majority is fine, if it is matched with a requirement that taxes are permanently capped and borrowing limited.
…Why don't you try coming up with punitive measures that apply to everyone if they don't pass a budget?? In my view, if the Legislators aren't upstanding enough to agree to Maldonado's proposed no pay if no budget they are in no place to propose eliminating the supermajority….They didn't think it was constitutional. Also it wasn't going to solve the problem.
another version of this allows budgets to be majority rule but keeps the two-thirds requirement on raising taxes.
The open primary system is a much better means of ensuring that we get government that represents the people, by providing choices of moderate politicians in the general election that are actually representative of majority of the voters. Today's systems means that only ultra conservative republicans can be nominated in the republican primary and then are they are defeated in a general election with liberal democrats.This state does not need more taxes,more spending and more anti business policies. Those programs and policies are what put us in this mess already, and have people leaving this state in droves.The point David makes about the Republican governors is moot. The governor's position is not strong enough to overrule the democratic legislature. It is the legislature that runs, or doesn't run, this state. And it is the legislature that is root of the problems we face now.
…You're forgetting there is still a Governor. Since 1982, a period of now 27 years, 22 of them have had a Republican governor. So to suggest that the Democrats could do whatever they want is false….Anonymous addressed this. This is nonsense. We've seen how much power Arnold has wielded, DPD. How much is that exactly?…The other point a Republican raised with me today is that if you eliminate the 2/3rds requirement, the majority party owns the budget, there is no fudging on that point….I don't understand this comment. Isn't this obvious? The majority party (Democrats) would own the burdget if it's eliminated and that is the concern….another version of this allows budgets to be majority rule but keeps the two-thirds requirement on raising taxes….Again, nonsense. That's the whole point for the Dems of eliminating the supermajority! Repubs will always go along with cuts, it's taxes that are the rub.
…But if we take the supermajority requirement away, the Democrats will be free to go on the spending frenzies they love….WITH the supermajority requirement, …the Democrats (have already gone) on the spending frenzies they love…. That is most of the reason why we are in such a bad financial condition.If the people of California don't like the fiscal irresponsibility — the people who have regularly approved bonds we cannot afford — then the people of California need to stop electing fiscal liberals and start electing fiscal conservatives.When you have a supermajority, it's harder to hold the Democrats (i.e., the majority party) accountable, because the budget policies which pass are bipartisan. That has not led to greater fiscal conservativism. As far as I can tell, it has led to budgets which pay off some Republican constituencies and all of the Democratic contributors.Regardless of your philosophy on government spending, it seems pretty obvious that in the next 10-15 years (at least), the state government is going to be hurting for cash. If you fear that Democrats (with only a regular majority) will pass budgets with lots of new costly programs, your fears are misguided. They won't have the money to do so.What I think the Democrats (and Gov. Schwarzeneggar) are going to find out is that the tax increases they just passed to cover part of our huge deficit are not going to generate the expected revenues. Higher income Californians are going to move their income out of state — some of them might even move themselves and their companies out of state — and revenues could decline with the higher tax rates.If I'm right about that, that will be another constraint on the …tax-and-spend… liberals, who won't be able to expand the revenue stream to the state, and thus won't be able to fund new programs, while swimming in debt paying for past profligacy.If you want Republicans to have power over the purse in California, then the majority of voters need to elect them. Our system of bipartisan budget-making has not resulted in fiscal responsibility; and it has not led to Democrats being held accountable for fiscal irresponsibility.
We all know that the Democrats dominate the Legislature and that's unlikely to change in this decade or even this century.The Republicans controlled the Assembly in the mid-90's. Curt Pringle was Speaker. It is possible for the Republicans to have statewide appeal, legislatively.
wdf,I think the two big factors working against Republicans winning a majority are 1) demographics and 2) social policies.Latinos (and other non-white groups which always vote Democratic) are growing in numbers, while whites (who make up 95% of Republicans) are shrinking. On the basis of economic philosophy (haves vs. have-nots), perceived racial insensitivity or even hostility, and nativism (esp. regarding immigration policy), the Republican brand largely does not appeal to Latinos. As they grow in numbers, the prospects for Republicans withers.Social politics also works against Republicans. California is not South Carolina. Candidates who are rigidly pro-Life, pro-fundamentalist Christianity, anti-evolution, anti-science, rabidly anti-gay and so on don't win over our relatively liberal populace. Even if an individual Republican in California is moderate or liberal on the social issues, the party is branded by its national attitudes on these subjects to the harm of state Republicans.Thus, if the GOP is to ever win statewide in California, the state Republican Party is going to have to change a lot, and it's going to have to convince Latinos especially, and social liberals to some extent, that it is very different from the national party. That's a tall order. Other than a single movie star who is out of tune with the vast majority of his party, it's been a long time since any Republican has won statewide, and probably will be a very long time before another Republican wins statewide.
Lexican Artist said, …If you want Republicans to have power over the purse in California, then the majority of voters need to elect them. Our system of bipartisan budget-making has not resulted in fiscal responsibility; and it has not led to Democrats being held accountable for fiscal irresponsibility…. I agree, but not with his conclusion. I think that once the 2/3 stupidity comes to an end, Democrats will do what Democrats like to do: Raise taxes for social programs. But I suspect that this will work for only one or two elections: eventually people will get fed up and elect fiscal conservatives, be they Democrat or Republican. Long term, getting rid of 2/3 may be the best thing that has happened to the Republican party since Lincoln.
Great op-ed in the WSJ today
If we end the 2/3rd protection afforded us from Prop 13, it will be gone forever. There will never be a time when it will return to that if we, as voters, go braindead and lower the margin to pass a budget to 55%! Yes, we will have a budget, every year, on time but also with many …new and improved… taxes on top of what we already pay. Keep that in mind before you all get too excited about just having a budget on time–I do not exist to pour more of my hard-earned money into the trough of government!
FAST: …If we end the 2/3rd protection afforded us from Prop 13, it will be gone forever….Prop 13 was passed in 1978. The two-thirds supermajority provision of our constitution dates back to 1933.
11:54 You are 100% correct. It is time to split this State in two and add a 51st State to the Union.
Stan Statham lives!
I can't believe that this blog stated that Lance Armstrong is a DOPER .
…In the early 1990s, Statham, then an assemblyman from Redding, embarked on a quixotic campaign to split California in three….
Absolutely. Separate it down the middle. But then all the water would be in East California.
…In the early 1990s, Statham, then an assemblyman from Redding, embarked on a quixotic campaign to split California in three….
Great argument, David:Just make it easier for our elected …representatives… to increase taxes on everything we purchase and own. Talk about a disaster formula!The more your misguided pro-tax buddies increase our taxes, the less we'll spend. And that will help our City, County or State?You just don't get it. We are already over-taxed, and will retract spending when faced with paying more for less.If you don't believe me, just wait and see what happens when the City and School District try to renew/add more fees and taxes over the next couple of years.We don't need $10 million dollar high-school stadium renovations. We DO need elected officials who recognize that we are all facing fiscal challenges, and that this is the worst possible time to increase our taxes.Two guarantees following the proposed tax increases: (1)Less consumer spending, resulting in even lower sales tax revenues, and (2) a statewide upwelling to elect fiscally-conservative legislators to protect …regular… citizens from tax and spend democrats. In fact, I predict voters will pass a …son of Prop 13… measure to halt tax increases and unbridled City …fee… increases within the next 2-3 years.Guaranteed!
…We don't need $10 million dollar high-school stadium renovations. We DO need elected officials who recognize that we are all facing fiscal challenges, and that this is the worst possible time to increase our taxes….Why don't you run, then?
Don't get rid of the 2/3rds rule. Why don't Democrats and Republicans get off their butts and come to an agreement sooner, instead of 2 months overdue?
good luck. wishful thinking, and not going to happen. California's voters may be out of tune much of the time, and not paying attention, but they will wake up when this issue come to ballot. They can ask theriselves how much worse things would have been were it not for an opposition with at least a small amount of power. We would be facing an even more ridiculous tax increase to help cover the years of orgy spending by the democratic legislature, and their gerrymandered safe members who have no risk of being thrown out unless they sleep with an intern that gets murdered. I do not buy that it would be better without an opposition.
While I don’t appreciate what the Republicans have done to hold up the budget this year, I also think your suggestion is self-serving. We all know that the Democrats dominate the Legislature and that’s unlikely to change in this decade or even this century.But if we take the supermajority requirement away, the Democrats will be free to go on the spending frenzies they love. I will pretty much eradicate any power or influence the Republicans have to curb Democrats’ abuse. Their purpose as a party will be gone.Nice, self-serving suggestion DPD. Why don’t you try coming up with punitive measures that apply to everyone if they don’t pass a budget?? In my view, if the Legislators aren’t upstanding enough to agree to Maldonado’s proposed no pay if no budget they are in no place to propose eliminating the supermajority. Greedy and self-serving people shouldn’t be allowed to take over, sorry.
You’re forgetting there is still a Governor. Since 1982, a period of now 27 years, 22 of them have had a Republican governor. So to suggest that the Democrats could do whatever they want is false.The other point a Republican raised with me today is that if you eliminate the 2/3rds requirement, the majority party owns the budget, there is no fudging on that point.
I like the current system. It means at least once a year the Democrats have to at least discuss their excesses. For a brief moment there is at least the appearance that they are willing to rein-in their spending. I think dropping the super-majority is fine, if it is matched with a requirement that taxes are permanently capped and borrowing limited.
…Why don’t you try coming up with punitive measures that apply to everyone if they don’t pass a budget?? In my view, if the Legislators aren’t upstanding enough to agree to Maldonado’s proposed no pay if no budget they are in no place to propose eliminating the supermajority….They didn’t think it was constitutional. Also it wasn’t going to solve the problem.
another version of this allows budgets to be majority rule but keeps the two-thirds requirement on raising taxes.
The open primary system is a much better means of ensuring that we get government that represents the people, by providing choices of moderate politicians in the general election that are actually representative of majority of the voters. Today’s systems means that only ultra conservative republicans can be nominated in the republican primary and then are they are defeated in a general election with liberal democrats.This state does not need more taxes,more spending and more anti business policies. Those programs and policies are what put us in this mess already, and have people leaving this state in droves.The point David makes about the Republican governors is moot. The governor’s position is not strong enough to overrule the democratic legislature. It is the legislature that runs, or doesn’t run, this state. And it is the legislature that is root of the problems we face now.
…You’re forgetting there is still a Governor. Since 1982, a period of now 27 years, 22 of them have had a Republican governor. So to suggest that the Democrats could do whatever they want is false….Anonymous addressed this. This is nonsense. We’ve seen how much power Arnold has wielded, DPD. How much is that exactly?…The other point a Republican raised with me today is that if you eliminate the 2/3rds requirement, the majority party owns the budget, there is no fudging on that point….I don’t understand this comment. Isn’t this obvious? The majority party (Democrats) would own the burdget if it’s eliminated and that is the concern….another version of this allows budgets to be majority rule but keeps the two-thirds requirement on raising taxes….Again, nonsense. That’s the whole point for the Dems of eliminating the supermajority! Repubs will always go along with cuts, it’s taxes that are the rub.
…But if we take the supermajority requirement away, the Democrats will be free to go on the spending frenzies they love….WITH the supermajority requirement, …the Democrats (have already gone) on the spending frenzies they love…. That is most of the reason why we are in such a bad financial condition.If the people of California don’t like the fiscal irresponsibility — the people who have regularly approved bonds we cannot afford — then the people of California need to stop electing fiscal liberals and start electing fiscal conservatives.When you have a supermajority, it’s harder to hold the Democrats (i.e., the majority party) accountable, because the budget policies which pass are bipartisan. That has not led to greater fiscal conservativism. As far as I can tell, it has led to budgets which pay off some Republican constituencies and all of the Democratic contributors.Regardless of your philosophy on government spending, it seems pretty obvious that in the next 10-15 years (at least), the state government is going to be hurting for cash. If you fear that Democrats (with only a regular majority) will pass budgets with lots of new costly programs, your fears are misguided. They won’t have the money to do so.What I think the Democrats (and Gov. Schwarzeneggar) are going to find out is that the tax increases they just passed to cover part of our huge deficit are not going to generate the expected revenues. Higher income Californians are going to move their income out of state — some of them might even move themselves and their companies out of state — and revenues could decline with the higher tax rates.If I’m right about that, that will be another constraint on the …tax-and-spend… liberals, who won’t be able to expand the revenue stream to the state, and thus won’t be able to fund new programs, while swimming in debt paying for past profligacy.If you want Republicans to have power over the purse in California, then the majority of voters need to elect them. Our system of bipartisan budget-making has not resulted in fiscal responsibility; and it has not led to Democrats being held accountable for fiscal irresponsibility.
Great argument, David:Just make it easier for our elected …representatives… to increase taxes on everything we purchase and own. Talk about a disaster formula!The more your misguided pro-tax buddies increase our taxes, the less we’ll spend. And that will help our City, County or State?You just don’t get it. We are already over-taxed, and will retract spending when faced with paying more for less.If you don’t believe me, just wait and see what happens when the City and School District try to renew/add more fees and taxes over the next couple of years.We don’t need $10 million dollar high-school stadium renovations. We DO need elected officials who recognize that we are all facing fiscal challenges, and that this is the worst possible time to increase our taxes.Two guarantees following the proposed tax increases: (1)Less consumer spending, resulting in even lower sales tax revenues, and (2) a statewide upwelling to elect fiscally-conservative legislators to protect …regular… citizens from tax and spend democrats. In fact, I predict voters will pass a …son of Prop 13… measure to halt tax increases and unbridled City …fee… increases within the next 2-3 years.Guaranteed!
We all know that the Democrats dominate the Legislature and that’s unlikely to change in this decade or even this century.The Republicans controlled the Assembly in the mid-90’s. Curt Pringle was Speaker. It is possible for the Republicans to have statewide appeal, legislatively.
wdf,I think the two big factors working against Republicans winning a majority are 1) demographics and 2) social policies.Latinos (and other non-white groups which always vote Democratic) are growing in numbers, while whites (who make up 95% of Republicans) are shrinking. On the basis of economic philosophy (haves vs. have-nots), perceived racial insensitivity or even hostility, and nativism (esp. regarding immigration policy), the Republican brand largely does not appeal to Latinos. As they grow in numbers, the prospects for Republicans withers.Social politics also works against Republicans. California is not South Carolina. Candidates who are rigidly pro-Life, pro-fundamentalist Christianity, anti-evolution, anti-science, rabidly anti-gay and so on don’t win over our relatively liberal populace. Even if an individual Republican in California is moderate or liberal on the social issues, the party is branded by its national attitudes on these subjects to the harm of state Republicans.Thus, if the GOP is to ever win statewide in California, the state Republican Party is going to have to change a lot, and it’s going to have to convince Latinos especially, and social liberals to some extent, that it is very different from the national party. That’s a tall order. Other than a single movie star who is out of tune with the vast majority of his party, it’s been a long time since any Republican has won statewide, and probably will be a very long time before another Republican wins statewide.
Lexican Artist said, …If you want Republicans to have power over the purse in California, then the majority of voters need to elect them. Our system of bipartisan budget-making has not resulted in fiscal responsibility; and it has not led to Democrats being held accountable for fiscal irresponsibility…. I agree, but not with his conclusion. I think that once the 2/3 stupidity comes to an end, Democrats will do what Democrats like to do: Raise taxes for social programs. But I suspect that this will work for only one or two elections: eventually people will get fed up and elect fiscal conservatives, be they Democrat or Republican. Long term, getting rid of 2/3 may be the best thing that has happened to the Republican party since Lincoln.
Great op-ed in the WSJ today
If we end the 2/3rd protection afforded us from Prop 13, it will be gone forever. There will never be a time when it will return to that if we, as voters, go braindead and lower the margin to pass a budget to 55%! Yes, we will have a budget, every year, on time but also with many …new and improved… taxes on top of what we already pay. Keep that in mind before you all get too excited about just having a budget on time–I do not exist to pour more of my hard-earned money into the trough of government!
FAST: …If we end the 2/3rd protection afforded us from Prop 13, it will be gone forever….Prop 13 was passed in 1978. The two-thirds supermajority provision of our constitution dates back to 1933.
11:54 You are 100% correct. It is time to split this State in two and add a 51st State to the Union.
Stan Statham lives!
I can’t believe that this blog stated that Lance Armstrong is a DOPER .
Absolutely. Separate it down the middle. But then all the water would be in East California.
…We don’t need $10 million dollar high-school stadium renovations. We DO need elected officials who recognize that we are all facing fiscal challenges, and that this is the worst possible time to increase our taxes….Why don’t you run, then?