CA: No on Proposition 56

Bakersfield Californian ^ | 2/11/04

[NormsRevenge]

California state government's fiscal house is a mess. Blame the way the Legislature and governor craft the state budget partisan bickering; blown deadlines; parading pork; stalemates; and political extortion.

It's not pretty watching California's spending plan come together every year. The process has resulted in smoke-and-mirror budget balancing schemes, costly decisions and taxpayer-funded "gifts" to special interests.

At the heart of the flawed budget process is the "super-majority" passage requirement two-thirds of the Senate and Assembly must pass a state budget before it is sent to the governor.

California, Rhode Island and Arkansas are the only states requiring two-thirds or more of legislators to approve a budget. California is one of 12 states that require a larger margin than a simple majority of state lawmakers to approve a tax increase.

As a result, California's budget rarely is approved by its legally mandated June deadline. To entice the necessary number of lawmakers to approve the spending plan, the state budget swells with pork lawmakers' pet projects. Bad policy decisions are made.

Proposition 56 on the March 2 ballot proposes to change all that by reducing the budget passage requirement to 55 percent of the legislators. Proposition 56 also proposes to permanently withhold the salaries and per diem of the governor and legislators when they blow their deadlines. The Legislature would be required to remain in session until a budget is passed.

Proposition 56 requires 25 percent of certain state revenue increases be deposited in a reserve fund, which cannot be used to increase spending.

There are a lot of things to like about Proposition 56 like withholding salaries from derelict lawmakers and requiring money be set aside.

However, reducing passage of the budget to a mere 55 percent would be dangerous now. Other government reforms must take place before the brake is released controlling those who want to keep spending more than the state receives in revenues.

Those who want to spend recognize the shortfall, proposing to close the gap between spending and revenue by raising taxes. Again, Proposition 56 makes this dangerously simple with its 55 percent passage requirement.

The way California draws political district borders leaving the drawing up to the Legislature itself has created "safe" districts, where incumbents face little challenge. It has created a Legislature so lopsided that one party can call all the shots.

The "super majority" requirement where a minority party can flex its muscle has kept a brake on the runaway state spending. Granted, the brake has not kept California from the brink of bankruptcy.

Proposals now are circulating to hand the redistricting process over to a more impartial, less political system. If this occurs, elections will become more competitive and the dominance of one party with one spending philosophy will be lifted.

Only after this and other government reforms are adopted should California voters consider releasing the only brake they have to slow the Legislature's runaway spending and taxing.

[NormsRevenge]

However, reducing passage of the budget to a mere 55 percent would be dangerous now. Other government reforms must take place before the brake is released controlling those who want to keep spending more than the state receives in revenues.

[freedumb2003]

However, reducing passage of the budget to a mere 55 percent would be dangerous now

I shudder to think how bad it would have gotten if the Socialists in Sacramento didn't have the super-majority rule.

[AnimalLover]

Bump

[WilliamofCarmichael]

A few years ago Proposition 39 was passed using similar deception by claiming that Prop 39 "would reform the way school districts raise school bonds while adding increased accountability and taxpayer protections to the process." "Increased accountability and taxpayer protections, too!" Who could vote against that?

In fact, my local school district sent out a school-financed "study" showing what great things a local measure had done to "add increased accountability and taxpayer protections to the process." There was no mention of statewide Prop 39 of course but the mass mailing's purpose just a month before the election was obvious. I wrote the superintendent, he forwarded my letter to their lawyers.

Its true purpose was to remove the 121-year-old constitutional two-thirds vote requirement for local school bonds and make it 55 percent. Studies had shown that most failed school bonds got at least fifty-five percent. So the backers picked 55 percent. They pledged to spend more than $30 million to get it passed.

I am hearing the "yes on 56" ad on Sacramento radio stations. I know about Prop 56. The ad is deceptive because it does not state the true purpose of the proposition; i.e., reduce the vote needed to raise taxes. The legislative pay sanctions are all BS. Once Prop 56 passes there will be no delays with the budget except for possible vetoes by a governor.

These stations should carry a disclaimer or in someway immediately tell the "rest of the story."

BTW, the ad says that prop 56 is opposed by big oil, big insurance, and big tobacco and that we must save ourselves from those evil folks. Not to worry those evil doers could not stop Prop 39. I guess we're in luck, huh?

[Sunnyvale CA Eng.]

I shudder to think how bad it would have gotten if the Socialists in Sacramento didn't have the super-majority rule.

I think you may just get to see how bad it can get. I won't be surprised if this passes and if it does watch property values start trending down pretty quickly. The dems will take full advantage immediately and property taxes will sky rocket, new taxes on the "rich" (anyone who gets a paycheck), taxes "for the children",..etc.. California's decline will accelerate to an all time high.

[DB]

The legislature can't increase property taxes past prop 13's limits. The voters have to repeal prop 13 in order to change the property tax rate. (At least that's how I think it works...)

[Sunnyvale CA Eng.]

It appears to be a partial end run on Prop 13. Here is the No on 56 website - good info here and relevance to Prop 13 explained. http://www.noblankchecks.com/

[budwiesest]

You got it right, neighbor BUMP!

I hear the same ads daily myself. Those for 56 include teachers, firefighters (hey, wait a minute, aren't these folks paid for with taxes?).Hmmmmm? Conflict of interest here? You bet. I hope they enjoy the socialist/marxist utopia they are pimpin'-in for the rest of us to enjoy.

BTW, I'm usually at the same gas station filling my truck up for work on those days before Memorial Day weekend when these clowns ride up on their 1200s and FatBoys, gassing up for a Tahoe Ride looking like Easy Riders with about sixty to eighty extra pounds and a girl in leather who's seamstress is to be commended.

If 56 passes, it'll get ugly. Like taking the helmets off kinda ugly.

[kingu]

You want to get past Prop 13 limits? How about a yearly required license for water heaters? $500 per year per water heater; single family homes with two water heaters who wish to swear that they won't rent out their property can apply for an exemption.

Heck, call it a conservation measure; offer $100 off per year for having an 'energy efficient' water heater.

Oh, but why stop there? Air conditioners are the real evil come every summer. Must have a license for them. How about a license for having circuit breakers? Or perhaps refrigerators?

Or perhaps a yearly license fee per square foot of yard. After all, water conservation is very important, and lawns swallow tremendous amounts of fresh drinking water. Include deductions for those who maintain lawns with drought resistant plants, pebble lawns, etc.

Yeah, it might be difficult to end run around Prop 13, and the observations above don't really cut into it (unless the fees were based upon means testing?) but there are plenty of ways they can raise taxes on home owners.

[DB]

I'm voting no.