CA: Shoe's on the other foot; now all see Prop 56 is bad policy

Pasadena Star News ^ | February 20, 2004 | Thomas Elias

[calcowgirl]

IMAGINE for a moment how California's financial bind might look today if all it had taken was very slightly more than a majority of the Legislature to pass the last few state budgets.

For sure, taxes would be higher on cigarettes and alcohol. Chances are income taxes would also top today's levels, already the nation's highest by some measures. Spending levels would also be much higher, with the money spent on projects as varied as new parks and needle exchanges for drug addicts.

All those items were proposed during the era of massive Democratic dominance of Sacramento that ended when Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger became governor last November.

But taxes and spending both were kept well below where they could have gone because the state constitution now requires budgets to receive a two- thirds vote in both houses of the Legislature.

Democrats may dominate both the Assembly and the state Senate, but they have never quite gotten above the two-thirds mark in either house. So when Republicans have held firm, they've managed to exert a major influence on both spending and taxes despite being a relatively small minority.

Now those rules are threatened by Proposition 56, a measure placed on the March 2 ballot by the Democrats before voters booted ex-Gov. Gray Davis from office.

Under Proposition 56, budgets could pass with just a 55 percent majority, allowing almost absolute power to any party that controls both the governor's office and sizable majorities in both houses.

In the Assembly, all it would take is 44 votes out of 80 members to OK a spending plan. In the Senate, the number would become 22. Democrats now control more votes than that in both houses. If Proposition 56 had passed while Davis was still governor, there would have been no checks on Democratic policies, no need for any sort of compromise.

Yes, the legislators who wrote this measure tossed in a few carrots for the voters: Legislators would neither get paid nor be allowed to work on any bills other than the budget if they can't pass a spending plan by the June 30 deadline. Those are nice ideas, but they could divert voter attention from the main point of this initiative, which is give more power to legislative majorities.

In short, it will take a no vote on this measure to prevent majority parties from running roughshod over the legislative minority for many years to come.

Democrats may not like to think about this today, while they are in the majority, but all it would take is a losing year or two at the polls and they could need the two-thirds requirement as badly as Republicans did during the Davis era.

Yes, Democrats dominate district elections today, but there is certainly no guarantee that will continue. The combined vote of more than 60 percent for Schwarzenegger and Republican Tom McClintock in last fall's recall election ought to demonstrate to Democrats that their support can evaporate quickly if Republicans recruit attractive candidates.

Which means that Democrats now pushing the 55 percent measure could someday soon find themselves with less than the 45 percent of legislative votes needed to provide any sort of check on a majority party. If that happened, they could do nothing if Republicans chose to cut health and welfare benefits much more than Schwarzenegger now proposes. They would be helpless if Republicans opted for higher state park fees and major income tax cuts.

Perhaps because some of this has dawned on them in recent weeks, Democrats are not campaigning nearly as hard for Proposition 56 as many expected. That may also be a product of the new reality in Sacramento, where the recall suddenly placed the shoe on the other foot and forced Democrats to fight aspects of a governor's budget plan, the way Republicans formerly did.

All of which means Proposition 56 is simply bad policy. Anything that reduces checks on the power and spending ability of majority party politicians must be carefully scrutinized and usually should be voted down.

-- Thomas Elias is an author and freelance writer. E-mail him at tdelias@aol.com .

[stylin_geek]

When the initial line of an article is "imagine" I am automatically biased against the article. I've seen to much left wing drivel start this way. Okay, now to read it.

[newzjunkey]

HELL NO on 56!

I'd hate to think what would've happened if Davis'd survived and this passed. *shudder*

[stylin_geek]

Which means that Democrats now pushing the 55 percent measure could someday soon find themselves with less than the 45 percent of legislative votes needed to provide any sort of check on a majority party. If that happened, they could do nothing if Republicans chose to cut health and welfare benefits much more than Schwarzenegger now proposes. They would be helpless if Republicans opted for higher state park fees and major income tax cuts.

Hmm, sounds to me like losing the 2/3 majority might not be a bad idea, because then it would be a lot easier to cut social programs, should the Repulbicans regain power. Leaving the 2/3 majority would still leave the Dems with a lot of power, even if they were in the minority.

[HostileTerritory]

Which means that Democrats now pushing the 55 percent measure could someday soon find themselves with less than the 45 percent of legislative votes needed to provide any sort of check on a majority party. If that happened, they could do nothing if Republicans chose to cut health and welfare benefits much more than Schwarzenegger now proposes. They would be helpless if Republicans opted for higher state park fees and major income tax cuts.

Call me crazy, but that sounds like a good argument in favor of Prop 56. The Republicans are never going to get 2/3 of the California legislature; why let the RATS obstruct when their time comes in the minority?

[HostileTerritory]

You saw what happened when Davis tripled the car tax. If they'd also increased income taxes and sales taxes and everything else... you wouldn't just have a Republican governor, you'd have Republican everything else.

The way it stands now, the Democrats can avoid blame for the problems they've caused.

[Mr Rogers]

Prop 56 is meant to give power to democrats. Anyone thinking republicans are within 50 years of having a 55% majority in both houses is smoking stuff the war on drugs is supposed to prevent.

If it had passed a year ago, the Senate or House could have provided political cover for Davis, and Arnold would still make a living acting.

The dems are almost all in heavy majority districts. We cannot get rid of them unless an earthquake drops LA & SF into the ocean. Until then, a 67% requirement is ALL that prevents across the board tax increases "for the children".

[Lynda]

AMEN!

[claudiustg]

---Call me crazy, but that sounds like a good argument in favor of Prop 56. The Republicans are never going to get 2/3 of the California legislature; why let the RATS obstruct when their time comes in the minority?---

You're crazy! Prop 56 would give the Dems absolute sway for the lifetime of anyone reading this thread.

[HostileTerritory]

Well, you reach a point where a minority of representatives in California end up behaving like a minority of senators in Washington, D.C. You end up with a state that is ungovernable. What accomplishment is that? How do you defend that? Democrats won't cut spending, Republicans won't raise taxes, so WHO is in control?

If a huge majority of people in California want 'RAT government, they should have the right to experience it in all its glory. Then they can decide if they want high taxes and socialism and tree huggers blocking everything, and they can make up their minds. What you have now is a recipe for paralysis.

Didn't Republicans have a majority of legislative seats 10 years ago? How hard is it to imagine 55% in the case of a RAT meltdown? It's a lot easier to imagine than 67% Republican wins.

[HostileTerritory]

If California are voting in huge numbers to make their bed, they have the right to lie in it.

Look, I live in a state where Republicans make up about 15% of the legislature. I would love it if our constitution required 85% support for budgets so the Pubbies could have a say, but I can't defend that and defend democracy. Democracy means that you lose some times and regroup to fight again on an honest battlefield.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

Given California's nearly 200-year unbroken record of total corruption in the legislature, Prop 56 is seriously dangerous legislation. The article makes an excellent point, CA would be in three times the hole it is in now had that legislation been in place for a decade or two.

Legislators would neither get paid nor be allowed to work on any bills other than the budget if they can't pass a spending plan by the June 30 deadline. Oh, this is truly dripping irony at its best. Does anyone really think that a legislator works for his/her salary? Why on earth would they spend say $5 million to get elected to an office that pays $140K a year?

[Redcloak]

Prop. 56 is just the latest outburst in the Dems' 25 year long temper tantrum over Prop. 13. We've managed to crush most of their stupid tax-and-spend schemes over the years. About two cycles ago, we made the mistake of lowering the vote threshold for "school related" tax increases. The Dems have been milking this ever since, Every new bond issue is a "Save our children from sudden death" school bond. Of course, the new money goes into the school budget through the front door while an equal amount slips out the back door to be spent on whatever pet project the Dems intended to fund all along; it's nothing but a shell game! Now, with Prop. 56, they are trying to drop the pretense and just move on to higher taxes for the projects they know can't garner 2/3s of the vote. People are catching on that no matter how many "Save our children from being eaten by Newt Gingrich" school bonds they pass, nothing improves in the schools. The shell game isn't working any more.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Has this shown up in the LA Times and Sacramento Bee yet?

I hope the author is right, but the ads for Prop56 are the ultimate in devious propaganda!

[Snerfling]

I sort of like them as a study in subversive techniques. I mean, you have to admit that these guys are pros. Imagine sitting in on one of their planning meetings. The easy part is the 55% threshold; where it got interesting was thinking through the add-ons from which they could hang their desceptive advertising campaign (ie what we're seeing right now).

Every now and then I have renewed hope in my fellow citizens. I think 56 will lose 60-40.

[Mr. Jeeves]

How hard is it to imagine 55% in the case of a RAT meltdown? It's a lot easier to imagine than 67% Republican wins.

It's possible to imagine Republicans getting to 55%.

It's impossible to imagine, with the number of RINOs that would of necessity make up that 55%, said Republican majority embarking on any serious efforts to cut spending.

It is, on the other hand, very easy to imagine the Democrat majority using their 55% to go on an epic spending spree. 56 must be defeated.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

You are so right!!!

[calcowgirl]

Has this shown up in the LA Times and Sacramento Bee yet?
I hope the author is right, but the ads for Prop56 are the ultimate in devious propaganda!

I haven't seen this twist mentioned in any other articles. Nor have I seen any prominent democrat group or individual voice opposition to the Proposition. But... you never know!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

You know, this is so typical. The thoughtful articles come out of the small papers and the Big Papers just print very predictable propaganda!

Oh and the Sunday opinion page of the OC Register is good, the rest of the news is mostly reprints from NY Times.

[cartoonistx]

...they could do nothing if Republicans chose to cut health and welfare benefits much more than Schwarzenegger now proposes. They would be helpless if Republicans opted for higher state park fees and major income tax cuts.

The 2/3 majority requiremnet applies to spending increases in the budget, not cuts. A simple majority could "rubberstamp" last years budget but if they even add inflationary increases they need the 2/3 vote. Republicans would never be constrained from reducing taxes and/or spending at budget time. Only Democrats are "held back" by the status quo.