Budget Is Hostage To Two-Thirds Rule (Tom McClintock Slams Supermajority Requirement Alert

Los Angeles Times ^ | 07/04/05 | George Skelton

[goldstategop]

One Republican who is a maverick on this subject is conservative Sen. Tom McClintock of Thousand Oaks, who received 13.5% of the vote for governor in the Gray Davis recall election and plans to run next year for lieutenant governor.

McClintock has long thought that the budget should be passed by a simple majority vote.

"A perverse result of the supermajority requirement is that it does not constrain state spending," McClintock says. "What it does is bid up the cost of the budget with each additional vote. Every additional vote comes with louder calls for higher spending.

[goldstategop]

Tom McClintock and George Skelton agree that at least for spending, the supermajority rule should be junked. It keeps voters from holding the majority party responsible for its spending and it doesn't constrain spending at all since every legislator has an incentive to with hold his or her vote in exchange for pork for his or his or district. So there's no good reason to be responsible with the people's money. I do think the two-thirds rule should be retained for tax increases, since a good argument can be made a minority of the public pays taxes and they need special protection against unwarranted increases in their tax burden. Here we have the liberal Los Angeles Times Sacramento bureau chief and conservative State Senator McClintock agree on a fix for our dysfunctional state government. Its worth debating in a time when no one seems able to agree on how to restore our state's luster. It seems here two people from opposite sides of the divide see one way to get there.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Carry_Okie]

Believe it or not, I'm with you on this one.

Between this and the iniative process all we get is bad law that protects incumbants from accountability.

[Lancey Howard]

This is the LA Times, a loud voice for the socialist Democrat Party, and I therefore realize that lying is its standard fare. But to lie this brazenly?

California has no "supermajority" requirement to pass a budget - - it can be passed by a simple majority. Anybody with the first clue about California's budget process knows this, and surely the LA Times knows this. So why would the lying from the Times get this crass?

Oh sure, a "supermajority" is required if the budget includes TAX INCREASES, but the Times doesn't mention that and so obviously that's not what they are talking about. The LA Times is claiming in this editorial that a budget cannot be passed without a "supermajority", and that is a lie.

I also happen to believe that McClintock's quote must have been taken way, way out of context and I hope that he addresses the attempted smear by the LA Times.

[calcowgirl]

A little more, for context. Continuing from original post quoting McClintock:

"You hear, 'This program is really, really important to me and I'm not going to vote for the budget unless it's thrown in, plus a park in my district.' "

A blue-ribbon commission that studied possible revision of the state Constitution found the same thing in 1996. It recommended scrubbing the two-thirds vote, but was ignored.

"Although conventional wisdom indicates otherwise," the commission concluded, "the two-thirds requirement does not seem to limit higher levels of spending. In practice, it encourages it."

Moreover, McClintock contends, allowing the majority party to pass a budget on its own would pinpoint blame. "Voters deserve to know which party is responsible for the budget and hold it accountable," he says.

But McClintock still favors a two-thirds vote for any tax increase . . .

McClintock sees it as a minority rights issue.

"The majority should not be able to deny people the fundamental right to their earnings," the conservative asserts.

[calcowgirl]

Try this. Among other interesting tidbits:

"The two-thirds vote to pass a state budget in California dates back to an obscure constitutional amendment passed in a 1933 special election. Today, after 70 years of tweaking and amending, it remains one of the most significant--and unintended--consequenses in the history of state ballot meassures."

[goldstategop]

I do favor keeping it for taxes. As for spending, it was supposed to act as a brake on spending but it never worked that way and just produced extortion and political irresponsibility down the line. I hazard to say a supermajority for spending only makes politicians drive up their bid for more of it since that wat every one of them gets their share of the pork. And voters don't know whom to hold accountable. Let the Democrats enact all the spending dear to their hearts and then the voters can decide if they can live with it. That's the way majority rule is supposed to work in a democracy and it can be done without compromising taxpayer protections.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[gridlock]

Yep. The budget is where spending is decided. And that can be done by a simple majority, if the budget is balanced. It just so happens that the Congresscritters (local variety) have no interest in limiting spending. It would be a heck of a lot easier to pass a balanced budget, but the entrenched government interests have no interest in doing that.

[calcowgirl]

I do favor keeping it for taxes.

Absolutely! Without question that must remain, as does the governor's Line Item Veto power. The governor proposes the budget, the legislature tweaks and approves it, and the governor retains ultimate control to whack spending as required by vetoing any excessive expenditures.

I want to see more of the veto pen, personally.

[Alia]

[McClintock] plans to run next year for lieutenant governor

Yes!

[John Jorsett]

I do think the two-thirds rule should be retained for tax increases, since a good argument can be made a minority of the public pays taxes and they need special protection against unwarranted increases in their tax burden

My thinking too. I'd be willing to try a simple majority for the budget, but they always try to put tax increases in with it. If that avenue was closed, then I'd have fewer objections.

[SierraWasp]

The Truth Twisting Times is no match for the crystal clear clarion call of the "fantastic," Lancey Howard!!!

And thank you calcowgirl for once again digging out the truthful quotations of Mr. McClintok in their rightful context!!!

[calcowgirl]

You're welcome! bump!