Replies

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".)

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.

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.

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.