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