[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".)