 calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register |
Posted on 12/28/2002 12:46:36 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Lawmaker: Tie spending plan to simple majority
By Will Shuck
Capitol Bureau Chief
Published Saturday, December 28, 2002
SACRAMENTO -- Maybe it's not spending or lack of taxes that makes it hard for California to balance a budget. Maybe it's that pesky rule about a two-thirds majority and the way it gives a handful of Republicans power to block the majority Democrats' spending plan.
Assemblyman John Longville thinks so. The Democrat from Rialto thinks voters should change the constitution to do away with the rule.
After all, he says, Arkansas and Rhode Island are the only other states with such a requirement.
In California, the two-thirds requirement means final say on the budget is in the hands of six Republicans in the Assembly and two in the Senate, since without that many GOP votes, Democrats can't meet the two-thirds threshold.
Longville has introduced a constitutional amendment that, if passed by the Legislature and approved by voters, would allow the majority party -- currently Democrats -- to enact a spending plan with a simple majority vote.
The irony about Longville's measure is that it requires a two-thirds vote to put it on the ballot. So unless a number of Republicans want to cut themselves out of the budget process, the measure appears dead on arrival.
Longville said that if he can't garner votes for the measure in the Legislature, he'll take another route, relying instead on a special-interest group to fund a signature drive, putting the initiative on the ballot without input from lawmakers.
"I want to give them the opportunity first before going outside," he said.
He said he has talked to some groups that might be interested in helping but declined to name them. Labor groups have supported the idea in the past.
Ray McNally, a Republican campaign consultant, said voters won't go for it.
"To most voters, making it easier for politicians to raise taxes is kind of like giving a loaded gun to a convicted felon."
McNally predicted that "a large number of Californians would go ballistic."
But Longville has his own way of tapping into voters' anti-politician leanings. His measure not only would make it easier for lawmakers to pass a budget, it would penalize them if they don't do it on time.
Longville's bill would withhold their pay and their daily expense allowances as long as the budget is late. This year, the Legislature was more than two months late adopting a budget, but instead of suffering for it, lawmakers actually were paid extra, since they receive a daily allowance each day they are in session.
Assemblywoman Barbara Matthews, D-Tracy, wouldn't commit to supporting the measure, but she said she likes the concept.
"I know that in theory, asking for two-thirds is well-intentioned," she said. "But just because we hold out for a two-thirds vote doesn't mean the budget gets better. It might make it worse. I mean, you're talking about a very small number of people being able to hold it up, and that doesn't mean they're right."
One thing she has known since she ran a grocery store that relied on state payments for filling Medi-Cal prescriptions: "When we were waiting for payment, and they couldn't get a budget passed, I thought, 'Why don't we make those bums forfeit their salaries?' "
Not an uncommon sentiment. Californians historically have tended to vote against their politicians. Not only have voters opted for term limits, they also have voted to take large portions of the budget, such as education, out of the Legislature's hands. As recently as November, Californians adopted a measure that will force lawmakers to fund after-school programs.
Dave McCuan, a political scientist at the California Maritime Academy who studies ballot measures, said it's a tough time for a measure such as Longville's.
"Voters are in a sour mood, as evidenced by voter turnout," he said. "That doesn't bode well."
But Longville's target of March 2004 will put the measure on a ballot with a high-profile race as Democrats select their standard-bearer to take on George Bush.
Even so, McCuan said, it may come down to which side puts up more money and delivers a clearer message.
The opposition message is obvious, McCuan predicted: " 'They're going to increase your taxes. You're going to lose benefits you really appreciate.' In a down economy, that's a very powerful message."
Or, as McNally put it: "Do you really trust these people enough to make it easier for them to raise your taxes?"
* To reach Capitol Bureau Chief Will Shuck, phone (916) 441-4078 or
e-mail sacto@recordnet.com
|
calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register |
Anybody capable of rubbing two neurons together knows he's talking about the California Teacher's Association, so why doesn't he have the balls to just say so?
Rhetorical question.
It's possible!
The republicans could have a field day with this by running issue adds. Why the heck are they not doing that? Lack of money, or lack of confidence?
Kill California in order to save California?
No, I don't think changing the Constitution is a good idea. I mean, if you want the Republicans to help the scumbags finish their destruction of California, the Republicans can just give them the small handful of votes they need.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.