Another Day Older And Deeper In Debt

YES (0.00 / 0)

That May 20th strategy is a GREAT idea.  (a) The solutions are the right ones and (b) that makes it a great opportunity to get a jump on the Republicans in polling, i.e. it's smart politics to take the lead on some solutions that don't just look like reshuffling the deck chairs.  It would be like a dream come true if CA Democratic leaders actually embraced something like this.

Ideally, it could be coupled with a good overarching progressive message, too.  Something along the lines of "California needs us" would seem to do the trick.

Yes We Kang

---

by: I voted for Kodos @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 18:07:08 PM UTC

The plan (0.00 / 0)

    * Majority vote budget
   * Wealth taxes
   * Reverse corporate tax cuts
   * Push repeal of the 2/3rds rule
   * Immediate and meaningful prison reform
   * Legalization, regulation and taxation of marijuana

You need to add to this qualification of the budget vote to a majority (via initiative--I believe it is alread in circulation).  That is, even if the Democrats get the gumption to go through with a majority rule fee increase (which in my opinion should be a swap of the gas tax to a gas fee and the imposition of wealth/corporate/high income taxes), Republicans will refuse to vote for a budget, because it involves majority rule provisions.  Thus we could have the money and no budget!

 The important question to ask the legislators is, when they say the above won't work, is to ask them how it hurts us?  In other words, if the majority rule fee increase is found unconstitutional, we're just back where we were.  The idea of Republican good will is laughable (if that is there answer for not doing it).  We need to make the trade-offs between schools and taxes on the wealthy--this is a campaign we can win.

---

by: MarkD @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 18:25:44 PM UTC

The current Dem Leader$hip is.... (0.00 / 0)

....too corrupt and too stupid to do this, good idea a it appears, we will have to wait until the voters start voting Dems out to get action.

As I've said before, when the schools start closing....

...look out!

---

by: A.Citizen @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 18:42:05 PM UTC

My constant refrain (0.00 / 0)

Under the wealth tax category, restore a California Estate Tax, fully deductible against a frozen federal estate tax.
1.2 billion a year=20,000 teachers.

And let's keep repeating that we need an oil extraction tax and a higher gas tax.

OC Progressive is Gus Ayer, former Fountain Valley Council member.  

---

by: OC Progressive @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 18:44:36 PM UTC

Estate tax (0.00 / 0)

  I've said before--the repeal of the estate tax was by initiative, so it will take another initiative to restore it.  That being said, tying the proceeds from an estate tax to education funding in an initiative would be a pretty sure winner.

---

by: MarkD @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 19:14:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Add INITIATIVE REFORM to the list (0.00 / 0)

We MUST prohibit paid signature gathering. It simply put too much power into the hands of the corporations. Sorry ACORN, but if your cause is just, you'll find the volunteers to collect signatures.

I'd be happy to dispense with Term Limits as well. It seems like the State started to go downhill when the last of the experienced legislators were forced out in the late 90's.

I have to admit... I'm wavering in Prop 1A. I have a kid in college and another one in high school. They spent most of their school years languishing under the No-Child-Left-Behind regime, learning to take tests rather than learning to think.

I can't "hold them back" for five years while we reform state government. I'm awfully tempted to accept 1A's deal with the devil, and to try to keep their educations from slipping from second-rate to third-rate.

I need to hear someone say that the schools are not going to collapse overnight if we defeat 1A on the 20th.

---

by: jjohnjj @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 21:51:39 PM UTC

The schools are not going to collapse overnight (0.00 / 0)

if 1A is defeated.  None of the money that was thieved from the schools will be paid back (via Prop 1B) for a couple of years, so as Brian, David, Robert and others have pointed out - our budget situation (and that of the schools) is not helped or harmed on May 20 by the passage of 1A or 1B.  

If 1A passes, then sure, 1B would go into effect if it passes, and thereby pay back the $9 billion thieved from the schools sytem in installments.  

However, in return for that, you'll have education spending slashed due to the spending cap.

So - would you rather have a chance to fight to properly fund schools, or guarantee the worsening of the education system under a permanent spending cap which strenthens the conservative veto over the budget?  

Need a contact # for a CA Legislator? Check here

---

by: PeteB2 @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 22:05:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not only will they not collapse overnight if 1A fails (0.00 / 0)

They won't be guaranteed to collapse as they would if it passed.

I'm hoping to have a kid sometime in the near future. What Prop 1A does is ensures that by the time he or she starts school, they'll be facing even larger cuts or outright privatization.

There's no reason for us to go down that road. The schools are owed the $9.3 billion that Prop 1B would provide. Let's get that money without straitjacketing our future.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 22:11:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How to solve our budget problems (0.00 / 0)

Another idea to add to the list is to have a Prop that will forbid unfunded Props.  Then Runner won't be able to get all his law and order Props passed taking General Fund money to pay for them.

We also need to tax services and internet sales.

---

by: Carole Lutness @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 22:10:28 PM UTC

No more 2/3 rules without 2/3 approval (0.00 / 0)

I would like to see an initiative saying that henceforth, any initiative that creates a supermajority requirement, of any kind, is invalid unless approved by a supermajority equal to the one it proposes.

Allowing supermajority rules to be adopted by simple majorities seems to me to be unconstitutional as a denial of the "republican form of government" (Art IV, Sect 4).  But that would take years to litigate (though I wish someone would), so a new proposition requiring supermajority approval for supermajorities is probably an easier fix.

In a perfect world, I'd also say that any existing supermajority rules which were created by simple majority votes will stand repealed at a date certain, unless reconfirmed by the appropriate supermajority vote at the polls.

---

by: DavidT @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 22:31:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's another unevenness to be corrected: (0.00 / 0)

It takes only a majority to decrease a tax, but increasing that same tax back to where it was takes a 2/3 super-majority.  

If tax policy needs to have such a high bar to change it, then fine, make it 2/3 to raise - or lower - taxes.  

The system is rigged against responsible budgeting without the supermajority required for ALL revenue changes, not just increases..

Need a contact # for a CA Legislator? Check here

---

by: PeteB2 @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 22:48:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

2/3rds (0.00 / 0)

The Nevada Supreme Court threw out a 2/3rds requirement that passed the ballot--it should have been tossed on Prop 13 (as a constitutional revision and of course on single subject) but Rose Bird wasn't in the majority (she found it unconstitutional).  Still, when the majority rule fee increase goes to court, it would be nice to argue that the 2/3rds rule was a revision (in retrospect it sure was) because it fundamentally altered the workings of the legislature.

 The obvious comment about 2/3rds is that Anglo-American legal theory has never demanded or allowed supermajorities for property rights--only for civil liberties (it takes 2/3rds vote of both houses of Congress and 3/4th's the states to amend the Bill of Rights, for example--talk about a supermajority).  England still does not have supermajorities on civil rights (an unwritten constitution, also, so judicial nullification on the basis of constitutionality is not established there as it is here).
It is a Republican perversion to demand supermajorities (Tom  Campbell likes the 2/3rds rule because it protects minorities, but Republicans dislike affirmative action because it protects minorities.  The only good minority is a rich minority!).

---

by: MarkD @ Sat May 02, 2009 at 02:06:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]