The Bay Area Council has been pushing for a Constitutional Convention for a while now. In the wake of the disaster that was yesterday, they are launching a new website, RepairCalifornia.org, combined with a series of events across the state to encourage the Legislature to put measures on the ballot for a constitutional convention. The group, which is a collection of mostly tech companies from the bay area, also says if the Legislature doesn't put them on the ballot, they'll do it through signatures.
The events begin in Sacramento this morning, and will continue throughout the state.
Update by Robert: I am currently in Sacramento to participate in an 11:30 press conference BAC has put together. I'm representing the Courage Campaign, which has supported the Constitutional Convention concept since our members expressed overwhelming support for it back in September. It seems increasingly obvious that a Constitutional Convention is necessary to save this state. It's time we moved beyond "if" to "how" and "when."
Several weeks back, during the deepest throes of the budget crisis, I wrote that the problems of the state are not a matter of personality but process, and you can reason that out to understand that a change in the personalities without a concurrent change in process will accomplish absolutely nothing on reforming the state and getting a functional government again in California. This thought occurred to me again last night, as I sat in the press section during Gavin Newsom's "conversation with California" as part of his tour of the southern part of the state. Newsom's description of the challenges the state faces - and his solutions - gear more to the idea that a different person, dedicated to solving the same problems in a new way, can overcome any obstacle, rather than the reality that no individual under the current system of rules could possibly thrive. And while the San Francisco Mayor shows a recognition of the structural impossibility of California, his relative nonchalance about how to reform it shows he believes for more in himself to overcome the rules than the demonstrable history of the rules overcoming everyone in their path.
First, let's be clear that Newsom is running with someone else's platform. The first policy mentioned last night as a reflection of his record is the Healthy San Francisco effort toward universal care for the uninsured in his city. That is not his plan to tout, and the simultaneous description of it as a savior for the state's residents while cutting $100 million dollars from the city's Department of Public Health and programs aimed at the needy is nothing short of troubling.
"It's not that Healthy San Francisco is wrong its the mayor's obvious ..." (Tom Ammiano) pauses. "Look, he's running for governor and taking full credit for it. It's not true. The labor community, my office, community activists, health people -- some of the same people who are unhappy with him now -- worked with him on this. When he goes out there and claims full credit, that pisses people off, especially people who are dealing with [health care in the city] every day. ... The reaction is really based on the mayor boasting and overselling Healthy San Francisco." [...]
"Healthy San Francisco -- I think people should be very proud of it. I think it's going to meet its full potential. The rollout is going to be incremental and there's going to be little tweaks that it needs. But, you know, that's not the target [...] Unfortunately, it's getting tainted because of the mayor's boasting and overselling of it."
The neighborhood clinics at the heart of the Healthy San Francisco plan are at full capacity while funding is being slashed, and additional "woodworking" - residents coming out of the woodwork to seek services. The revenues aren't meeting the expenses, and the General Fund of the city, now facing a $590 million dollar shortfall (less per capita than Los Angeles'), has to make up the difference. As the economy continues to slow and the ranks of the unemployed swell, those at the bottom of the income ladder are already seeing service cuts. I would simply call it bad politics to put so much emphasis on a program you can barely claim ownership to and are cutting funding for at the same time as more services are desired. And this is sadly part of a pattern of the whole story being left out.
But let's set aside the issues for a moment. As focused as I am on process, I awaited Newsom's response to the inevitable questions about budget reform. He asserted support for a 50% + 1 threshold for the budget process, using the line "You need two-thirds of the vote to pass a budget, but only a simple majority to deny civil rights," referring to marriage equality. It's a good line, but he leaves out that he was shamed into changing his position after the initial proposal for a 55% threshold was slammed by just about everyone. The first instinct was to half-ass reform. There was also no explanation that there are two thresholds requiring two-thirds, the budget and tax increases, leaving his answer fairly vague, as it has been in the past.
But far worse than this was his flippant approval of Prop. 1A, the draconian spending cap that would effectively eliminate what amounts to half of the state school budget within a few years, and his dishonest rendering of the initiative as "a rainy day fund," without explaining how the rainy day fund is created. On the other ballot measures like 1C, 1D and 1E, which would privatize the lottery and raid voter-approved funds for children's programs and mental health, he gave a Solomonic "on the one hand, on the other hand" soliloquy and ended saying that he would be a bad spokesman for them.
This, then, is what needs to be kept in mind when Newsom urges a call for a constitutional convention. We see by his stances on the May special election what he would reasonably be expected to get out of that convention - a constitution that includes a "rainy day fund" created by a spending cap, coming at it from a right-wing perspective and ultimately resulting in a fake reform. This is essentially the position of Arnold Schwarzenegger, clueless media elites, bipartisan fetishists who assume without evidence the midpoint of any argument is automatically the best option, and most tellingly, the Bay Area Council, which makes perfect sense.
Meantime, the Schwarzenegger-sponsored political campaign in support of the six measures announced today an endorsement from the Bay Area Council, the business-centric public policy organization that is the impetus behind calls for a constitutional convention. Last week, Schwarzenegger made it quite clear that he supports the first convening of a state constitutional convention in some 150 years... a way to focus on multiple ideas for government reform at one time.
These two announcements certainly play to the idea of another "business vs. labor" narrative in California politics. Another possible fuel for that storyline comes in a $250,000 donation to the pro-budget measure committee on Friday by wealthy Orange County developer Henry Segerstrom. The donation from one of his companies is easily his largest campaign contribution in recent years, which saw smaller checks written to both the guv's 2006 reelection efforts and to the California Republican Party.
I support a Constitutional convention because I know what my principles are. I don't support mealy-mouthed calls for "reform" that are essentially corporate-friendly back doors to advance the interests of the powerful over the people.
Ultimately, Randy Shaw has this right - the people of California could elect Noam Chomsky, Warren Buffett or Howard Jarvis, and nothing would fundamentally change until the structures that restrict anyone in Sacramento from doing their jobs are released. And our assessment of who would be best to lead that reform should be based on deeds and not words.
If California's future is measured by our education system, we are in deep trouble. And we are in this difficulty because the state's Democratic Party and progressive activists have allowed right-wing Republicans to exert major control over the state's budget.
I say "allowed" because there is no other explanation for elected officials and activists failing to put a measure on the November 2008 ballot removing the 2/3 vote requirement to pass a budget. Although state Republicans made their opposition to new taxes clear, progressives passed up a large turnout ballot whose voters would have approved such a reform. Passage of such an initiative would have avoided the billions of dollars in cuts we went on to face, with more cuts slated for future years [...]
If we have learned anything from the past months, it should be that putting money into state candidates will accomplish less than passing the budgetary reforms and tax hikes needed to return California to its leadership in education and other areas [...]
It's time for the people to say "Yes We Can" to a new progressive future for California. Once the people lead, the politicians -- particularly those seeking their votes -- will follow.
It is senseless to discuss candidates for a race into a straitjacket, which is the current dress code for Sacramento. Anything less than fundamental reform will not solve the enormous set of problems the state faces - and it will take more than charisma, but an actual commitment, to make it happen.
The deadline for submitting resolutions to be considered at the State Party Convention is late April quickly approaches. I'm interested in what resolutions people are hearing about -- particularly at the Progressive Caucus gathering later today, which unfortunately it looks like I will have to skip.
Most critically, I'm interested in whether anyone has heard of a resolution calling for a state Constitutional convention. Such a convention could eliminate the 2/3 "Percentage of the Beast" Rule for the state budgets, limit initiatives (say, ones that encroach on civil rights and liberties), etc. From conversations I've been having, it sounds like it may be the most likely route to get rid of the supermajority requirement for budgets. I'd like to assume that someone is drafting and submitting one -- but is it happening?
If it isn't, would anyone like to collaborate in writing one -- really quickly?
I will be hosting the morning show on KRXA 540 AM from 8 to 10 this morning and will discuss this and other aspects of California politics
One of the most positive aspects of the Constitutional Convention Summit that was held on Tuesday in Sacramento is that those who put it together, and most of those who spoke on stage, were not Sacramento insiders. Whether it was the Bay Area Council or the Courage Campaign or Common Cause, they were groups that have some power and representation, whether it's the corporate base of the BAC or the mass base of the Courage Campaign. But the "interested outsider" aspect of the Summit was, I believe, one of the things that made it so potent and effective an occasion to speak to our state's future.
Of course, politicians know a popular idea when they see one, so it should come as no surprise that Arnold Schwarzenegger is now interested in a convention, as George Skelton's latest column explains. And while Skelton shows his high Broderism in his desire to anoint Arnold as some kind of far-sighted reformer, the truth is much more mundane - he simply wants to destroy the Democratic Party.
Take a look at what Arnold's proposing:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he "absolutely" loves the idea of holding a constitutional convention to overhaul state government...
The Republican governor would like the convention to consider, among other things, eliminating some statewide offices -- like treasurer, controller, superintendent of public instruction and, especially, lieutenant governor, all currently held by Democrats.
"It makes no sense that the governor is surrounded by constitutional officers who are trying to derail him," Schwarzenegger says. "Look at the way the nation runs: The president appoints those Cabinet positions."
Translation: "It makes no sense that I, a Republican, am surrounded by Democrats the people chose to balance out my power." The governor of California is not the president of the United State and should not be treated as such.
Arnold's also willing to consider lowering the 2/3 rule, but only on budgets, and only if it becomes a de facto spending cap:
Schwarzenegger has long defended the two-thirds majority vote requirement for budget passage. But after the just-concluded months-long struggle, he's now willing to consider reducing the vote threshold to a simple majority if spending growth is kept under 5%.
And Skelton plays along with Arnold's dreams of being remembered as anything other than an epic failure by suggesting that anti-Democratic solutions such as a top-two primary and the spending cap are decisive factors in determining his legacy as a reformer:
Schwarzenegger says he wants to make the parties "less relevant." They're already pretty irrelevant in California. But the governor says: "Right now, every [candidate] is like, 'How can I win the primary? How can I kiss up to the party?'
This is nonsense, and should be read in the context of voters' total unwillingness to give Arnold the complete control over the state that he has long sought. Arnold's argument isn't with the system but with the voters themselves who have quite deliberately chosen to populate Sacramento with Democrats precisely because they don't want Arnold's term in office to become a runaway train of conservatism.
It's a shame that Skelton isn't willing to actually be a reporter and question why Arnold is saying these things. Arnold's versions of "reform" have always involved pursuit of anti-progressive options designed to concentrate power in the hands of Republican governors.
Whereas the Constitutional Convention Summit saw a diverse collection of groups from the center and the left openly discuss ways to increase democracy and make government work better. The contrast with Arnold's concept of "reform" is striking.
If Californians ultimately decide to call a convention, it will be in recognition of Arnold's failure to produce anything positive in the way of change in California government. If he likes the idea of a convention so be it, but it will happen to fix what he helped break, instead of to implement his desired "legacy" of destroying Democrats.
It's exciting to follow the news about a proposed Constitutional Convention that might make California and all of its government agencies more governable.
In the process, there's encouraging talk about eliminating counties, or redrawing the lines, so that Orange County might follow its namesake citrus groves into history.
It's really frustrating at times watching what goes on in Orange County and being puzzled by how our county government has bollixed things up. For example, our County Parks have been hamstrung for years as their revenue has been redirected to paying off bankruptcy bonds. As a result, thousands of acres of open space preserved by development agreements may end up managed by an unaccountable conservancy under control of Irvine Company directors.
Yesterday's Constitutional Convention Summit was actually an autopsy. For five hours both panelists and the audience dissected the reasons for the death of the California Dream and all agreed, even if they did not explicitly say this (though many more did than I ever expected), that California's government was murdered by Prop 13 and its accomplices. A Legislature that in the late 1960s was rated as the nation's best has now become one of the most unpopular and ineffective institutions in American politics.
What the Summit revealed is that at the core of California's political crisis is that the people of this state have no way to hold anyone accountable for a system that has totally and deliberately failed. By completely eviscerating the method by which public services are financed, and by locking into place a conservative veto over state government, Prop 13 and the 2/3 rule in particular ensured that the Legislature would never be able to enact effective policy again. And that to produce solutions, voters would have to fill the Legislature with Democrats, something that isn't possible given our self-segregating electorate.
It would be very wrong to say that the supporters of a convention in that room were solely motivated by the wreckage of 1978. Many attendees wanted to focus on the need to increase popular engagement with government. Proportional representation and smaller legislative districts (i.e. more legislators) were common proposals. Steven Hill of New America Foundation in particular has had some good ideas on reforming our democracy - you can find some of them on their Political Reform Blog.
But more important was the spirit of popular engagement that suffused almost every panelist's comments. There was a recognition that if our state is to be fixed, and if a convention is the way it's going to be done, the people themselves really do have to be empowered. A convention, and their government, have to be made relevant to the lived experience of Californians. They have to trust that they can control a convention, and that its outcomes will make their lives better.
I'm here in Sacramento this morning for the Constitutional Convention Summit organized by the Bay Area Council. You can see the agenda here. It's unfortunate that the BAC chose to maintain an $89 registration fee, but there will be other events much more open and accessible to the public in the coming weeks and months.
I'll be liveblogging here and twittering at @cruickshank throughout the day.
The main purpose of this Summit is to gauge interest in calling a convention, bringing people together to think through the process of calling one, what issues a convention might consider, and ultimately start to generate support for the idea.
I really have no idea what's going to be said or what will happen here today, although Lt. Gov. John Garamendi is going to speak in favor of replacing the 2/3 budget rule with a 55% vote, and is also apparently going to call for the abolition of the State Senate and the creation of a 120-member unicameral legislature. Looks like the damage Senate Republicans inflicted on the chamber with their four-day hostage crisis may be terminal.
California hasn't seen a genuine constitutional convention since 1879, although our state's voters have not been shy about amending the constitution since then. A convention opens up a lot of possibilities and brings with it certain risks. All of that has to be discussed by Californians and this is but the start of that effort.
Ultimately it has to be remembered that in American political theory, the people are sovereign. They hold power, not a king or a president or a Zombie Death Cult. If a convention is to be a success it must involve, engage, and empower the people at every way. This Summit is a start in that effort - and only a start. Where we go from here should be and must be up to Californians.
160 years ago a group of newly arrived Anglos and Spanish-speaking Californios met at Colton Hall here in Monterey (pictured at right in a flickr photo by fritzliess) and held California's first Constitutional Convention. The document they produced was literally copied from the Iowa state constitution but had some elements of the Mexican system of government and justice grafted onto it, and included full protection of Spanish speakers' rights in what was officially a bilingual state.
California's constitution has undergone significant change since then. In 1878 the Workingmen's Party rode an anti-Chinese backlash and the Long Depression to power, and rewrote the Constitution in an effort to undermine the power of wealthy interests. (Unfortunately they also ended the 1849 bilingual policy.) In 1911 the Constitution was essentially rewritten when Progressive Republican Hiram Johnson pushed through the initiative, referendum and recall. And in 1978 another dramatic set of Constitutional revisions was initiated by Prop 13.
Americans think of their constitutions as static and unchanging, but this has never been the case. Both the US and the California constitution have undergone frequent revision. Sometimes this comes in the form of actual amendments, but it can also take the form of significant changes in Constitutional interpretation. The only amendments that came out of the New Deal were the 20th and 21st (moving Inauguration Day to January 20 and ending Prohibition) but as most historians and political scientists agree, FDR nevertheless initiated major changes to the way the American government operated.
California's constitution has been amended frequently - over 500 times by some accounts - and included an effort in the late 1960s to modernize the document. Still, it has become clear that California's government is broken and unable to meet the needs of one of the worst crises our state has ever faced. The economic crisis, drought, an energy and environmental crisis that seem to have faded a bit from the public mind but are still very much here - all of these problems are dumped into the lap of a government hamstrung by a conservative veto and a series of rules, many of which date from the last 30 years, designed specifically to prevent government from meeting the people's needs.
The spectacle of Abel Maldonado blackmailing the Legislature to accede to his demands as the price of passing a budget last week showed the need to eliminate the 2/3 rule. It is the first change, the tree that blocks the tracks, the door that opens that path to all other changes. But it has become clear that California needs even deeper reform to solve the present crisis and meet the needs of a 21st century state. Periods of major economic change usually are accompanied by constitutional change - hell, even the US Constitution itself owes its existence to the severe economic crisis of the 1780s, one of the worst in American history.
That's why the Courage Campaign, where I work as Public Policy Director, is joining the Bay Area Council and a diverse coalition of organizations to sponsor a Constitutional Convention Summit on Tuesday in Sacramento (you can register at Repair California).
It's my own personal belief, and one shared by the Courage Campaign, that a Constitutional Convention can successfully fix California's broken government. In a poll of our members last September over 90% said they supported a convention. And in December we launched CPR for California - a Citizens Plan to Reform California that included some major structural fixes for the state, including fixing the budget process and producing long-overdue initiative reform as well as empowerment solutions such as public financing of elections and universal voter registration.
But the key to success is that a convention must truly be "of the people." A convention will fail - and may not even be approved by voters - if it is seen as a top-down effort. Remember of course that a Constitution is a social compact, the product of a sovereign people, a recognition that we must have government to survive but that it must also be accountable to the people. For a Constitutional Convention to have legitimacy it must include the people of California at every step of the journey - especially in setting the Convention's priorities. Additionally, the delegates who attend the Convention must be representative of the state's population, and not be selected from a small group.
It's also worth noting some of the limits of a Constitutional Convention. The Courage Campaign believes that all social issues should be off-limits at a convention, such as marriage equality (that is best dealt with by the California Supreme Court, or by the voters if the Court upholds Prop 8). The Convention alone won't solve our state's financial woes.
But it's time that California's government once again adapted to the times. We need a constitution and a government responsive to the people and able to address the broad 21st century crisis, instead of a government that was deliberately broken and subject to a conservative veto. A Constitutional Convention won't solve all our problems, but it's a necessary step forward for California.
It doesn't come without risks, of course. But the time has come for progressives to assert a new set of ideas and a new agenda for California's future.
Over the flip I explain the process of calling, holding, and approving the proposals produced out of a Constitutional Convention.
I just heard Will.I.Am on NPR talking about education cuts in California. The budget crisis has gone mainstream. And once everyone gets the news that tax refunds, welfare checks and student grants will be suspended because the state is out of cash, a whole lot of other people might get some awareness as well. The dirty little secret about "liberal bastion" California is that we are not a civically engaged people, generally speaking. The budget has been in "crisis" for decades but not enough Californians have mustered up the interest in it. We have right-wing astroturf movements that play to base emotion, but not really citizen's movements that ask for basic fairness. Californians are 45th in the country in volunteering, 44th in attending community meetings and 45th in working on community problems. Chalk it up to traffic or self-absorption or what have you, but the general take is that Californians don't see much beyond what is in front of them. IOUs would change that. Well, maybe. It depends on if the banks will accept them, which is still being negotiated.
The payments to be frozen include nearly $2 billion in tax refunds; $300 million in cash grants for needy families and the elderly, blind and disabled; and $13 million in grants for college students.
Even if a budget agreement is reached by the end of this month, tax refunds and other payments could remain temporarily frozen. Chiang said a budget deal may not generate cash quickly enough to resume them immediately [...]
State officials have already designed an IOU template, Chiang said, and have been negotiating with banks over whether taxpayers could cash or deposit them if they are issued. The state could be forced to pay as much as 5% interest on delayed tax refunds if they are not paid by the end of May, Chiang said.
The last time the state issued such IOUs -- the only time since the Great Depression -- was in 1992.
In other words, the only way this delayed tax refund is going to work is if it causes MORE debt for the state. But let's go back to 1992. This was the last big recession in the country, and California again found itself unable to pay its bills. Tell me again how the budget problems aren't structural. Anyway, the state issued about $350 million in IOUs that year, about 15% of what is being prepared today. The process was not smooth:
IOUs have caused headaches for the state in the past. California issued $350 million worth of IOUs to 100,000 recipients in 1992 during a budget impasse between then Gov. Pete Wilson and the Legislature.
A four-year legal battle ensued after some workers had trouble cashing them. The dispute was settled in 1996 with some state workers getting paid time off for the inconvenience they experienced.
Beth Mills, a spokeswoman for the California Bankers Association, said individual banks statewide haven't decided yet whether they will accept the state IOUs this time.
Banks are barely willing to lend money, I just don't think they're going to be interested in accepting $2.3 billion in IOUs when the process was so difficult last time, and there is more uncertainty in the financial markets now. And even if they do, it will not be uniform across all banks, and customers are going to have varying experiences.
The State of the State speech that nobody watched proved the need for fundamental reform, but it generated barely a blip among non-elites. Having trouble cashing your disabled mom's assistance payment, that's a whole different story. Not to mention the fact that the continued erosion of jobs and the 5,300 public works projects that have been delayed by the state will create a lot of angry and idle minds. Of course, the cautionary part of this is that the 1992 IOUs did not lead to structural reform. However, we all can agree that this is a much bigger problem.
Pitchforks and torches may be at a premium. And while it's hard to write a new Constitution in a riot, something needs to shake up this decayed and dysfunctional system.
I appreciate Bob's sentiment that the time is now to fight the Governor and the Yacht Party and bring some sanity into the fiscal process, but my fear is that the time for that was three years ago, when the successful fight against the special election should have been built upon, and at this point, we're already swirling in the bowl.
Let's just get you up to date. All infrastructure projects are currently shut down. Unemployment nudged up to 8.4% in November, the state lost 41,700 jobs last month, and up to 200,000 more jobs are on the chopping block from the public works freeze if it continues. Meanwhile the Governor is ordering up layoffs and furloughs for state workers, so just add those on top of the pile. You're likely to see a 10% cut in state employees, and a 10% reduction in the salaries of those who remain. More job loss means less income tax and probably less sales tax, as well as more need for public assistance.
And that's before a budget which could have further reductions to state employee paychecks, elimination of overtime and meal breaks, etc., is signed. Not to mention the billions more in cuts that the Democrats included in their work-around plan which the Governor threatened to veto. Schools, which were slated for $4 billion in cuts in that budget, have already gotten the jump on the state by cutting back their local budgets. After-school sports, libraries, and new teachers are probably all going to go.
This is a nightmare beyond the ability of many, even myself, to comprehend. It's so big that it'll affect everything, and the idea that a ragtag band of liberals have the power to stop the freight train from coming down the track is precious, but I think wrong. This is the accumulation of 30 years of bad policy and worse government structure, and that's not going to be turned around in the time it needs to be to avoid catastrophe. Even George Skelton, poohbah of all poohbahs, admits that the Yacht Party is so nakedly ideological that they have made the state dysfunctional. This work-around budget is good for the time being, but Schwarzenegger is clearly committed to hijacking that process. It's a large game of chicken that none of us can afford. And as I've noted, even balancing the budget - which the work-around does not do - will not necessarily restart infrastructure spending, and even federal help might not be able to do that.
Changing the constitution with a convention is a nice idea, but not so easy in practice, as we all know.
Talk of calling a constitutional convention has been banging around California for at least the last few decades - maybe since 1851, for all I know - and it's gotten a lot louder recently. Here, however, is the rule for calling a convention:
The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may submit at a general election the question whether to call a convention to revise the Constitution. If the majority vote yes on that question, within 6 months the Legislature shall provide for the convention. Delegates to a constitutional convention shall be voters elected from districts as nearly equal in population as may be practicable.
In plain English: you need a two-thirds vote of the legislature to put an initiative on the ballot and then you have to get it approved by the voters. The problem is that no matter how sweetly liberals might croon about what a convention could do, conservatives all know the truth: the whole point of the thing would be to get rid of our insane two-thirds requirements for passing budgets and raising taxes. Unfortunately, our whole problem is that Republicans control (slightly more than) one-third of the legislature. And if we can't get them to vote for a tax increase in the first place, what are the odds we could get them to vote for a constitutional convention called for the express purpose of making it easier to increase taxes? About zero.
OK, but how about a simple initiative? We could get rid of the two-thirds rule just by collecting signatures and getting a majority vote, right?
Right. And we tried that just a few years ago. Prop 56 was supported by all the usual good government groups and would have reduced the majority needed to pass budget and tax measure from two-thirds to 55%. A bunch of other fluff was added to make it more popular ("rainy day" funds, no pay for legislators if they don't pass a budget, etc.), and in the end.....
....it got whomped 66%-34%. No one was fooled for a second. Everyone knew the whole point was to make it easier to raise taxes, and so it lost in a landslide.
I think a similar proposition to 56 wouldn't crash so hard today, but it would certainly go in as an underdog, because the majority of the state still doesn't understand the consequences of all this failure. It's a "dysfunctional electorate," as K-Drum puts it, as well as a dysfunctional government.
Do we need to fight? Yes. But we need some arms shipments from Washington (metaphorically speaking) before we can do that. A rescue package for the state is desperately needed, and it got a whole lot more so yesterday when the Governor vetoed the work-around.
Disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign. Take the poll - it closes at noon today!
This year's budget crisis produced more than frustration, agony, and suffering for Californians. It has also produced a growing consensus that our basic governmental processes are broken. The 2/3 rule is the most commonly criticized aspect of California's broken government, but there are other factors that get cited, from ballot box budgeting to term limits to redistricting. Even good progressive leaders like Karen Bass are having difficulty given these structural problems. Eliminating the 2/3 rule alone would go a long way in helping fix this state, as would electing enough Democrats to give us a 2/3 majority. But as Californians look at Sacramento, there's growing agreement that a broad range of fixes are necessary to get our state moving again.
Today the San Francisco Chronicleechoes these arguments in an editorial, calling for a series of reforms from eliminating the 2/3 rule to biennial budgeting to Prop 13. But because there are so many reforms that are needed, and because it's difficult to get them through the Legislature and the ballot box one by one, some groups have concluded the only way to push through a bigger reform package is to call a constitutional convention.
The Bay Area Council has already made such a call, suggesting a convention that is limited to only structural governance issues and prevented from proposing changes to individual rights clauses or anything related to social issues. Their call is starting to get traction around the state. The BAC is made up of the heads of Bay Area corporations like Chevron and Yahoo! and have the resources to put this issue before legislators and voters. The question facing not just the Courage Campaign, but progressives in general, is do we agree with them that a convention is the best way to provide the reforms we need?
That's why the Courage Campaign is asking you to vote in our convention poll. Do you think we should advocate for a Constitutional Convention to fix our state's numerous problems?
The arguments for a convention are compelling. Voters choose the delegates, and must approve whatever amendments the convention proposes. A convention elected by and accountable to voters would have broad public support and its recommendations might be taken more seriously - and have a greater chance of passage - than individual reforms sometimes seen as partisan in nature, like Prop 93 or Prop 11. A convention also allows for numerous reforms to be proposed and adopted at once, instead of in a slow one by one process. And of course a convention may succeed at producing needed reforms where all other attempts to fix the state's process in recent years have failed.
There are good counterarguments to this. If Democrats achieved 2/3 majorities in both houses they could push through some of these reforms without needing to go through the lengthy process of holding a convention. It may not be possible to limit the authority of a convention to just process issues - we don't want to open pandora's box or give social conservatives an opportunity to limit basic rights. And surely there are other objections (put them in the comments if you've got 'em!).
So that's why we're asking you to take the poll. Let us know what you think. And certainly add your thoughts in the comments. If a convention does happen it will need broad support from the progressive community, and it's a discussion we need to have now, especially if the well-funded BAC is serious about calling one.
More details, including an explanation of how a convention would work, over the flip.
CapAlert sez it's all over, and it's marginally better, actually:
Legislative leaders said today that they have reached a deal on the long overdue state budget that will satisfy demands made by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The Republican governor has said he would veto the $104.3 billion plan lawmakers passed this week. He demanded that a proposed rainy day fund to help the state though bad economic times be tightened to prevent its balance from being depleted in good times.
And he said lawmakers must remove a maneuver, worth $1.6 billion, that would have increased the amount of withholding tax paid by personal income taxpayers.
Republican leaders and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata emerged from a meeting this afternoon saying they had agreed to the governor's demands. They have proposed making up the lost revenue by increasing penalties on corporations that underpay taxes. The leaders also agreed to lower the amount of the state's reserve fund from $1.2 billion to $800 million. Under the proposal, corporations who underpay their taxes by $1 million or more would see penalties rise from 10 percent to 20 percent. The deal also assumes a cancellation of a proposed tax amnesty program.
A mixed bag here. I think the rainy-day fund is kind of silly, and the worst part of this is that Schwarzenegger will now get to wield his blue pencil on the budget (last year he struck funding to treat mentally ill homeless people, you recall. How moderate!). But eliminating the interest-free loan all of us taxpayers were going to give to the state against our will is a good thing, especially in return for increasing penalties on corporate tax cheats. The withholding gambit wasn't going to pass the override, because Republican leaders wouldn't have gone along (they somehow snuck it into a party-line vote the first time around).
Of course, that isn't a reliable form of income. And there are still plenty of gimmicks inside this budget. And, the $8 billion dollar chunk that could be siphoned off by judicial mandate to rescue prison health care has yet to be dealt with. So this end result is not exactly wonderful.
The pundits who gave Arnold a tongue bath over having the post-partisan postpartisan-ness to veto the budget ought to take a look at the finished product. It's still a piece of garbage. And that's by design in the dysfunctional budget system, where you practically are destined to come out with an illegal finished product.
The Bay Area Council, a group of high-level executives from around the state, has the right idea - it's time for a Constitutional convention that can blow all of these contradictory and debilitating rules off the table and start anew.
A constitutional convention was used nearly a century ago to wrest California's government from the hands of railroad barons. Today, some say it could help the state out of its current political dysfunction.
The Bay Area Council, which represents the chief executives of Google, Yahoo, Chevron, Wells Fargo and other major San Francisco Bay Area businesses, is leading the charge for a state constitutional convention to revamp state government.
"This year's budget deadlock shows better than perhaps any other recent event that our state needs a constitutional convention to fix a governance system that is hopelessly broken," Jim Wunderman, president of the Bay Area Council, said in a statement.
Among some of the changes being proposed:
Adopt a two-year budget cycle.
California's taxing and spending systems, along with its ties to local government spending.
Remove the two-thirds vote requirement to pass a budget in the Legislature.
The devil's in the details, but the current system doesn't work, and we end up suffering. There are dozens of teachers, health care workers, managers of clinics, public employees, and countless other groups who get hurt every summer by the late budget. The legislators aren't currently allowed to do their job. Reform is desperately needed.
