The proposition ads are now all over the teevee, and there are some that at least attempt to hew to the truth, and some, well, not so much. Take the majority vote measure, prop 25. After the broken government crew tried to get the ballot language changed because they didn't like the fact that it says it doesn't affect taxes, they pretty much ignored the judges decision in their ad. I'll save you the whole script, which you can check at the Bee's adwatch, but here's the relevant portion:
Narrator: We all want an on-time balanced budget, but Prop. 25 will just make things worse. Twenty-five makes it easier for politicians to raise our income taxes, sales taxes and taxes on our homes - so they can spend even more.(SacBee)
So, an appellate court says this is not the case, yet ad ignores that? Right, sounds like a textbook ad from the Norquistians out there. From the Bee's ad-watch:
"In our view, Proposition 25 cannot be interpreted to operate as an end-run around the two-thirds vote requirement for raising taxes," the appellate court wrote.
It is likewise inaccurate to imply that Proposition 25 would supersede the two-thirds vote requirements for property taxes set forth in Proposition 13.(SacBee)
Of course, from a long-range standpoint, we need to do more to really restore democracy in the state. However, we need to start by Passing Prop 25 and defeating Prop 26.
Over in the right wing California blogosphere, they've worked themselves into a lather at the possibility of being denied the right to put some legislation to a referendum. Well, Joel Fox, Jon Fleischman and other Chamber of Commerce types anyway. This delightful post is from Loren Kaye of the California Foundation for Commerce:
Enter Proposition 25. Through careful word-smithing, the drafters created a loophole in the referendum power. They created a category of statutes, called "other bills providing for appropriations related to the budget bill," that would be approved by a majority vote, yet qualify for the exemption under "urgency measures," because they go into effect immediately.
Here's the heart of the complaint: urgency measures, such as budget trailer bills, go into effect right away. And thus, they can't be put to a referendum. Under the old rules, I suppose the Right didn't have a problem with that because they had a minority that could block the measure. And we know how the Right feels about the constitution and this pesky representative democracy that is clearly an experiment destined for failure. Washington DC is a passing fad I suppose.
Direct democracy feels better to them, with the wonderful opportunities that a few million dollars can bring. But the trouble is that there is no "there there." Most importantly, Prop 25 takes away no right of referendum. There was previously no right to put the urgency budget bills to a referendum now, so nothing changes, it is just that under Prop 25, you only need a majority.
But the crux of their argument is that now the Democrats are going to go crazy with their wild-eyed progressive bonanza. (Which after the last few days of Democrats voting against progressive legislation over and over again, doesn't seem to be much of a problem anyway.) And boogah-boogah no power to put it on the ballot. Except that Fox and friends seem to miss the part about these urgency measures and the requirement for them to be budgetary measures.
Substantive measures cannot be tied into the budget. For years, the same power has existed around electoral legislation. Legislation could, in theory, be tucked into legislation surrounding our elections, and be free of the possibility of a referendum. Except that that there is another rule: the single subject rule. Under the constitution, legislation can have just one subject, in this case the budget. Any substantive new policy in these bills would violate the single subject rule, and would thus be plucked out.
In the end, it is just another desperate false attack to keep Californians scared.
A while back, I pointed to the specific language of Prop 25 (majority vote budget) that indicated that the measure didn't affect the 2/3 revenue measure. While many of us may disagree with that, the language is clear.
However, Howard Jarvis' corpse had sued to block the summary language that included the statement that tax increases are still governed by the 2/3 rule. And they won in the trial court. Well, today they lost on appeal, and the language stays:
Today's ruling from the appeals court delivers a blow to that argument, saying the measure's intent language declaring it would not change the legislative vote requirement on taxes is clear enough to assess the measure's impact.
"(W)e find nothing in the substantive provisions of Proposition 25 that would allow the Legislature to circumvent the existing constitutional requirement of a two-thirds vote to raise taxes," the ruling reads.(SacBee)
This measure will not change the two-thirds vote requirement for the Legislature to raise taxes. - Proposition 25, Sec. 2 (2)
Whether progressives support this particular provision of Prop 25 is a matter for another discussion, but that sentence is written in the text of the initiative. But today, the No on Prop 25 campaign, made the rather bold claim that what you see in front of your face, well, it's not real.
Opponents of Proposition 25 are taking aim at the language of the initiative to lower the two-thirds legislative vote requirement for passing a budget, saying the measure is written in a way that could allow tax increases to be approved by a majority vote. ... But opponents say the actual operative language of the measure, which you can read here, effectively permits raising taxes with a majority vote.
"This is not a check and balance on the Legislature, this is a carte blanche for more taxes," Teresa Casazza, president of the California Taxpayers Association, said today at a roundtable with reporters (Sac Bee)
Now, I'd like to see some revenue language included somewhere, but the simple fact is that Prop 25 is only about the budget. Sure, you can come up with some tortured logic that you can just add in a revenue measure to the budget to get a majority vote, but let's be real here. Any judge is going to take one look at the initiative, and toss that right out of court. Games are fun, but in the real world, this measure is about revenue.
Now, of course, this puts us in the position of arguing against a real majority vote. Of course, we need real majority rule, with voters actually deciding the fate of the state without the ridiculous and anti-democratic (small d) pressures of a minority veto. But, that, I suppose, is an argument for another day.
To everyone who claims that our wealthiest citizens pay more than their fair share of income taxes and we should cut them a break because they're the ones who, you know, create jobs in our economy, I have four words for you:
A letter in the San Jose Mercury News the other day expresses the misguided but oft-repeated Republican "spin" that tax cuts and deregulation "create jobs". As usual it bears little resemblance to the truth.
Create jobs by helping business
The two ways government can affect the job market are by spending on projects through borrowing or by reducing the tax burden on families and businesses. If it borrows, it causes another tax through inflation and interest expenses that will go on forever. If it reduces taxes and regulations, the loss in revenue will be far less than the amount the Democrats are planning to spend, and without any interest.
You create jobs by making it easier for businesses to hire people through reductions in taxes and regulations, such as a tax break for every person they hire and retain. You don't make it harder for them by raising their expenses. Let's do what worked in the past.
What a night! As you may have seen, last night I was the highest vote-getter in the 10th Congressional District special primary election and will now face Republican David Harmer in the November 3rd general election.
I want to thank our incredible team of hard working volunteers. They spent countless hours knocking on doors, making phone calls, and making their presence known at community events throughout the district. Our success would not have been possible without them, and they have my deepest gratitude. Because of their efforts, we won all four counties in the district.
I also want to take a moment to acknowledge my competitors in this election:
To David Harmer: Congratulations on your victory among Republicans. I look forward to two months of dialogue focused on the issues and solutions that matter to the people of the 10th Congressional District. I intend to make it clear that a radical right wing agenda that seeks to stop health care reform, starve the education of our children, fails to finance the transportation and infrastructure systems we need, and advocates more tax breaks for the most wealthy is not in the interests of the people of the 10th Congressional District, California, or America.
To Senator Mark DeSaulnier: Your health care town halls helped establish an important dialogue in the campaign about the need for comprehensive health care reform. You are an institution in Contra Costa County, and you have many admirers. You deserve special acknowledgement for your work seeking a constitutional convention. The two-thirds majority requirement has worsened California's problems and I look forward to working with you to bring a working democracy and majority rule back to California.
This weekend at the California Democratic Party (CDP) Executive Board Meeting several hundred board members unanimously passed this resolution:
Majority Vote BRG09.08
WHEREAS, the California Constitution requires certain bills making appropriations from the General Fund, for changes in state taxes for the purpose of raising revenue, to be passed in each house of the Legislature by a two-third vote; and
WHEREAS, this requirement amounts to minority rule by one third, plus one and has brought the State of California to a revenue crisis and a situation of paralysis because of a vocal minority of conservative Republicans; and
WHEREAS, the people of California deserve urgently to have a functional, effective and balanced government, able to respond and adjust to economic downturns and upswings for the benefit of the majority of its citizens, rather than be held hostage by the ideologies of the few;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the California Democratic Party supports a change to only require a simple majority (like the U.S. Congress and 80% of states) for revenue bills, thus restoring majority rule and representative democracy to California's government.
This resolution combined with a similar resolution for majority rule for budget put the CDP in the position of favoring majority rule for both budget and revenue related legislation.
As we face this state budget crisis, we would like to remind people that it didn't have to be this way. The Democrats in California's legislature tried to do the responsible thing to keep the state running and head this off, and passed a good budget in January. The Republicans and the Governor instead wanted to create a crisis and force the state into bankruptcy.
This is my first diary on Calitics, so please bear with me. The legislature has now passed a budget deal. This is a bad, bad, horrible, awful deal. I will not discuss that deal further, as it prompts me to use language not suitable for mixed company. What it does tell me, and should tell anyone with a pulse, a brain, and a conscience, is that the two-thirds rule is a license to commit extortion. Enough's enough!
We must now move to next steps. These are my ideas, but alternative suggestions are welcomed. We should agree on our plan as a progressive community, and move forward. We should all remember that "the perfect is the enemy of the good" and keep focused on the main prize -- upholding progressive values.
A new AP story came down the wire today about possible changes to the budget process. As this fits well with the discussion on mbayrob's diary, I thought we should keep talking. So, as the AP sees it, 5 things can happen:
Change to a simple majority vote
Use spending priorities which would automatically cut funds from lower priorities if necessary
Tighten deadlines elsewhere in the process.
Make 2/3 Rule apply elsewhere in the process.
Change the tax structure to allow more local control
Penalize tardiness using innovative penalties (sort of miscellany)
Obviously, I've made my opinion on this clear already: we need to return to democracy by returning to the majority vote requirement. Read the whole story for more details. Also, we could combine some of these options. Senator Perata has said he supports reforming the tax structure. There are many reasonable options, but what is becoming abundantly clear is that the status quo is not one of them.
