Actually a 2005 Public Policy Institute report found this is not true.

http://www.ppic.org/main/pressrelease.asp?p=590

People forget the imbalance of having a 2/3 requirement to raise taxes while a simple majority can cut them. Over the years the Republicans have used this to leverage big revenue reductions as part of budget deals. The credibility of many of the folks who decry government spending abuses etc. is ZIP since they said nothing while the recent Performance Review vanished.

Personally I want a thorough evaluation and study of best practices etc. before we undertake any major changes in the structure of state government (like the recent talk of a constitutional convention). We need some basis other than opinions to guide us if reform is needed.

The way services are delivered also needs to come under scrutiny as well. Can/should we privatize certain things? Would that save us money, or cause other problems?

Are they alternative means of service delivery that may be cheaper, or even more effective? (For example, more online education, rather than classrooms, or community service, instead of jail/prison?)

A lot of businesses have left the state over the past few years, moving to places like Nevada, Utah, etc. Should we find out what’s chasing them out of California. It’s probably not just taxes alone.

How about more accountability with our institutions. Schools that don’t teach, cops who brutalize, etc. … all these things tend to make people turn off to paying more taxes, or otherwise being engaged in civic life.

Hard questions we need to be asking ourselves now.

There is a mistaken belief that poverty results in crime. It doesn’t – the poor can be very moral, just as the rich can be immoral. Poverty does affect sentences, and that should be scrutinized.

But many on the left use this as some form of justification to release violent criminals from detention. That’s ridiculous.

I’ve been around for a while. I can attest that Los Angeles is a much nicer place post-three strikes, than it was in the before-time. I have been assaulted, beaten, robbed, and shot at numerous times – but never by a white person, never in “no nonsense” (“racist”) jurisdictions, and excluding the new trend of drive-bys, never since 3-strikes started making a dent.

I may be less of a target, a little wiser, or maybe three strikes works.
I won’t claim to know, but it sure seems to be the latter.

If the Republicans were to win a legislative majority, I highly doubt they’d be defending the 2/3 budget requirement that wouldn’t allow them to make their priorities happen.

Ubrayj,

Thank you for mentioning the prison-industrial complex. The three-strikes law put a tremendous strain on the state budget. The irony is that conservative budget policies will result in early release for many of these prisoners.

It is funny that you would choose education and healthcare as programs that have increased spending, while failing to mention programs that have increased beyond their typical per-capita rate of increase: PRISONS.

We have very harsh sentencing laws in this state, and as a result we have roughly 250,000+ people in prisons statewide on any given day. These people are kept in a constant downward spiral that keeps thousands of prison guards, parole officers, counselors, court clerks, lawyers, etc. employed – while systematically draining our state resources at a rate exceeding both healthcare and education.

The ability to avoid majority rule, as I was taught it, extends to LAW MAKING. When it comes to fixing a state budget, clearly 2/3 is an insane level of approval, and that has led us down a pretty crappy path.

In my interpretation, the 2/3 requirement for taxes and budgeting serves this.

I’ve heard arguments that a lower threshold might actually result in smaller budgets (no need to buy off with earmarks, for instance), but I haven’t seen any evidence in the last 10 years that suggests our current legislature would be able to refrain from overspending on entitlements, social welfare programs, and other union/contractor feeding frenzies.

I am and have always been willing to pay, temporarily, higher taxes, to overcome short-term adversity. And I’m willing/consenting to pay those approved by AND PAID BY the vast majority of the public, even if I disagreed with the tax (Prop R, for its deceit, not its general purpose).

But the trend, in government at ALL levels, has been to create new, permanent programs (Healthy Families, Medicare Part D, LAUSD’s Contractor Full Employment Program, LA County’s vast anchor-baby money laundering system, Workers’ Comp, LA City’s numerous scams), to be paid for by “someone else” (that’s me).

Every year, with the ever-increasing hand of government reaching in my back pocket, I am more and more inclined NOT to participate in the economy. My payroll and transactions may not be substantial, but as I’ve scaled back over the past few years, directly in proportion to the meddling and interference, I’ve seen my former workers and contractors lose everything, and I don’t believe any of them had liar-loans.

Dan W, we simply don’t have “low taxes”, even if you want to count the few oldsters who have property from 1975. The fact that corporations hold property longer and with C shells can pass the tax level along on sale, is of little consequence. Lower commercial taxes means lower commercial rents, so your job might not just disappear.

So, remove the 2/3 vote budget rule on spending, term limits and all of the ballot box budgeting and let the legislature and governor do their jobs. I have yet to see any proof that the 2/3 budget vote or term limits has helped California governance in any way.

—————-

There is a difference between tax policy and the budget as a whole. There is a lot more going into the budget than just the level of taxation. Spending priorities are policy choices. Giving the right of the superminority to inflict its policy choices on the whole budget just by crossing their arms is not democracy. At least 47 other states do not operate that way. Our Federal Government doesn’t operate that way.

We’ve come a long way from the days of Pat Brown and Jess Unruh. If the 2/3 vote to pass a budget wasn’t a problem then, it IS a problem now, and it is fundamentally undemocratic. One Republican Assemblywomn stated she would have no problem having the budget as a whole be a majority vote provided a supermajority was required to raise taxes within that budget. That seems the fairest compromise.

If a minority party wants to control where the whole budget is going and the spending priorities within that budget, then should have to earn that power by winning at the ballot box. Of course, they would have to reach out beyond their base to moderates in order to do that, so no wonder they would find that objectionable.

The solution will ultimately be local control for local needs. Some counties, like Orange County, are going to spend their local money on freeways and neglect the bus system. Expect the OC to jump to $2.00 fares to try to preserve some of the service levels. Others are going to go for public transit. To counter the global carbon emission issue, there should be a national carbon tax, but that is for a global issue. Transportation is still primarily a local issue.

The sky is not falling. The people are just expecting the legislature to be responsible and do the job they were elected to do. The budget has grown out of control since Davis’ first election, most of the overage going to pensions, prisons, illegal aliens and overfunding of schools. If we reign in some of that, there will be a surplus which truly can be put aside for a “rainy day”.

Prop 13 is not the enemy. It allows people to put down roots and buy a house, and be able to predict their ridiculous tax burden, not lose their house to the tax man. Stop hating on private property owners. We ride the bus too.

There is adequate funding for legit transit projects, just not everyone’s fantasy system. The voters just approved Prop R. Be happy.

Members be should picked at random from members of the public, like jury duty.

They should be vetted by an anonymous committee to avoid conflicts of interest and make sure they are mentally competent and are not convicted felons.

——————

Unfortuantely, that’s not the way it works. The minority party uses the 2/3 vote rule as a bludgeon to get other non-budetary polices as well.

This ballot box budgeting has to stop too. Repeal Prop. 13, Prop. 98, and every other proposition over the last 30 years that’s hamstrung the legislature from sanely balancing the budget.

The 2/3 vote budget rule is just plain undemocratic. 47 states believe that if a budget passes by the majority of each house of the state legislature and is signed by the governor, that this is enough checks and balances.

If the minority party wants to hold the state hostage and inflict their policies on the majority who did not vote for them, then they should focus on winning elections. Of course, they might have to reach beyond their base to become a majority, and that’s inconceivable to them right now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogfNEw2XSbY

The Dutch and Danish, and others, have tried very hard to reduce the capital inputs required to maintain a relatively high quality of life. In the U.S., we’ve allowed the worst sort of profligate waste of natural resources to become the status quo, and presumed (on faith alone) that such actions could continue into the future indefinitely.

Our politicians have the power, the advisors, and the science to understand where we sit – they lack the foresight and political vision to get us from where we are to where we need to be. It is no surprise the voters rejected this b.s. set of propositions.

Our entire society is attempting to spend what little wealth and good credit it has to prop up a failing economic model and lifestyle. Where are our leaders on this? Is the next election victory so important to them that they can’t imagine a world without the status quo of suburban expansion and big box retail?

Once our freeways have reached their ends of life, we should tear them down and spend the money elsewhere. Freight movement on rails and passenger rail, street cars, and better amenities for intra-urban bike and pedestrian travel should be where the money goes.