  |
Senate President Darrell Steinberg watches from the rear of the chamber during a budget debate Tuesday in Sacramento. KENT PORTER/PD
Prop. 25 would eliminate the two-thirds vote requirement and enable the Legislature to pass the budget on a simple majority vote. If a budget is not passed by the June 15 constitutional deadline, legislators would forfeit pay for every day the budget is late.
The Press Democrat Editorial Board endorsed Prop. 25 on Sept. 4. A copy of the endorsement is attached below. Did the PD Editorial Board make the right pick? Disagree with the choice? Post a comment to share your thoughts with other members of the community.
Want more information?
CLICK HERE for the Ballotpedia summary of Prop. 25.
PD Editorial: Yes on 25
Need to reform budget process is more evident now than ever
Tuesday’s dead-end debate over a state budget is exhibit A in the argument for Proposition 25 on the Nov. 2 ballot.
Tuesday’s failed vote — falling on day 80 of the budget stalemate — was something between a Kabuki dance and a charade. (For more on this, see Dan Walters’ column.)
Still, it illustrated a fundamental and chronic problem in California — the near-impossibility of getting a sensible budget approved given the entrenched partisanship at the Capitol and the requirement for a two-thirds majority to approve a spending plan.
Proposition 25 would correct this problem by lowering the threshold for passing a budget to a simple majority vote, equivalent to the systems in place in New York, Illinois, Texas and 44 other states.
California, which boasts the worst credit score of any state, is one of only three states that require a two-thirds vote. In fact it is the only one that requires a two-thirds vote to approve a budget and to raise taxes.
For those who fear this measure would cut the restraints on big spenders in Sacramento and lead to all kinds of mischief, rest assured. Proposition 25 specifically states that it only lowers the two-thirds requirement on the budget. The Legislature would still have to meet the super-majority threshold to approve tax increases.
Proposition 25 simply ensures that the budget process can no longer be hijacked by a small minority of politicians, some of whom only switch their votes after working deals that protect the interests of their district or themselves.
It’s undemocratic. It’s indefensible, and it’s the single biggest reason for the gridlock and dysfunction of Sacramento.
Furthermore, Proposition 25 would hold legislators accountable for not approving a budget on time. If they don’t send a budget to the governor by June 15, as required by the state Constitution, they don’t get paid. It’s as simple as that.
Voters need to ignore the doom-sayers opposing Proposition 25, many of whom have the most to gain from continued gridlock in Sacramento. There is nothing appealing about the status quo. Californians can’t keep sending new lawmakers to the Capitol in handcuffs. Legislators need to be able to do their jobs and then be held accountable if they don’t — as occurs in 47 other states.
As is, California has created a system that ensures stagnation not accountability or efficiency.
For only the second time in state history, California has entered September without a budget. The state is embroiled in brinkmanship and finger-pointing and is on the verge of issuing IOUs again.
California needs to give its leaders a chance to succeed or fail. Leaving them to do nothing is not working. The Press Democrat recommends a yes vote on Proposition 25.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
@Bob Raines When has redistricting been done without gerrymandering? When that happens, maybe I won’t ‘fear’ a simple majority vote in the State Legislature. As it stands now, with entrenched career politicians in office, we should all be very afraid of what the simple majority will do. If people think things are bad now, wait until prop 25 passes. You’ll think these are the good old days, wait and see.
2/3rds or 55% Well no matter I’m tapped out. Didn’t pay much in taxes last year, don’t expect to be much help this year either. Would like to stay in my home tho.
The Editor who wrote the words:
“It’s undemocratic. It’s indefensible, and it’s the single biggest reason for the gridlock and dysfunction of Sacramento.”
got it right.
Thanks for your endorsement for a YES vote on Proposition 25.
Dan,
Your argument is, at best, misleading. Find me in the Constitution where women were explicitly barred from voting? No where. The Japanese internment camps were as a result of Presidential “war time powers” which are not spelled out in the Constitution and subject to interpretation amongst the citizens and courts.
And the other travesties you mentioned would have been rectified in the writing of the document except that ratification required more than 50% of the states. Sound familiar? We have since rectified those short comings and the document still stands to protect from the tyranny of the majority- Prop 8 anyone?
@Ray
Yep, gerrymandering is bad but Republicans, when given the opportunity, have been equal opportunity gerrymanderers.
The fee vs. tax problem exists independent of Prop 25. Does Prop 25 change anything?
As far as fees and taxes being the same, sometimes and sometimes not. Does it makes sense to charge a fee to use a public park? Or should we just tax everyone equally, even those who never use the park?
I don’t like the misuse of fees anymore than you. But crippling government so much that it can’t much of anything done isn’t the answer, either. I’m afraid that elections have consequences. Until our side wins a few, we’re not going to like the results whatever the rules.
Dan Delgado,
You wrote: “Thank you for your Wikipedia-infused romp through American history.”
Forgive me for injecting some actual facts and perspective into the discussion.
You wrote; “…unreasonable reliance on the Constitution.”
The Constitution is, essentially, all that America has. Without the Constitution, there is no America. And there is nothing under the law within America that is not sanctioned by the Constitution. Your statement is incomprehensible.
You wrote: ” Your subsequent posts seem to suggest someone capable of making that connection.”
You were both wrong, I pointed that out in two sequential posts. This is symptomatic of the faulty logic that is damaging America today. We have two camps on opposite sides of each issue. Both sides assume that if the other side is wrong, they must be right. Both side are oblivious to the fact that they are both wrong, the actual truth lies on ground occupied by neither.
I simply pointed that out.
Lyn seems to not the the difference between taxes and “fees.” If the proposition passes the politicians will still need 2/3′s majority to raise taxes. They only need a simple majority to raise fees. You know, like, building permits, auto registration, licensing fees, regulatory fees, tuition fees, water/sewer fees, etc. A giant list of fees would be used to pay for all the democrats social programs. A government fee is still a tax, but by another name.
Want to make our politicians accountable? Stop gerrymandering districts and allow one state senator and two congressmen from each county, ONLY! Why should someone in San Francisco represent me in Sonoma County? We have nothing in common. Thank you democrats for our current gerrymandered system.
Well, well, Charles Legoll Becker,
Thank you for your Wikipedia-infused romp through American history. Your justifications of past national transgressions as excusable because 1) others were engaged in similar reprehensible conduct, or 2) we didn’t do it again, while entertaining, completely miss the mark. Had you comprehended my post or the one that preceded it, perhaps you would have reined in the belicosity and instead addressed your remarks to the issue of unreasonable reliance on the Constitution. While the Constitution is a wonderful document that has proved flexible and adaptable over the years, the execution of its principles, as you so aptly described, is at times lacking. Why you would ignore the vigilance required to protect ourselves from the sometimes irrational and emotional actions of our fellow citizens I do not understand. Your subsequent posts seem to suggest someone capable of making that connection. I can only assume you read what you wanted to read, not what was written.
The 2/3′s vote for a budget and for tax increases has crippled the state of California. When we have legislative districts that are not drawn with political parties in mind, we have nothing to fear from a simple majority making decisions in Sacramento. If legislators do not deliver on the wishes of the electorate, out they go. If we could get rid of term limits, then the lobbyists wouldn’t be able to run our Capitol, either. The supposed reforms of the past 20-30 years (2/3′s majority votes and term limits) are at the root of most of our governmental problems in Sacto.
We must pass Prop 25. It is the only way to continue to offer the best welfare in the country. We are number one in the nation and need to stay that way. Be proud of the state budget that is more that 50% welfare type programs and giveaways. With Prop. 25 they will only need 50% plus one vote to pass huge, inflated budgets with no choice but to increase taxes topay for them.
It is so cool to Californian.
Political Scientist,
You wrote: “And 2/3rd requirements don’t protect from “tyranny of the majority”, that’s what a Constitution is for.”
As they say, “Well, duhhhhh.” The supermajority is the MECHANISM used by the Constitution to protest from the tyranny of the majority. Just read here:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_parts_of_the_constitution_that_require_a_supermajority
Regards,
Chuck
Dan Delgado,
You wrote: “Don’t be so proud of your ignorance.”
That is good advice.
Regarding your ” consitution that counts blacks as 3/5 of a person, denied women the right to vote, permitted slavery, and under which American citizens of Japaneese descent were interned during WWII”
In the interest of knowledge and perspective, you would do well to put those issues in the context of the times.
In the context of the times, people were held in slavery all over the world. The first foreign war we fought, against the Barbary States, was to free American seamen being held in slavery in Tunisia, and we then fought the bloodiest war of our history to end slavery at home. Under the Constitution.
In the context of the times, women were disenfranchised everywhere. The United Kingdom did not get universal suffrage for all until 1928. Wyoming granted universal suffrage in 1869. Under the Constitution.
In the context of the times, the outrage and fear of a Japanese attack on the US West Coast was palpable. It’s easy to ridicule from the comfort and safety of the year 2010, but also ignorant:
http://www.militarymuseum.org/Ellwood.html
In retrospect, this was a shameful episode in American history, but we have worked ceaselessly to do better with every passing year. When the World Trade Centers fell, we grounded all air traffic for four days, but nobody was rounded up. Under the Constitution.
Knowing all about past injustices is only a sliver of the full knowledge needed to understand what really happened.
regards,
Chuck
Absolutely and postively NO on 25. This just the big whinning push by the left wing to have complete control. A simple vote will increase deficit spending, debt we cannot handle and taxes will go further out of control. Yes we need leadership to get rid of the teachers and labor unions and illegal aliens the two biggest problems causing California to fail. Even with a balanced budget the entitlement mafia is detrsoying this state and the country.
Political Scientist,
So you think the Constitution protects against the tyranny of the majority? Excuse me, but are you referring to the same consitution that counts blacks as 3/5 of a person, denied women the right to vote, permitted slavery, and under which American citizens of Japaneese descent were interned during WWII. Don’t be so proud of your ignorance.
No one is going to be able to provide proof that this proposition even remotely touches Prop 13- because it’s a bald-faced lie. And 2/3rd requirements don’t protect from “tyranny of the majority”, that’s what a Constitution is for.
@Arnold
Thanks for sounding the alarm for the already beleagured property owners. If 51% can freely change our laws and our spending, not only will the private housing market crash the rest of the way, but progressive (if you can call it that) democrats will rule and usher in cap and trade carbon taxing and the global plan to redistribute wealth. No on 25.
What nonsense to suggest the majority is held hostage by the minority when in fact it is only the 2/3 vote requirement that stands between us and the tyranny of the majority. Sure, the Democrats hold the current majority so one would expect them to cry foul about being unable to pass the budget and tax increases they want. And of course the unions are blinded by their own greed so their objections are equally predictable. But if either of them possessed the ability to look beyond their own immediate wants, they might see that the 2/3 vote reqirement protects all of us. What happens when the Republicans are the majority and their proposed budget is full of business incentives and tax breaks for the rich? I bet the 2/3 vote requirement will look pretty good then. The simple truth is that so long as both parties are controlled by their extremist factions, no budget either would propose will be to the good of the citizens as a whole. Kudos again to Abel Maldonado for getting us the open primary.
What comments is Ms. Maldonado reading.
I am certainly not hearing anyone argue that the minority should be able to block the majority.
Again, Ms. Maldonado sees what she wants to see, not what people are saying.
Would those who claim Prop 25 overturns Prop 13 or allows the legislature to raise taxes with a simple majority please provide evidence for the claim? I know of none.
I can’t even believe anyone would be on these forums arguing FOR the 2/3rds requirement. Honestly. It is the single most destructive aspect of California politics and is NOT Democracy.
Aside from that, the Governor STILL has a line item veto (which is ridiculous in it of itself) and the voters have the ability to mandate spending as they see fit- regardless of the budget- through the proposition system, also ludicrous.
Do us all a favor and pass this proposition. We all know that the Governator has the finances to hold the budget hostage, but the rest of us don’t.
EVERY CURRENT (OR FUTURE) PROPERTY OWNER
- Pay Attention Now! -
Easy To Understand
“Real Estate – Prop. 13 OVERTURNED”
If Prop. 25 passes in the upcoming Nov. 2nd election, the subject headline above will follow just days later!
Prop. 25 will reduce the required vote in Sacramento to make changes to California law from the two-thirds vote requirement, currently in place, to a simple-majority.
It is a fact that those politicians, already guilty of irresponsibility and massive overspending in our state government, possess the simple-majority needed to overturn Prop. 13, if the voting requirement to enact laws which effect taxation is reduced to a simple-majority – and it is absolutely certain they will do it. This is a GUARANTEED FACT.
As we all know, there are few things in life that are “guaranteed”, one being death – another being taxes, and this is another guaranteed fact: Prop. 13 will be overturned if Prop. 25 wins!!!
Prop 13 was enacted years ago when the economy (and our greedy government) had placed the unbearable burden of supporting all of California’s overspending on the backs of the homeowners via our property taxes. In spite of Prop. 13s passage, over the years they have figured out ways (such as calling such increases “fees”, “surcharges” and “allocations” for “schools”, “fire” and “police” issues) to tease us into voting in favor of TAXING OURSELVES. Look at your property tax bill, on the right side of the page, all of the extra assessments appear in a list – IN ADDITION to your Prop. 13 protected property taxes. If Prop 25 passes, these “assessments” will be chump change.
Let’s not let them get away with this vaguely worded proposition, whose main thrust is to lower the 2/3 majority requirement but which is disguised as an order to balance the state budget or suffer monetary consequences to their own pockets. (Do you really believe that a bill to penalize themselves would have gotten this far if our elected officials felt that it would not BENEFIT them in the final outcome?)
VOTE “NO” ON PROP. 25
Very interesting to hear people arguing against 2/3 on the premise that the minority should be able to block the majority’s wishes. Essentially they are saying they want the game rigged since they can’t win fair and square.
I have mixed feeling about ending the 2/3rds rule. Yep, it will make passing a budget even more unbalanced than those of recent years. But it might also bring a little closer the day of reckoning.
The current stalemate is destructive, and getting worse. What might a legislature do that could pass a budget with a simple majority yet still needs 2/3rds to increase taxes? Don’t know.
The reform most needed, though, is to prevent the governor or legislature from borrowing from different funds to pretend the budget is balanced. Most of our current deficit is carryover from previous years. That reform is far more important than the 2/3rds rule.
I’m not so sure the 2/3 requirement is so bad. Without it, we wouldn’t have got the open primary. Then-senator Maldonado extracted that measure in exchange for his vote that passed the last budget.
The Pressdemocrat certainly did make the wrong choice. This is a one party state which in many places in the world would be called a dictatorship. It got this way by way of political gerrymandering. The minority party, in this case, the very small minority party can say nothing except when it comes to the Democrats outrageous budget proposals. The Democrats argue over women’s dress codes when while they ignore the state unemployment and econony. They want more taxes and more business regulations which drive companies out of state and overseas. California is rapidly becoming like its role model, the old Soviet Union, bankrupt.
Vote no on Prop. 25.
You know you are endorsing never ending tax increases and more deficit spending? The only thing saving California now is the 2/3rds rule. Do you know and don’t care? No wonder the PD continues to lose subscribers!