The new California legislature has been sworn in, and the Democratic Party, or at least its elected politicians, are in charge. There are Democratic super majorities in both the State Assembly and the State Senate, and of course Governor Brown presumably stands ready to sign into law anything his fellow Democrats pass. To block any legislation Republicans would have to get at least a few Democrats to join with them.
The Democrats are limited by nothing but reality now. They owe their usual constituencies big time, but how can they pay up? The passage of Proposition 30, which increased income and sales taxes, insures that there should be enough income to balance the budget in 2013. The economy seems to be thawing, which could also boost revenue a bit. But there is little or no room to increase the budget for teachers, other civil servants, or public welfare. This is after four years of fairly drastic cutbacks. Teachers and police remain out of work, medical and dental help for the poor remains cut to the bone. As always, to raise more funds either the economy has to pick up steam or taxes need to be raised.
The Democrats could become real unpopular real quickly if they raised taxes again significantly. Don't expect it.
California is still dealing with two giant legacy issues: bonds and public employee pensions. Ever since the Great Depression, California had been able to depend on growth in population and per person income. In that situation it made sense to fund projects with bonds, since they would be relatively easy to pay off over time. The same with pensions: by promising great things in the future, current wage concessions could be minimized. The bonds carried what seemed to be low interest rates, but for years now we have been in a super-low interest rate environment, making the bonds relatively expensive and hard to pay off.
Pensions were premised on above-historical average returns in the stock market. Need we say more? To keep past promises the state government (and local governments too) would have to gut services and cut into the number of public employees even further.
California might still grow its way out of this mess, but the way forward is no longer clear. We are no longer the state that everyone wants to move to. We no longer have the world's best schools and universities. We have little buildable land that is not protected by environmentalists (and the environmentalists are right!). To the extent the population of California grows it needs to be urban growth, growth in the direction of high rise buildings, not further suburbanization. If the population stabilizes or grows slowly we need to raise wages for the average worker if we want the economy to expand. Yet raising wages can be difficult when globalized manufacturing and services is based on wages that are already lower than are paid here.
Then there is the issue of being part of the United States of America, which now has a debt so vast it is hard to imagine that it can remain solvent in the long run. California would probably be better off becoming its own nation, with its own ability to manage its economy, money, and debt system, but that won't happen. The U.S.A. has an out-of-control military and homeland security complex that is sinking our entire economy. Expect federal taxes to increase, leaving Californians less money to spend near home.
Our own tax mess hardly leaves the sense that California is governed any better than the nation. For many residents real estate taxes are low, since they are based on ancient property values. But many other residents are paying real estate taxes on expensive homes, and inflation is not easing their burden over time. We have compensated with a sales tax that gives many people pause when spending money. If you are lucky enough to have $100 to spend, you can only take $90 or so to the checkout counter, because taxes will eat up the difference. That makes a huge difference both to consumers and to the merchants that service them. Our California state income tax is quite progressive, but makes our state unattractive as a home for many upper income people.
We are short of water. We are well past the point where there is enough water to satisfy fish, farmers, and consumers. Despite having some of the best agricultural land on earth, we have so many residents that we are net food importers.
We used to have steel mills, foundries, and semiconductor fabrication plants. All gone, and unlikely to come back. Even Hollywood makes as many films as possible anywhere but California. We are strong on design, but also need to compete in the national and international markets, providing both services and real goods.
Herbert Hoover handed Franklin Delano Roosevelt a bigger mess in 1933. While economic in nature, it was a different sort of mess than confronts us today. Californians are watching the Democratic Party. Failure to deliver prosperity will almost certainly mean a cataclysm is in our future.
Showing posts with label legislature. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legislature. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Yes on California Proposition 31
Official Title: STATE BUDGET. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
Proposition 31 reforms the California state budget process and adds flexibility to local government implementations of state mandates.
For over a decade every year the California State legislature has been late passing budgets. Often the partisan-driven deadlock in Sacramento has resulted in government workers and vendors receiving vouchers instead of paychecks. Partly that is the responsibility of voters who have sent uncompromising fools to represent them.
At least if Proposition 31 passes we will only have to go through the fiasco every two years, instead of each year. This also lines up budgets with elections for the State Assembly, which are held every two years.
The administration of state-funded programs by local governments has also become something of a nightmare and boondoggle. Proposition 31 cannot fix this, but it does have provisions to allow local governments to work together to tweek their procedures. Hopefully for the better.
31 also allows the Governor to reduce spending when there is an unexpected shortage of funds. That could have solved a lot of problems if it had been in place before the recession.
As usual, the text of Prop 31 is long and complicated, so opposers can find details to dislike.
Quoting the Argument in Favor, "Proposition 31 requires a real balanced budget." It actually makes more sense to build surpluses during good economic times and then spend during recessions, but what we have now is overspending all the time, which is leading us to disaster.
The Argument Against says Proposition 31 "will lead to lawsuits and confusion." That is not much of an argument: all law leads to lawsuits and confusion. We still want the best laws we can write. Most of the arguments against 31 seem to be scare tactics, rather than based on the actual likely effects of the law.
Yes on 31, Reform the California Budget system.
Proposition 31 summary, official arguments, and text
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
Proposition 31 reforms the California state budget process and adds flexibility to local government implementations of state mandates.
For over a decade every year the California State legislature has been late passing budgets. Often the partisan-driven deadlock in Sacramento has resulted in government workers and vendors receiving vouchers instead of paychecks. Partly that is the responsibility of voters who have sent uncompromising fools to represent them.
At least if Proposition 31 passes we will only have to go through the fiasco every two years, instead of each year. This also lines up budgets with elections for the State Assembly, which are held every two years.
The administration of state-funded programs by local governments has also become something of a nightmare and boondoggle. Proposition 31 cannot fix this, but it does have provisions to allow local governments to work together to tweek their procedures. Hopefully for the better.
31 also allows the Governor to reduce spending when there is an unexpected shortage of funds. That could have solved a lot of problems if it had been in place before the recession.
As usual, the text of Prop 31 is long and complicated, so opposers can find details to dislike.
Quoting the Argument in Favor, "Proposition 31 requires a real balanced budget." It actually makes more sense to build surpluses during good economic times and then spend during recessions, but what we have now is overspending all the time, which is leading us to disaster.
The Argument Against says Proposition 31 "will lead to lawsuits and confusion." That is not much of an argument: all law leads to lawsuits and confusion. We still want the best laws we can write. Most of the arguments against 31 seem to be scare tactics, rather than based on the actual likely effects of the law.
Yes on 31, Reform the California Budget system.
Proposition 31 summary, official arguments, and text
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Yes on California Proposition 28, term limits
Currently in the the State of California there are term limits for citizens serving in our state legislature. A person can serve three terms of two years in the California State Assembly and two terms of four years in the California State Senate. Thus a successful politician can serve a maximum of fourteen (14) years at the state level. After that, to remain in elected political office, the options are to return to local seats, try for one of the few statewide offices like governor, or try to jump to a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives or one of the two U.S. Senator positions.
Proposition 28, "Limits on Legislator's Terms in Office," which if passed would be an amendment to the California Constitution, would change the rules for term limits. A citizen would be able to serve only 12 years in the State Assembly or Senate, but could divide up those years as desired (or as the citizens are willing to vote).
This would serve to mitigate two problems at once. In the current system, upward-climbing politicians start in the Assembly. After spending a year running for office, they have a year of being a novice before running for Assembly again. By the time they are experienced at Assembly work, they are term limited out. They have spent 3 years running for office, then 3 years focused (hopefully) on the people's business. Their last year is usually spent desperately seeking a higher office, or getting ready to join the vast army of parasitic former legislators who become lobbyists or get appointed to highly paid, no-show California commission committee work.
Under 28 a citizen can get up to six terms in the state assembly. There would be a mix, in the assembly, of old hands who know their business and newer members to provide fresh energy. The same would basically be true of the State Senate.
Of course the corrupting power of money in politics will remain with us, as will a population of voters almost none of whom follows the legislative process closely (even I can't do that). Prop 28 is a tweak, not a revolution.
I like Proposition 28 and don't find any argument against it to be compelling.
Vote Yes on Proposition 28, the new term limits initiative.
Text of Proposition 28 with official arguments
Proposition 28, "Limits on Legislator's Terms in Office," which if passed would be an amendment to the California Constitution, would change the rules for term limits. A citizen would be able to serve only 12 years in the State Assembly or Senate, but could divide up those years as desired (or as the citizens are willing to vote).
This would serve to mitigate two problems at once. In the current system, upward-climbing politicians start in the Assembly. After spending a year running for office, they have a year of being a novice before running for Assembly again. By the time they are experienced at Assembly work, they are term limited out. They have spent 3 years running for office, then 3 years focused (hopefully) on the people's business. Their last year is usually spent desperately seeking a higher office, or getting ready to join the vast army of parasitic former legislators who become lobbyists or get appointed to highly paid, no-show California commission committee work.
Under 28 a citizen can get up to six terms in the state assembly. There would be a mix, in the assembly, of old hands who know their business and newer members to provide fresh energy. The same would basically be true of the State Senate.
Of course the corrupting power of money in politics will remain with us, as will a population of voters almost none of whom follows the legislative process closely (even I can't do that). Prop 28 is a tweak, not a revolution.
I like Proposition 28 and don't find any argument against it to be compelling.
Vote Yes on Proposition 28, the new term limits initiative.
Text of Proposition 28 with official arguments
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
California Green Party Proposals
The Green Party of California is considering adding a plank to its platform outlining proposed State of California reforms. While the Green Party is powerless except, in a few cases, at local levels, it does illustrate the kind of thinking people are doing about the mess called Government in this state. The failed budget process has been at the front of the news, and much of the Green proposal addresses budget issues.
The Green Party is proposing a "pay-as-we-go" system, meaning no more bond issues. Bonds are a way of borrowing money. Fees for placing them, and interest, greatly add to the cost of projects funded by the bonds. One reason there is so little money for necessities this year is that so much money is being used to make payments on bonds from the past. Bonds are often passed using the initiative/referendum process. Voters don't think about how an individual bond impacts the budget. They tend to vote for things they think are necessary or nice, like prisons, hospitals, and transportation projects. Bonds, if not abolished entirely, need to be part of a central budgeting process that does not over-estimate future taxpayer revenues.
A unicameral legislature of 360 members is proposed. I like the idea of a unicameral legislature with enough members to keep the number of consituents per member manageable. The Green Party proposal wants only 8 geographic regions. Within each region it proposes 45 members, half (23?) elected by by geographic district and half (22?) elected by proportional representation among political parties. This would pretty much assure that the Green Party would get some seats in the legislature. It sounds complicated, but it is a system similar to that used in most nations in Europe (and around the globe); voters get used to it quickly. It helps ensure that minority views get represented.
The Green Party would allow budgets to be passed by a 55% majority. In the short run this would let the tax-and-steal Democrats to run wild, but at least budgets could be balanced and passed in a timely manner.
A reserve fund would be established so that as the economy, and taxes collected, fluctuated, the state's annual budget could remain on an even keel. This has been proposed by many reformers.
The proposal also calls for "an extra 10% tax on state lottery winners." I find this to be a ridiculous way to raise small sums of money. The lottery already has an effective tax rate of over 50%, when you consider what the state gets in lottery receipts versus what it pays out to winners. Then the winners get to pay both state and federal income tax.
The Green Party wants to stop building prisons. I agree; we have a rate of incarceration that looks more like Stalin's gulag than like a healthy democracy. We may never be able to close our prisons, but we do need to use better methods to discourage crime. Young people need better guidance, and we need to make honest work more attractive than criminal methods of fund raising. More important, California needs to stop acting like every time someone has a little fun, a crime has been committed. Behavior should be treated as criminal only when someone is hurt.
The focus of law enforcement and the courts should be on career criminals and criminal organizations, including those operating under the mask of legal corporations.
More:
Green Party of California site
my Green Party pages at IIIPublishing.com
The Green Party is proposing a "pay-as-we-go" system, meaning no more bond issues. Bonds are a way of borrowing money. Fees for placing them, and interest, greatly add to the cost of projects funded by the bonds. One reason there is so little money for necessities this year is that so much money is being used to make payments on bonds from the past. Bonds are often passed using the initiative/referendum process. Voters don't think about how an individual bond impacts the budget. They tend to vote for things they think are necessary or nice, like prisons, hospitals, and transportation projects. Bonds, if not abolished entirely, need to be part of a central budgeting process that does not over-estimate future taxpayer revenues.
A unicameral legislature of 360 members is proposed. I like the idea of a unicameral legislature with enough members to keep the number of consituents per member manageable. The Green Party proposal wants only 8 geographic regions. Within each region it proposes 45 members, half (23?) elected by by geographic district and half (22?) elected by proportional representation among political parties. This would pretty much assure that the Green Party would get some seats in the legislature. It sounds complicated, but it is a system similar to that used in most nations in Europe (and around the globe); voters get used to it quickly. It helps ensure that minority views get represented.
The Green Party would allow budgets to be passed by a 55% majority. In the short run this would let the tax-and-steal Democrats to run wild, but at least budgets could be balanced and passed in a timely manner.
A reserve fund would be established so that as the economy, and taxes collected, fluctuated, the state's annual budget could remain on an even keel. This has been proposed by many reformers.
The proposal also calls for "an extra 10% tax on state lottery winners." I find this to be a ridiculous way to raise small sums of money. The lottery already has an effective tax rate of over 50%, when you consider what the state gets in lottery receipts versus what it pays out to winners. Then the winners get to pay both state and federal income tax.
The Green Party wants to stop building prisons. I agree; we have a rate of incarceration that looks more like Stalin's gulag than like a healthy democracy. We may never be able to close our prisons, but we do need to use better methods to discourage crime. Young people need better guidance, and we need to make honest work more attractive than criminal methods of fund raising. More important, California needs to stop acting like every time someone has a little fun, a crime has been committed. Behavior should be treated as criminal only when someone is hurt.
The focus of law enforcement and the courts should be on career criminals and criminal organizations, including those operating under the mask of legal corporations.
More:
Green Party of California site
my Green Party pages at IIIPublishing.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
