|
Dysfunctional system doesn't even let voters decide |
|
|
|
|
Written by Byron Williams
|
|
Thursday, 03 March 2011 |
 Back in November, 54 percent of Californians wanted Jerry Brown to be their next governor. If not a landslide, it was clearly a decisive victory.
Brown was elected, in large measure, because he was viewed among the options available as best qualified to navigate the state through its current economic challenge.
Shortly after assuming office, Brown unveiled a state budget that he forewarned would be painful.
Brown's proposed budget would cut welfare spending in half, reduce nearly 20 percent from the state's university system, and trim health care coverage for the poor.
Brown also proposed redirecting $1.7 billion from roughly 400 local redevelopment agencies.
While there is plenty in the proposed budget not to like, this is the result of the past bipartisan fiscal plan of kicking the can down the road for nearly 30 years, resulting in the current $25.4 billion deficit.
But the pain could be worse, as Brown warned. If voters fail to approve an assortment of tax extensions slated for a special election, he will be forced to cut deeper.
The possibility of the cuts being worse than Brown originally proposed increased this week as the Republican-led "Taxpayers Caucus" vowed not to allow any tax increases unless they were accompanied by tax cuts.
If there was any question about the level of dysfunction along with chronic myopic groupthink, all doubt should be put to rest. This is political gamesmanship of the highest order, illustrating very little concern for the overall economic and social health of the state.
If there must be a further tearing of the state's social safety net and cuts to higher education, why must there be tax cuts for the people of California to decide if they are willing to accept a tax extension?
This is the result when a two-thirds majority of the Legislature must approve a tax increase -- a gift from the voter-approved Proposition 13. It makes the minority more powerful than the majority.
In this case, it requires a two-thirds majority to simply have a tax increase placed on the ballot so that voters can decide.
It is also the result of the effective advocacy conducted by Americans for Tax Reform and their president, Grover Norquist.
Norquist, through his no-tax pledge, has managed to create a climate where a majority of Republicans on Capitol Hill and in state legislatures have taken a blood oath to disavow any revenue increases.
Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina took the no-tax pledge during last year's primary. Her main rival, Tom Campbell, a more-qualified candidate who studied economics under Milton Friedman and would have been more formidable against Sen. Barbara Boxer, did not take the pledge.
Fiorina won the nomination, but lost handily to Boxer.
By making tax cuts part of the deal, the proposed tax extension to be placed before the voter is already dead on arrival because it is unacceptable to Democrats.
That's not leadership nor is it governing. Anytime an elected official places his or her ideology above governing, that official demonstrates he or she is ill-equipped to hold office.
The deal that was cut to gain support from Grover Norquist does not have the best interest of California in mind.
"People right now are at kitchen tables across the state of California, trying to make ends meet, living paycheck to paycheck," said Sen. Tony Strickland, a co-chair of the California Republican Party. "California government can't keep treating them like a personal ATM machine."
Does that mean Californians cannot decide for themselves whether they want higher taxes?
While tough choices must be made, California is hamstrung by a group of minions more beholden to a pledge offered by someone in Washington, D.C., than addressing the problems that have been 30 years in the making.
This is also more proof that any allegiance to Ronald Reagan as the titular head of the contemporary conservative cause is merely political idolatry. There was no office that Reagan held, be it governor of California or president of the United States, where he did not raise taxes.
Reducing the state's institutionalized deficits, protecting and funding infrastructure are not as important as their adherence to the no-tax pledge.
And that includes prohibiting Californians the opportunity to decide whether they want to adopt the economic plan put forth by the individual who received a 53 percent majority statewide.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Post a Comment. 
