Legal Opinion Suggests Majority Vote Sufficient For Tax Extension, But Democrats Do Not Want it –
The paper reports that the opinion, sought by the Senate’s Republican Leader Bob Dutton, does not specifically address the Governor’s proposal.
On the other hand, Republicans see that the Democrats have the ability to deal with and “solve” the budget crisis on their own, as they wish, taxes and all.
This, of course, now becomes a political fight. Republicans have in the past angered Democrats by refusing to take ownership of the state budget crisis, refusing to offer their own plan and arguing that this is not their fight.
“If it stands up legally, it shows Democrats could put tax hikes on the ballot without Republican votes,” Senator Dutton’s spokeswoman Jann Taber told the Bee. “If they’re courting us for votes, they’re looking for political cover.”
Democrats, of course, will prefer having the political cover of at least some Republican support. They argue that the majority vote tax would be too narrow. It has to, according to lawyers, “change statutory tax initiatives already passed by voters.” As such, “Any change would have to be consistent” with the “scope or effect” of the initiative.
Reports the Bee, “But the Legislature could not, by majority vote, place a tax on the ballot that is not tied to a pre-existing initiative. The opinion said a court likely would see that as “an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.””
The Bee also reports, “Democrats have said privately that it would be too difficult and legally risky to carve new taxes into past initiatives. They are seeking a constitutional amendment to extend the tax rates, which requires a two-thirds vote.”
Governor Brown, of course, insisted on Friday that he is not even contemplating a strategy that does not consider Republican votes.
“It’s certainly not a desirable course, because there are certain complexities there,” he said. “I’m looking to get Republican support.
It is certainly understandable that Democrats would want to have at least some Republican support for the tax plan. After all, part of the political problem is shared blame.
Nevertheless, this opinion makes those prospects far less likely. Republicans simply are not going to give Democrats political cover.
As such, the Democrats and the Governor should seize the opportunity to solve the budget crisis on their own, with no help from the Republicans. Will it be painful? Yes. But it will put a lot of these issues to rest.
Moreover, since this is simply an extension of the previous tax increase, they would not be raising taxes on the voters.
While many of these cuts will undoubtedly be painful, and the Democrats seem increasingly divided on the scope and nature of spending cuts, issues such as elimination of redevelopment, and the big looming issue of pension reform, this is really an opportunity- an opportunity to show that they can take huge steps to resolve the state’s crisis and break the gridlock that has plagued Sacramento throughout the current economic crisis.
Succeeding there with a real balanced budget might give the voters the incentive that they need to take the chance and allow them to achieve these goals.
We will see. At the very least, it has the possibility to end the era of no-accountability. The voters would have a clearr-cut choice coming up in 2012
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The Democrats need to step up in California like the Republicans are stepping up in Wisconsin.
rusty: . . . like the Republicans are stepping up in Wisconsin.
What you call “stepping up” most rational people call steamrolling.
What’s considered “rational” is up to an individual’s own perceptions and beliefs. I think what Governor Walker is doing is very rational. Don’t you think it’s rational to get one’s uncontrollable state budget under control?
Actually, it’s about time somebody is doing something rational for a change.
dmg: “Governor Brown, of course, insisted on Friday that he is not even contemplating a strategy that does not consider Republican votes.”
In other words Brown is not willing to “do the right thing”/wholeheartedly embrace his own budget plan that includes extending taxes – w/o political cover? Where is the courage of his convictions?
dmg: “Republicans simply are not going to give Democrats political cover.”
Apparently the Democrats don’t need the Republicans’ political cover. Democrats need to step up to the plate, and own complete responsibility for the solutions they are proposing. It’s about friggin’ time they did. If things work out, Democrats can also reap the rewards of complete victory as well, and point at Republicans for not being on board. Where is the Democrats’ courage of their convictions?
It’s high time for Democrats to stop blaming everyone else for America’s budget problems (Republicans, the Supreme Court, conservative talk radio, big bad corporate American, past Republican presidents, the U.S. involvement in wars, etc. ad nauseum), step up to the plate, and let the voter’s decide whether their should be an extension of taxes… get on w it already!
In summary, it’s time the Democrats started governing like serious people instead of like children.
It does not seem to me that the legal opinion sought by the Republicans covers the governor’s tax extensions. So they would certainly be litigated. Probably by supporters of the Republicans.
“… let the voter’s decide whether their should be an extension of taxes.” We’ve actually had Republicans say that the budget is “not their problem.” It could be approved for the ballot tomorrow, without any legal cloud hanging over it.
Why don’t the Republicans just vote to put the tax proposals forward, and then campaign against it with their own budget proposals?
I think our system would function better if we would get away from the notion of having to have a plebiscite in order for the government to raise taxes. (I realize this process was the result of a plebescite.) Whether we have to have 2/3rd or 50%+1 in order to put the question up to a vote of the people, the people will be better served in the end by letting the legislature and the governor legislate and govern.
If the majority in power raises taxes and that proves to be unpopular, then hold an election and vote in a new majority which can reverse that decision. To me, the idea of democratic votes is to hold the elected officials accountable, not to do their job for them.
The only check I would have on the power to raise taxes would be a constitutional one, where the courts would decide if the nature of the tax plan is discriminatory. That should be illegal.
To my mind, for instance, this notion that we pass a new tax which falls only on the top 1% or 5% to pay for a program which is designed to benefit 50% or 75% or 100% of the people is discriminatory. (I don’t recall the prop number, but the funds for the First Five program are taxed in a clearly discriminatory manner.)
It seems to me that a vital part of democracy is having all the people pay some for all the programs. So if you want to raise income taxes on the rich, then raise them somewhat on everyone down the line. If you want to ream smokers with higher taxes to pay for general programs, ream everyone else as well. If you want the state to pay significantly more money to fund the retirements of state workers, then everyone in the state should pay some higher taxes to cover that expense.
“Why don’t the Republicans just vote to put the tax proposals forward, and then campaign against it with their own budget proposals?”
The answer is obvious if you replace it with a symmetrical example.
“Why don’t the Democrats just vote to put the labor reform on the ballot, and then campaign against it with their own labor proposals?”
Parties don’t vote to put proposals on the ballot that they oppose. If you oppose a policy, you work to stop it from being enacted.
A question for the state government experts: If California Republicans flee the state, can they shut down the legislature the way that Wisconsin Democrats have? Are there quorum requirements in California?
“If California Republicans flee the state, can they shut down the legislature the way that Wisconsin Democrats have? Are there quorum requirements in California?
Did you see that Indiana Democrats are now also fleeing to Illinois?
“Why don’t the Democrats just vote to put the labor reform on the ballot, and then campaign against it with their own labor proposals?”
I would urge the governor of Wisconsin to put his collective bargaining proposal on the ballot. That, of course, is not what he is trying to do.
I don’t think the current sales tax was passed by the voters. Thus it seems to me that the legislative analysis doesn’t hold up. I’d bet Grover Norquist or someone similar would file a lawsuit instantly.
We have a choice in California: all cuts, or part cuts/part taxes. I would like to have the opportunity to vote on that choice.
For the California Assembly: The Constitution defines a quorum as a majority of the membership of the House; therefore, a quorum is 41 Members. I couldn’t find anything about the Senate.
rusty: . . . like the Republicans are stepping up in Wisconsin.
What you call “stepping up” most rational people call steamrolling.
While there are many folks, especially union members, who see this as irrational, there are many folks who agree with the attempts to reduce the influence of PEUs in Wisconsin.
Indiana successfully reduced the collective bargaining rights of PEUs several years ago. I don’t remember this level of outcry. My guess is that the move to curtail the influece of PEUs was not nearly as widespread then as it is now.
Rifkin: “I think our system would function better if we would get away from the notion of having to have a plebiscite in order for the government to raise taxes. (I realize this process was the result of a plebescite.) Whether we have to have 2/3rd or 50%+1 in order to put the question up to a vote of the people, the people will be better served in the end by letting the legislature and the governor legislate and govern.”
I actually agree w you on this one. The legislature should be deciding tax issues – that is what we elected them for. They also have a better handle on the budgeting process than the electorate can possibly have who don’t necessarily have all the info in front of them and wouldn’t even know how to process all the thousands of pages in a budget bill. As far as I am concerned, Brown WANTS to put the tax extensions to a vote BY THE PUBLIC bc he wants POLITICAL COVER FROM THE TAXPAYERS. But since he is trying to lay the blame on the Republicans for the tax extension measure not being placed before voters, and has the means to do it if he so chose, then go to it already, quit whining about the need for Republicans to be on board when clearly it is not necessary! Brown is searching for cover any way he can find it bc he does NOT HAVE THE COURAGE OF HIS CONVICTIONS ABOUT HIS VERY FLAWED BUDGET PLAN WHICH HE DID NOT THINK THROUGH LIKE HE SHOULD HAVE!
Brown WANTS to put the tax extensions to a vote BY THE PUBLIC bc he wants POLITICAL COVER FROM THE TAXPAYERS
He promised repeatedly during the campaign that there would be no tax increases without a public vote. We knew that when we voted for him.
” he does NOT HAVE THE COURAGE OF HIS CONVICTIONS ABOUT HIS VERY FLAWED BUDGET PLAN WHICH HE DID NOT THINK THROUGH LIKE HE SHOULD HAVE!”
This is the first governor we’ve had in my memory who actually has analyzed the budget in detail, made a solid proposal, and is working hard to get consensus on it. I totally disagree with your opinion of Gov. Brown on this issue.
One public opinion poll:
[url]http://blogs.kqed.org/capitalnotes/2011/01/26/voters-want-browns-special-election-says-poll/[/url]
“66% of voters surveyed like the idea of a special election to consider budget issues. That includes not just an overwhelming majority of Democrats (74%) but a majority (55%) of Republicans, too.”
To Rifkin
I am very curious about how you arrived at the idea that “a vital part of democracy is having all the people pay some for all the programs.”
I decided to revisit my own concept of the definition of democracy, first in the American Heritage dictionary whose definitions include :
1) government by and for the people exercised either directly or through elected representatives. 2)the common people considered as a primary source of political power 3)Majority rule 4) the principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
none of the definitions include any statement about the most appropriate means to finance such a system. I suspect that there are many legitimate ways for a democracy to raise funds and that the real problem is that reasonable, thoughtful and informed people will often not agree on what is fair.
We’re living in harsh times, if you haven’t noticed. All these goodies we seem to think come sprinkling out of the sky like raindrops cost us, every day, hard-working, taxpaying people, lots and lots of money. Families are barely scraping by, and those who work in government or have recently retired from public service continue to live large. The time has come for our government to live within its means and stop raising taxes or borrowing every time it gets in a bind.
[i]I am very curious about how you arrived at the idea that “a vital part of democracy is having all the people pay some for all the programs.” [/i]
I think it is simply common sense. If the people want to have, say, more money for the public schools, then they people should decide to pay more in taxes for those schools. To push a tax increase exclusively on an unpopular minority, the rich, is every bit as discriminatory as old Christian governance in Europe where the kings would tax the Jews because they were an unpopular minority.
If the ordinary folks in California don’t want to pay for programs, then we as a whole should not have those programs.
[i]”none of the definitions (of democracy) include any statement about the most appropriate means to finance such a system.”[/i]
Maybe not. But protecting the rights of minorities and treating all people equal is a fundamental principle which evolved in our own democracy.
Before a few decades ago in the South and some other places in our country, majorities could simply pass laws which harmed the interests of the minorities and those majorities were seen as acting democratically. That is no longer the case. Minority rights need to be protected and all citizens need to be treated equally under the law. By creating big spending programs and having a majority pass new taxes only on a small, unpopular minority to pay for them strikes me as violating the principles of equal protection and minority rights.
I am not sure whether or not to take offense. First, I happen.to be a member of that group that is rather arbitrarily defined as “rich” and until now was unaware that I was considered “unpopular”.
On a more serious note, I completely agree with your statement about the need to protect minority rights and the equal treatment of all people.
But I would take this further than treating all citizens equally under the law and would like to see equality of treatment extended to all aspects of our society. I have never considered it an abridgment of my rights that I should have to pay more in taxes than someone who has not benefitted from our system as much as I have. I received my education exclusively through our public school system. When my father died when I was nine, my mother,sister and I lived off his very small survivors benefits until my mother, with her ninth grade education was able to find a minimum wage job with no benefits. I stayed in school first at the community college, then state university, and finally the UC system and eventually finished medical school at UCD. Yes, I worked very hard to get where I am today. But none of it would have been possible without the tax supported public education system and it’s teachers who are finding themselves a popular whipping boy today.
I for one have benefitted enormously from help from the public sector although I know that I did not work any harder than our unbenefited farm laborers or our ship fitters which was my father’s job. Our society has made some very inequitable decisions about how people should be compensated for their labor which has definitely stacked the economic deck in favor of those of us designated as ” rich”. I certainly do not feel that my rights are being threatened by being asked to contribute more in taxes.. I.see it more as a just request to contribute more since I have received more.
As for common sense, I tend to take that with a grain of salt. I was told over and over again that because of my background I had no chance of becoming a doctor. Luckily for me, I have always had a streak that challenged the predominant view.
To push a tax increase exclusively on an unpopular minority, the rich, is every bit as discriminatory as old Christian governance in Europe where the kings would tax the Jews because they were an unpopular minority.
“To those whom much is given, much is expected.” Noblesse oblige.
The rich are not a powerless minority.
“Why don’t the Democrats just vote to put the labor reform on the ballot, and then campaign against it with their own labor proposals?”
I’d support that, I bet most in Wisconsin would as well.
Don Shor: “He promised repeatedly during the campaign that there would be no tax increases without a public vote. We knew that when we voted for him.”
All that says it that Brown has always advocated for political cover for his decisions, and continues to do so bc he does not have the courage of his convictions. If he really believed in his budget and what needs to be done, why not be a confident leader and just do what is necessary – instead of whining about needing a paltry two Republican votes to put the matter before voters on the ballot? We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one 🙂
[i]”The rich are not a powerless minority.”[/i]
That is exactly the argument the Christian lords used to justify their fiscal discrimination against the Jews*. It’s majoritarianism run amok. It was then; and it remains so to this day.
I cannot state this truth enough: the populist prejudice against the wealthy is perfectly parallel to the European tradition of hating the Jews. It all comes from a place of envy and jealousy based on the notion that their gains are unjust and come at the expense of the so-called working man.
[i]Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.[/i]
[b]–George Santayana[/b]
More importantly, democratic government must always be limited. It must be checked by the people themselves. It has limits, unlike undemocratic systems. Socialism is never conducive to democracy for this reason, because socialism is by its very nature the unlimited role of the state in the fortunes of its people. Yet when a majority can just impose taxes on an unpopular minority, there is no check. It’s not as if that minority can win a popular vote and reverse the discriminatory policy. And to that extent, this sort of fiscal majoritarianism is equal to ethnic or racial majoritarianism. In both respects, they unfairly fail to protect minority rights.
*If you think this sort of medieval hatred of the Jews on the basis of finances is over, you are sorely mistaken. Anti-semitism is nightly fare on Arab TV and in the preachings of Muslim pulpits all over the Islamic world. Their sermons are focused on conspiracies about Jews and money. Even in Europe, this sort of nonsense is spoken every day. It is particularly common in the Orthodox Catholic churches ([url]http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/2010/12/31/an-anti-semitic-greek-orthodox-bishop/[/url]).
[i]”Our society has made some very inequitable decisions about how people should be compensated for their labor which has definitely stacked the economic deck in favor of those of us designated as “rich”.[/i]
I have no idea what you mean. Please explain this and give some examples of these inequitable decisions made by society.
[i]”I certainly do not feel that my rights are being threatened by being asked to contribute more in taxes.”[/i]
You shouldn’t. However, if a majority decided only to raise your taxes but excluded themselves from the tax increase in order to pay for a program which supposedly brings with it a public benefit then you would be a fool not to object.
My guess is that there is no such general tax that you are forced to pay which 95% or so of taxpayers don’t have to pay. If there is, please let me know what it is.
No faster conversation-killer than a charge of anti-Semitism, Rich.
That is exactly the argument the Christian lords used to justify their fiscal discrimination against the Jews*. It’s majoritarianism run amok. It was then; and it remains so to this day.
I cannot state this truth enough: the populist prejudice against the wealthy is perfectly parallel to the European tradition of hating the Jews. It all comes from a place of envy and jealousy based on the notion that their gains are unjust and come at the expense of the so-called working man.
Where did you find this idea? I find your idea of comparing taxing the rich to anti-semitism is crazy and over the top, but not original. Grover Norquist gained notoriety for saying that taxing the rich was equivalent to the morality of the holocaust, which came out in some news stories as “taxing the rich compared to the holocaust”.
Under what circumstances would it be acceptable to tax the rich at a higher rate? If the rich are given control of government and make the decision? (some argue that has already happened, that it takes a certain amount of personal wealth to get elected to office) If the Republicans are given majority control of all government and make the decision?
Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and other influential wealthy Americans have made comments supporting that the wealthy should pay more in taxes. Many of the politicians who have suggested that the rich pay more in taxes are themselves rich and were elected to office by popular vote. Since you raise the issue of a comparison to anti-semitism, have there been similar examples of influential and known Jews who publicly supported anti-semitic policies?
I still fail to see how the rich are an oppressed minority, here, but do make your case.
To Rifkin
Perhaps you are right that I am a fool, however I do not object to having my taxes raised when others are not. I can certainly afford to pay more than many of my acquaintances who work as hard as I do, put in as many hours, have an equivalent education but make far less than I do. One example would be PhD psychologists whether in the public or private sector who for the most part make about half as much as I do.
I fail to see how this is in any way equitable.
As to your point that “the populist prejudice against the wealthy … All comes from a place of envy and jealousy” is in error.I share the sentiment that the rich , myself included, having achieved positions of greater wealth, comfort, and in many cases, power, have a responsibility to give back to the society which enabled us to reach this privileged position. I assure you there is no envy or jealousy involved in my feelings
Since that would put me in the untenable position of being jealous of myself. And no, I do not engage in guilt or self loathing. Merely the awareness that I did not get where I am today by my work alone but alson hrough the hard work and contributions of many members of my community.
[i]Perhaps you are right that I am a fool, however I do not object to having my taxes raised when others are not.[/i]
There is nothing from stopping you from sending in money to the government. Make your California check out to the Franchise Tax Board any time you like.
[i]”I cannot state this truth enough: the populist prejudice against the wealthy is perfectly parallel to the European tradition of hating the Jews. It all comes from a place of envy and jealousy based on the notion that their gains are unjust and come at the expense of the so-called working man.”[/i]
[b]”Where did you find this idea?”[/b]
Listen to any self-styled populist who argues that the gains of the bankers are ill-gotten; or their complaints about Wall Street investors and financiers. Or the notion that a conspiracy of rich people is controlling global finance. Then take those words and replace bankers or the rich with “the Jews” and you will find in them all of the thousands of years of history of Christian anti-Semitism.
If you ever have a chance to read The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion ([url]http://books.google.com/books?id=76DhEY-2Y5cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+elders+of+zion&hl=en&src=bmrr&ei=qklrTcjqA4vGsAOe2simBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false[/url])–probably the most anti-Semitic book written in the last 500 years–you will notice how similar the conspiratorial language is to the arguments against the wealthy are. That is because it comes from the same place.
I will try one more time.
medwoman: “Our society has made some very inequitable decisions about how people should be compensated for their labor which has definitely stacked the economic deck in favor of those of us designated as “rich”.
Rifkin: “Please explain this and give some examples of these inequitable decisions made by society.”
And I will try one more time to respond as my first two posts, if read carefully did include examples although they were not directly labelled as such.
I am using the example of two job classifications of which I have direct experience over long periods of time. I am a doctor in a specialty considered primary care, but relatively highly compensated within th range of physician compensation. Among my close friends are several PhD psychologists. We have similar levels of education, work comparable hours ( longer than 50 hour work weeks including uncompensated
Time) , make decisions that could have on occasion life or death consequences for our patients, and yet their compensation is approximately half of mine. I do not see this as in any way equitable. One might try to justify this using “market forces” as one’s rationale except for the fact that entry into medical school is extremely limited with the applicant to acceptance ratio far less than 1 in 20 ( excuse my not looking up the exact number) during my time in medical school. I know because I was on the admissions committee. So this is not a matter of less talented, less educated or less productive people earning less. It is a matter of unequal compensation for similar work work for individuals denied the opportunity for more lucrative work by artificially imposed limitations largely designed to protect the incomes of the privileged group.
I am sure one can find many such examples throughout our society. This is just the one which comes readily ti mind due to my direct experience.
[i]” Among my close friends are several PhD psychologists. We have similar levels of education, work comparable hours (longer than 50 hour work weeks including uncompensated time), make decisions that could have on occasion life or death consequences for our patients, and yet their compensation is approximately half of mine.”[/i]
This is an extremely bizarre non-answer to my question. I asked for examples of jobs in which the same person in the private sector makes substantially more than one in the public sector. And (without any reference to real data) you compare two different jobs.
If you are going to bring up psychologists, then why not just compare what those in the private sector make with what those in the public sector make? Or if you are an internal medicine specialist, then compare what a doctor at, say, the UC Davis Med Center makes in total comp with one who works independently or for say Mercy Hospital.
It is truly baffling that you have this nut in your head that public sector employees are “undercompensated” but you cannot demonstrate it.
Furthermore, in licensed fields, like psychology or medicine, it is obvious that a market ultimately sets those wages. If UCD paid too little money to its doctors, all but the worst would take jobs in the private sector.
The market is less obvious in lesser, unlicensed fields. You don’t seem to have any grasp for what goes on in the public sector with regard to title inflation. As Jeff Boone pointed out, you should read my last column about all of the very highly paid (all over $100,000 per year) administrative assistants who work for Yolo County. There are more than 100 of them. Now when they work for the county and they stay on for more than 10 years, they are no longer called administrative assistants (or secretaries). They get titles with deputy, deputy chief, chief administrative assistant, director, deputy director, chief deputy director and so on in them. And that change in title gives them a huge raise in total compensation. You might not realize it, but in Yolo County when someone makes $150,000 in salary, his total comp (including pension and medical) is around $230,000 per year.
Because you can cite no data and you cannot even compare doctors to doctors, I sense that you just don’t have enough information to reach a reasoned conclusion on this. I’d be happy if you want to show me you know what you are talking about.
Rich,
Your question to me was ” please explain this and give some examples of inequitable decisions made by our society”
I must have missed where in your question you were asking for only direct public,private comparisons, when my post clearly was not dealing only with that issue (which granted was a departure from the theme of the post , but no more so than references to religious discrimination)
But with the broader issue of how our society assigns worth and compensation for work performed.
As to the “nut in my head “, at no point in any of my posts have I stated the belief that public workers are under compensated. I feel that some, such as teachers probably are, where as others such as those you cited in your column probably are. One of the comments that I made is that people who become emotionally involved in this issue tend to paint with too broad a brush and have a tendency to attempt to vilify or at least denigrate those who see the issue differently.
Finally, I did make the assertion that ” the market” is not the unbiased and just determintor of fair compensation that some would make it out to be. One reason for this is the bias that is introduced into the market by affluent groups arbitrarily holding down the number of fully qualified members to their ranks by keeping admissions numbers deliberately los to protect their own incomes. This is something I know from the direct experience of serving om admissions committees and being involved in health professional hiring, something that you chose to completely ignore.