Report on Prop. 8 Hearing
The Folks Who Got Married Last Year Will Stay Married.
That, at least, seems a safe bet after watching this morning’s oral arguments in the California Supreme Court.
It was hard to tell from the court’s questions whether Prop 8 itself will be overturned. But the exchange between the justices and the Ken Starr, the attorney defending Prop 8, over the question of whether the approximately 18,000 same-sex couples who married last year should have those marriages invalidated was much, much clearer.
A majority of justices — including Carol Corrigan, who voted against last year’s ruling legalizing same-sex marriage — expressed deep skepticism at Starr’s argument that such marriages must be thrown out. It felt like a smackdown, actually.
WRS Survey: Fox and Hounds Daily Readers Oppose Tax Hikes, Support Spending Cap
On behalf of Fox and Hounds Daily, Wilson Research Strategies conducted an online poll of Fox and Hounds subscribers.
The bottom line of the poll is that Fox and Hounds subscribers don’t like the budget compromise. Seven-in-ten (70%) subscribers oppose the compromise and a majority said they strongly oppose it. From the responses, it is clear that Fox and Hounds subscribers wanted to see the line held on tax increases and see the fact that the final budget includes substantial tax hikes as a major drawback. Two-thirds or more of subscribers oppose the sales tax (67% oppose), income tax (80% oppose), and car tax (75% oppose) hikes included in the final budget.
The Trouble with Ballot Titles and Summaries
It’s bad enough that California law permits the attorney general — an elected, partisan official — to write the official titles and summaries for ballot initiatives that qualify from the ballot. Most of the time, at least, the a.g. is independent of the initiative sponsor. But when it comes to measures that are placed on the ballot by the legislature itself, lawmakers themselves get to write the official summaries. And they don’t have a good record of being honest with the public.
The latest example is Prop 1A, the spending limit measure that was part of last week’s budget deal and will appear on the May 19 special election ballot. The legislature’s official description of the measure omits the very important fact that if the measure passes, temporary tax increases in the budget deal will last longer.
Return of the Chopping Block
Earlier this week, I made the case that Proposition 1A would achieve what no predecessor spending limit had: a sustainable, enforceable spending limit and mandatory rainy-day reserve that actually work. But wait … there’s more.
Approval of Proposition 1A would also trigger new powers for the Governor to reduce state spending without legislative sanction. This would be the first time a Governor could wield this common sense management prerogative since Governor Deukmejian was forced into surrendering similar powers in 1983.
The authority is limited, but significant. If the director of the Department of Finance determines that revenues will dip "substantially" below – or spending will rise substantially above – budget estimates, then he or she may:
More Solar Companies Producing Elsewhere to Sell to California
It looks like Tennessee just attracted a $1 billion solar manufacturing facility and 500 accompanying jobs from a German solar firm, Wacker Chemie, and an Associated Press story hints that the volunteer state put up a $50 million incentive package to recruit the high wage company.
This news adds to a previously announced $1.2 billion investment from another solar firm, Hemlock Semiconductor, looking to produce solar products in Clarksville, Tennessee. Why is it that little old unsophisticated Tennessee can attract $2.2 billion in solar power investments and the home of solar and other green power mandates can sit and watch its unemployment numbers skyrocket to the country’s third worst rate – 10.1 percent – and leave behind an economy-altering number of manufacturing jobs?