Prop 1A’s Spending Cap is Not Phony
Opponents charge that the spending limit contained in Proposition 1A is phony and deceptive. The claim is based on three points. First, that the limit can go up anytime there is a tax increase. Second, that the spending limit isn’t real because the governor by simple executive order can draw down funds from the rainy day fund. Third, that the measure is deceptive because it is tied to a two-year extension in tax increases, which was not revealed in the ballot argument.
The Prop 1A opponents certainly have a legitimate gripe with the last point. The spending limit measure comes with a cost, which should be spelled out to voters. The legislators who controlled the ballot argument process did not do that. Once the cost is expressed, however, then the question should be asked of the voters: Is what they are getting in a spending limit worth the price? In an earlier article, I laid out reasons why finally getting a spending limit is important to the fiscal sanity of the state.
However, the spending limit itself is not phony. Opponents are incorrect in charging the governor can undo the limit by fiat. And, like talking about the spending limit without discussing the tax extension, stating that the limit can be raised with a tax increase doesn’t tell the whole story.
Should I Bother to Vote Today?
I suppose if I were a good citizen, I’d vote today. That’s what you’re supposed to do when there’s an election. I live in the 26th Senate District, with an open seat since Mark Ridley-Thomas moved to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. So we have an election today.
But I wonder if any reasonable person would vote today. After all, haven’t I been a good citizen? Consider: I voted three times last year in statewide elections. I voted just three weeks ago in city elections. And I’ll be voting in less than two months, in the May 19 city and state special elections. If I vote today, I’ll be voting three times in two months. There are stretches when members of the legislature don’t vote as often.
Should voting in the senate race be a priority? I write about California politics for a living, but I can’t say I’m well informed about the race. There’s only one candidate I would recognize if I saw him on the street. Yes, it would take only a few minutes, but I have other priorities today. I’m on deadline on a magazine story. There are several interviews I need to do on other stories. I’ve got a wife and a new baby. Heck, I’ve got to finish this post.
Special Election Scramble – Raise your hand if you’re not thinking about running in CD10
Rep. Ellen Tauscher’s appointment by the Obama-Clinton Administration has sure ignited the political talkers. Open seats and special elections bring out the most qualified candidates, the least viable, and sometimes nobody at all.
The sweepstakes could be really intriguing or completely dull in this district which is really not much like the one Bill Baker held in the mid-1990s – the new “10th” is yet another poster child for redistricting reform.
As a resident of this district, I have to admit, it crossed my mind – for about 5 seconds. Let me be the first to raise my hand and say I’m not running. It took me about seven minutes to look at the numbers and rule myself out as a candidate. In the last four days, I’ve gotten a myriad of calls from my friends from Capitol Hill, so I started to evaluate others who might be better positioned to run in this congressional seat where Democrats dominate by 18-points of registration over Republicans.
Yes, it’s a GOP long-shot but special elections sometimes yield unconventional results.
Being Wrong Is Never Having To Say You’re Sorry
Back in 2007, after the Long Beach and Los Angeles port commissioners unveiled their Clean Truck Program, they stated repeatedly that the “finest legal minds in the nation” had reviewed the program. In a strongly worded opinion issued last Friday by a unanimous three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, it appears the ports plan was so off-base even the best of attorney’s couldn’t save it.
The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the American Trucking Association (ATA) in an action they brought against the two ports for their attempts to regulate the trucking industry. The Court focused on the ports “concession agreements” and did not address the environmental components of the program – something never challenged by the American Trucking Association.
Events leading up to the Ninth Circuit decision highlighted some of the worst and most vicious qualities about California’s political process. Proponents of the truck program vilified the ATA for filing their lawsuit – calling the action “immoral.” Full page ads were taken out in local newspapers by a coalition of labor and environmental groups, attacking the Mayor of Long Beach for not including an “employee mandate” provision in the Long Beach plan. Readers were provided the phone number of the Mayor’s office, urging them to call and tell the Mayor to “Get Back on Track.” In light of the Ninth Circuit ruling, perhaps those folks will call back to apologize to the Mayor.