Searching for Meaning in the Failed Adams Recall
The first question asked about the failed attempt to qualify the recall of Assemblyman Anthony Adams for the ballot is: How could that happen?!
Given the money raised to support the effort, the professional signature gatherers involved, constant agitation from Southern California talk radio hosts, and anger from many in the electorate to the tax increases Adams supported after signing a no-tax increase pledge, many experts are puzzled over the failure to secure the necessary signatures in Adams district, which spans Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties.
Secretary of State Debra Bowen revealed on Friday that less than fifty percent of the randomly selected signatures were valid. The test results indicated the measure would not qualify and no full count was required.
Flashreport’s Jon Fleischman speculated on what might have happened in his weekend column. Could fraud be involved? Or an unlucky draw of random signatures?
State Feels Heat of Local Budget Woes
California’s upcoming budget battle will be as much about politics as money and San Francisco’s property tax woes show why.
If San Francisco and other cities and counties are hurting worse than ever this year, they’re going to howl at any budget solutions that even hint at dumping more state obligations on local government. And when local mayors and supervisors speak, smart politicians in Sacramento – those who want to stay in Sacramento – typically listen.
Owners of some of San Francisco’s best-known properties are seeking huge cuts in their tax payments, according to a story in Sunday’s San Francisco Chronicle. If the claims stand, the already cash-strapped city could lose more than $115 million in property taxes.
San Francisco isn’t alone. For the 2009-10 fiscal year, the state’s total assessed value dropped by $107 billion, or 2.4 percent. That’s the first decline since the state Board of Equalization began keeping record in 1933.
The Mac Taylor Rule
As I’ve written here before, I’m against supermajorities, and for that matter supermen, superbanks, super-centers, and supermodels (too skinny).
But if you’re going to have super-majorities for spending, budgets and taxes, as we do in California, you need to align those super-majorities with the best interests of the next generation. Our system fails to do that.
The best example: Raising taxes is politically difficult and forces us to pay for our current needs, instead of off-loading them onto the future. So California’s system makes it even more difficult with a 2/3 vote. But if you want to cut taxes (politically popular) even if it means pushing costs into the future, that’s much easier—it requires only a simple majority.
A super-majority system should recognize this reality by applying 2/3 votes to the easier options. If you want super-majorities (I’d get rid of them all together), super-majorities should be applied to two cases. 1. It should take a two-thirds vote of the legislature to cut taxes, a politically easy thing to do. 2. It should take a 2/3 vote to spend money (which is essentially the rule we have now).
California awakening
State policymakers are beginning to understand — or at least face the realities of — a fundamental reason for California’s job loss and now a 3-year $81 billion budget deficit. Basically we pass laws and move on to new ones and call it success. Texas on the other hand — a state that congregates its legislature in only odd years and requires a 2/3rds majority on every bill — created 70% of the new jobs in the United States in 2008 and has a $2 billion budget surplus this year.
I offer the following 3-week timeline of completely independent events and tidbits — a syllogism if you will — as a picture of evolving realizations of California’s problem, as well as some minimal-cost concepts that are gaining traction.
October 22
- » Treasurer Bill Lockyer testifies that two thirds of California bills shouldn’t see the light of day and begs the Legislature to recognize the severe degree of dysfunction as it pertains to California’s dire situation.
We Must Join the Race to the Top
There is a nationwide footrace underway for more than $4 billion in federal education funding. Just a few weeks ago, California appeared to be out of the running. But fortunately, lawmakers have the opportunity to approve legislation that would not only make our state eligible, but also implement some far-reaching education reforms.
Earlier this year, President Barack Obama’s administration laid out a bold vision to reform education in the United States by introducing a $4.35-billion competitive grant known as Race to the Top (RTTT), of which California could be eligible for up to $700 million. This aggressive agenda challenges California leaders to develop a plan that addresses critical issues including the achievement gap, low achieving schools and dropout rates.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers, including State Sen. Gloria Romero, made the right decision to accept President Obama’s challenge and implement the reforms required for RTTT funding. Romero authored SB X5 1, which outlines a plan for turning around the bottom 5 percent of lowest achieving schools; removes the cap on the number of charter schools; authorizes greater use of data to improve instruction and student learning; and ensures that innovative strategies are in place in every school.