Playing Chess with Election Dates
Initiative proponents and consultants often calculate in which election they would like their ballot measures to appear. So when I heard that a bill in the California legislature would eliminate the February California presidential primary for 2012, I wondered if a little politics was at play.
The bill’s author, Assemblyman Paul Fong (D-Cupertino), insists that the reason for eliminating the February primary and joining the presidential primary to the primaries of state officials in June is a cost saving measure. Keeping the February presidential primary would make three statewide elections in 2012. And, this after a possible special election this summer, supposedly a non-election year.
However, in initiative-mad California, eliminating a potential election day can change the strategy for certain ballot measure proponents who, like grand master chess players, often make their move to file an initiative depending on which election the proposition will appear.
Other states are looking to get rid of early primaries that were created last presidential cycle so the states would have a relevant role in nominating presidential candidates. The Los Angeles Times’ Mark Z. Barabak yesterday had a good synopsis of the potential changes coming for the 2012 presidential primaries.
Brown’s California Budget Proposals: a Big Step in the Right Direction
Cross-posted at NewGeography.
I admit it. I had low expectations for Jerry Brown’s third term as governor. After seeing his budget proposal, I’m ready to reconsider my expectations. I think it is a great effort, and it deserves the support of all of us tired of seeing our state reduced to laughing stock.
Being an economist, I first went to the Economic Outlook section of the Proposed Budget Summary. This is where governors put in rosy expectations and forecasts, thus enabling a multitude of fiscal sins. I was shocked to find a realistic and sober economic analysis. In fact the U.S. and California GDP projections were lower than ours, and we are among the least optimistic forecasters in America. There is no smoke here. There are no mirrors. It is apparent to me that if Brown is to be surprised, he only wants good ones.
This may be the most honest forecast accompanying a proposed budget that Californian’s have seen in decades.
The realistic economic forecast leads, reasonably, to lower budget revenue assumptions, lower by billions of dollars. With more realistic revenue assumptions, Brown forecasts a larger budget problem than did his more easily deluded predecessor.
Internet tax budget gimmick will lose the state revenue
When
Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner stood on the steps of the Capitol to announce her
online sales tax legislation, it was no surprise to see the usual suspects dead
set against spending reductions backing her up. But the reality is that
California has a $25 billion overspending addition to solve, and contrary to
Skinner’s claims, her Internet tax budget gimmick will actually lose the state
revenue by putting thousands of Californians out of business.
Skinner
claims her Internet tax proposal – which attempts to force out-of-state online
retailers to collect tax on California sales – will bring in $300 million. That
happens to be double the amount a Board of Equalization report concluded, and
its claims are also questionable.
U.S.
Supreme Court law says California can’t force a retailer to collect tax unless
they are located in the state. Skinner’s bill tries to get around this by
assuming a retailer has a presence in California if they merely advertise
through an in-state affiliate. The reality is, it’s a scheme unlikely to pass
legal or practical muster: to avoid collecting Skinner’s unconstitutional tax,
online retailers will end advertising contracts, putting 25,000 individuals and
small businesses in California out-of-business. This is precisely what happened
in Rhode Island and North Carolina when identical laws were passed.