Is It Time to Abolish the Single-Subject Rule?
I’ve spent the past year traveling the state, talking with Californians about their government and why it doesn’t work. By far, the most frustrating thing about these conversations – from my end – is the Californian obsession with the ballot initiative as the solution to all our problems. My book California Crackup, which I wrote […]
Leiwieke for Governor?
Tim Leiweke, president & CEO of the sports and
entertainment companies known as AEG, and the point man on the Los Angeles
football stadium, pulled off the political trick of the year last week.
He not only
won a special exemption from state environmental laws for his plan to build a
stadium in a downtown LA. He helped open up a major new hole in the law itself
– a hole that will ease other big projects and change the political balance of
power in the state.
The law’s
big winner, in fact, may not be football. Leiweke still has to convince a team
to come to LA, and that won’t be easy.
No, the big winner was the
governorship, and its powers.
Would California Tax Hike Be Rick Perry’s Fault?
If Gov. Jerry
Brown succeeds in eliminating the optional single-sales factor as the method
for calculating corporate taxes (thus raising taxes on companies with out of
state operations, and using the money for tax incentives for hiring and
manufacturing in California), he may have someone unusual to thank: Texas Gov.
Rick Perry, the Republican presidential frontrunner.
Supporters of this change in tax law
have repeatedly invoked Perry’s name – most recently at a gubernatorial press
conference on Thursday. Brown himself has said that if a single-sales-factor
only formula is good enough for Perry and Texas, it ought to be good enough for
California.
This is perfectly fair. Texas
doesn’t give companies the choice of how to calculate its taxes, as California
does. It instead uses a single-sales factor formula that, Texas officials
believe, creates more of an incentive to place facilities and jobs in
Texas.
Amazon Doesn’t Save Much Face
Just 48 hours ago, the online retailer Amazon was doing
battle against California to save the new economy from the tyranny of taxation.
They were spending millions on a referendum to block a piece of the budget.
They were fighting off a supposed legislative dirty trick to prevent such a
referendum. And they were arguing that high principle and jobs were at stake.
Now, well,
in the words of the 20-year-old Nirvana album: Never mind.
Amazon’s
deal to end its referendum – in exchange for a one-year delay before it begins
paying sales taxes – was designed to save face. But this was a deal in the same
way that the deal the Japanese signed on the U.S.S. Missouri was a deal. It was
a surrender, by an utterly vanquished company.
Modest Proposal: Put CTA In Charge of All State Educational Policy
Teachers’ unions have been described across the political
spectrum as an obstacle to fixing the schools.
So why not
put them in charge of the schools?
You object
– you want to say they’re in charge already. But that’s not really true.
Consider the California Teachers Association. CTA is powerful, easily the most
powerful interest group in the state. But it doesn’t run the schools. It
influences people on behalf of its
members. There are middlemen – state legislators, governors, school board
members – who don’t always do exactly what CTA would do. Plus, there’s a big
difference between having influence and actually having the responsibility of
official control.
One Small Good Seed, Buried By Democrats’ Bad Initiative Deed
If Democrats want to win 2/3 of the legislature, they should start acting like a party you might trust with 2/3 of the legislature.
If they ever want to fix the governing system of California to restore majority accountability, they should start acting like people you would trust to reform the governing system.
It’s not going to be enough to point out that the other guys are nuts.
In this context, the public consideration by Democrats (pushed by their tactically acute but strategically silly labor allies) of a last-minute bill to push initiatives Democrats don’t like from the June to November ballots is doubly dangerous.
The move won’t get very far. And it’s guaranteed to sow doubts about Democrats – specifically about whether they respect the people’s will. And this is the lesser of the dangers – because doubts about Democrats are merely the party’s problem.
Department of History: The Referendum Has Always Been About Shipping
Amazon may not have intended it, but
there’s historical justice in the online retailer’s use of the California
referendum.
The
history of the referendum is tied up in the history of delivering items of
value – originally documents – from place to place.
That
history dates to 15th century Switzerland. Municipalities,
particularly in the canton Graubünden, were
trying to escape from the oversight of feudal overloads. Some bought their own
freedom, introduced their own courts – and joined together into leagues for
mutual defense and local self-determination.
The Sign I’d Wear on My Chest
I know that Senate Bill 448 — which requires circulators of
initiative and referendum petitions to wear large badges or signs on their
chests explaining, in 30 point type, that they are paid – is probably
unconstitutional, given that it restricts the First Amendment rights of people
to petition their government.
And I know it’s sort of pointless,
since Californians already know that circulators are paid and since the change
doesn’t do anything about what’s wrong with the initiative process. Real reform
involves making changes to what the process can do and integrating it with the
budget and the legislative process and the rest of our governing system.
Unfortunately, much of the legislation to change the process in California would
limit access to the process – even though the process is already inaccessible
to anyone who isn’t rich. (Which is why virtually all circulators are paid).
But I love this idea – mainly
because there’s nothing better than a big, goofy badge and sign.
The Democratic Divide: Action vs. Inaction, Small vs. Big
LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s speech in Sacramento already
has political tongues wagging. Reporters wonder if the mayor reading a
statewide run. Dan Walters asks if he is preparing to challenge Gov. Jerry
Brown from the left. Does this represent some sort of north-south political
divide?
Villaraigosa’s
speech does expose a divide among California Democrats. But the divide isn’t
about ideology or geography. It’s about attitude, and about strategy.
The
attitude divide was clear in the difference between Villaraigosa’s speech and
an interview
Brown gave this week to the LA Times.
The mayor’s attitude was all about action, and the need to
not dither or delay in tackling the state’s problems. "We are at a point in time in California where we can no longer afford to go on patching the leaks and hoping they will hold for another season,"
he said in a speech that included lines like,
"Let’s go for it with gusto."
State Legislators Should Release Their Calendars. Yawn.
Finally, pressure is mounting on California state
legislators to release their calendars and other office records, striking a
blow for public accountability and ushering in a new era of transpare…. Uh…. Uh…..
Zzzz … zzzz
Oops. I fell asleep.
Where was I? Oh, that’s right. Yes,
state legislators should release their calendars. And their office budgets. And
any other records that they produce on the job as public officials. The fact
that they don’t – and that Assembly Anthony Portantino is considered some sort
of rebel for releasing his own calendars – speaks volumes about the
legislature’s appalling lack of open… zzz… Sorry, did it again.