Author: Joel Fox

A majority of Californians feel that the current political parties fail to do a good job and these voters are open to the idea of a third political party. That was the result of one of the questions in the latest Public Policy Institute poll that received little attention.

By a 52% to 41% margin, Californians liked the idea of supporting a third party because the Democratic and Republican parties do not do an adequate job. As you would expect, it was the Independents who really grabbed onto the idea of a third party by 62% to 35%. But registered Democrats and Republicans apparently don’t think the third party suggestion is so crazy. Democrats said that current parties do an adequate job of representing the people by a only a narrow margin 48% to 44%, while Republicans actually were in favor of the third party idea 49% to 44%.

Poll results on the independent voters is significant because independents, or as they are known in California, Decline to State voters, are growing in number. In September, the Secretary of State revealed that Decline to State voters make up nearly 20% of California’s registered voters. That’s compared to 32.5% Republicans and 43.7% Democrats.

Only weeks after the state budget was signed the governor and legislative leaders are scheduled to meet today to determine whether to call a special legislative session to deal with – the budget, again! With the economy in a tail spin this budget is already out of balance by about $5-billion—if it ever were in balance in the first place when it was signed. Nobody believes it was. And huge future budget deficits are looming.

With a deficit hole and a deteriorating economy — and on top of all that a federal judge demanding money that the state doesn’t have be spent on prison medical facilities — what are the political leaders going to do?

Governor, I have a suggestion for you to help with California’s fiscal difficulties both now and in the long term. The idea is not original – in fact, I borrowed it from you. Blow Up the Boxes!

Now that the legislative session is over and Speaker Karen Bass is contemplating her commission on taxation, I want to recommend a piece in the September 25th Sacramento Bee by Jason Clemens of the Pacific Research Institute.

Clemens, a Canadian, tells the tale of how Canada’s left leaning political party pursued a course of reducing spending and at the same time cutting taxes which produced more revenue and dramatically reduced Canada’s budget deficit. What makes this story intriguing is that Canada’s population size is roughly equivalent to California’s and the size of the budget deficit when the new economic policies were implemented was larger than California’s deficit.

This lesson of cutting taxes to bring in more revenue is nearly as old as history itself.

Too often the taxpayers are put on the hook in this country to clean up the mistakes of others. This time, the excesses of Wall Street have plunged finances into a hole and Congress is considering unprecedented and uncertain action to clean up the mess. As usual, that means the taxpayers likely will pay.

The question is if Congress does not pass a rescue plan for Wall Street, can the economy weather the hit without severe circumstances?

Some have argued that the situation we now face is the beginning of a self-correcting period. Holding tight without supporting a massive $700-billion rescue plan or bailout plan will cause pain but ultimately benefit the country. Others argue not addressing the problem on a grand scale will bring on recession and perhaps worse.

Following a frustrating and record setting period before an unsatisfactory budget was signed, the Sunday papers were full of reform ideas on how California should change its governmental process and even the structure of government itself.

Fox and Hounds Daily preceded the Sunday discussion with a piece on our site Friday
by Jim Mayer, Executive of Director of California Forward. Mayer offered readers a glimpse into the dialogue his organization hosted last week on the budget process and governance problems and setting an agenda for reform.

In the “Conversation” section, Daniel Weintraub oversees for the Sacramento Bee, Weintraub and guest writers discussed different options for reforming government in California. Weintraub also listed an array of government reforms that have gained support in some quarters during the time of the stalled budget negotiations including majority votes for the budget, open primaries, changed term limits, and an expanded legislature.

Joel Kotkin, Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University in Orange, California and a recognized authority on global, economic and political trends, has written an interesting assessment on the financial crisis.

He argues that what is needed now is not a revolution against capitalism but a shift in emphasis back to the basics such as manufacturing, basic infrastructure and training critical skilled workers that a ‘real’ economy needs to encourage entrepreneurism and long term growth.

About California, Kotkin writes:

“California’s once envied water-delivery systems, roadways, airports, and education facilities are in serious disrepair. In the 1960s, infrastructure spending accounted for 20 percent of all state outlays, but as the technocratic perspective took hold in Sacramento, infrastructure spending fell to just three percent of all expenditures, despite the rapid growth of the state’s population.”

Read Kotkin’s piece on how America can grapple with the financial thicket here.

How will the next state budget crisis be avoided? Manypolicy experts, political pundits, and special interests have their own ideas.But odds are the solutions that will grab public attention will not contain anysubtleties or nuances. Opposing factions will likely support measures mosteasily understood by the voters.

I am talking about the old standbys: Make it easier to passa budget and raise taxes or cut spending.

I would argue that there is a third way. Get our fiscalhouse in order, cut taxes that will promote growth, and make Californiabusiness friendly. Taken together, I believe these actions will result in morerevenue for the state and that will happen in an economically smart way.However, making the case for this approach will take time.

Retire Proposition 13. No, not the ballot measure, which has saved California taxpayers countless billions over the past 30 years, retire the number 13 applied to any new ballot proposition.

There are 12 ballot propositions on the November ballot. That means the first proposition at the next election, probably the special election the governor plans to call in 2009, will be labeled Proposition 13.

A decade ago, Senate Minority Leader Ross Johnson (R-Irvine) and state Sen. Steve Peace (D-El Cajon) offered a bill to prohibit any future ballot measure from carrying the number 13.

Those guys didn’t have triskaidekaphobia. That’s the fear of the number 13. There are a number of explanations of why the number 13 is considered unlucky. One of the most enduring explanations is that there were 13 people present at the Last Supper.

Johnson and Peace thought that voters seeing a Proposition 13 on the ballot would attach some meaning to the measure that may not be there.

Is there time to qualify initiatives for the special election the governor plans to call? The special election in 2009 will deal with the rainy-day budget plan and the lottery lease that were part of the budget deal. But, what else might be on the special election ballot?

The governor indicated a special election in March may be too early. So attention is focused on June 2.

The constitution says that initiatives must be qualified 131 days before an election. If the election were called for June 2, that would make the qualification date about January 23.

But there is a legitimate question if that 131 day requirement applies to a special election. Here’s Article 2, Section 8, Paragraph C of the state constitution dealing with initiatives:

The Secretary of State shall then submit the measure at the
next general election held at least 131 days after it qualifies or at
any special statewide election held prior to that general election.
The Governor may call a special statewide election for the measure.