Heard of singularity? In technology, it’s a hypothesis about the future. At some point, artificial intelligence will become so advanced that humans will lose control of their own destiny. In the darker visions, the machines we create will become more intelligent than us, and become our masters. They might even kill us.

I wonder if Californians have already achieved something like this when it comes to the budget.

The budget system has so many pieces and so many parts that it has become a machine, unaccountable to voters and unmanageable by elected officials. The machine is so complicated that it may be smarter than us. Admittedly, Californians know so little about how the budget works that surpassing us in budget intelligence isn’t that hard.

But seriously, who is managing that thing? The governor? No, he sounds exasperated that no one in the legislature will step forward to help him manage it. The Democrats? They can pass a budget on majority vote, but need some Republicans for taxes. Republicans? They complain that spending is beyond anyone’s control; a new program…er… spending limit is necessary.

Meanwhile, the budget machine with a mind of its own demands tribute – spending cuts, maybe new revenues – that hurt its citizens. If technological singularity is anything like California budget singularity, the Terminator movies may prove to be prophecy rather than art. Who knows if we can survive the machines?

The news is that the state Senate and the Assembly will take up the budget today.

The question is: what budget?

Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget calls for closing the state’s $26.5 billion deficit with a combination of program cuts, funding shifts and a June ballot measure that would extend some $12 billion to $14 billion in taxes and fees for five years.

Well, the Legislature’s Democrats have done their part, approving most of the cuts Brown has called for. And the governor has managed to figure out enough budget deals and program transfers (which the uninitiated might describe as gimmicks) to narrow the gap a bit more.

But unless Brown has a couple of secret GOP votes tucked into his back pocket, he’s still short of the two-thirds of the Legislature needed to put that budget measure on the special election ballot.

With budget votes called in both the Senate and Assembly today, one wonders how well legislators know the details of the proposed budget. While debate raged over the potential for a special election and the tax extension part of the budget plan, the California Taxpayers Association took a look at what is actually in the budget bill and came up with some interesting insights.

CalTax reports that the proceeds from the sales and car tax increases would be state revenue, and would be put into a special fund and earmarked for local governments to pay for the public safety programs that would be transferred from state to local governments.

This “public safety” money would be on top of what is now spent on public safety because another provision prevents local governments from using this transferred revenue to replace other funding for public safety. CalTax asks an interesting question: “With local governments facing massive deficits, would this provision make them unable to reduce police and fire budgets?”

In the aftermath of Proposition 14, members of the California Republican Party (CRP) will make a very significant decision this weekend to determine the process and criteria we follow to endorse candidates. It is an important discussion for us to have and we all want to see the Party succeed in future elections, but unfortunately one of the proposals on the table will only weaken the Party.

The current CRP Chairman’s proposal, while it may sound good on its face, actually gives a very small number of Party insiders the power to decide endorsements – something that flies in the face of decades of our Party’s proud history of letting voters decide our Party’s nominee. This proposal threatens to disenfranchise many Republican voters, including our men and women serving overseas who have no way to participate in the Party’s endorsement process under Chairman Nehring’s plan.

But this plan is problematic in other ways. It requires that an endorsement be made in every single race, even when two ormore quality Republican candidates are running against each other. It also does not provide for the endorsement of a Republican candidate after the June election in the event the “officially endorsed” candidate loses that primary. That means that our candidates could be limited or cut-off from vital resources needed to run a winning campaign.

For the past few months, Governor Jerry Brown and his Senate and Assembly Democratic leaders have been speaking off the same song sheet – “it would be ‘unconscionable’ to not let California voters decide the direction of the state.” Shouldn’t it also be “unconscionable” for the Democratic leadership to only have California voters decide on taxes and issues these legislators care about?

Well, I say, let the voters decide.

Let the voters decide whether $500 billion in unfunded pension liability is too much of a burden for our state.

Let the voters decide whether California should have a spending cap.

Let the voters decide whether newly hired state workers should be moved into a 401(k) type retirement plan.

Did last week’s Los Angeles election results give any clues on where voters stand if a special statewide election is called?

On the tax front, LA City voters passed a tax on medical marijuana and apparently defeated a tax on oil production. Along with the defeat of another oil production tax increase in neighboring Beverly Hills, it should give pause to those who have clamored for a statewide oil severance tax. Voters understand that the tax will work its way on to them at the gas pump.

Whether approval of the marijuana tax provides any tell-tale sign is difficult to determine. The marijuana tax faces legal hurdles and uncertainties best described by City Council President, Eric Garcetti: “If marijuana is supposed to be medicine, you can’t tax medicine. And if it is a gross receipts tax on a business, these (dispensaries) are not supposed to be businesses.”

It may be too much of a leap to guess results from a special election on taxes from what happened in Los Angeles. The concern for those supporting a tax on the special election is that the tax that voters felt would eventually affect them directly (the oil tax) was turned down. Continuation of the car tax, sales tax, and, for many, the income tax, directly affects the voters. A PPIC poll found overwhelming opposition to these taxes marked for extension.

Cross-posted at RonKayeLA.

LAPD Chief Charlie Beck hit a raw nerve with his decision Friday to stop the practice of impounding for 30 days cars driven by unlicensed — and usually uninsured — drivers who are stopped at sobriety checkpoints.

His policy change, made on his own authority, was taken after meeting with immigration rights advocates who complained the impound policy was unfair to illegal immigrants since they are not allowed under state law to get licenses and causes them great hardship .

An article about his decision was printed Saturday in the LA Times, generating 527 comments by Monday morning, most of them unsympathetic to illegal immigrants and highly critical of the chief whose new policy requires officers to allow unlicensed drivers a "reasonable" period of time to get a licensed driver to the scene to avoid being towed.

Over the past year as Chair of the Assembly Local Government Committee I have witnessed first-hand the harm to the public’s confidence that was wrought by the duplicitous actions of officials in the City of Bell. Since then I have proposed reform measures aimed at bringing more transparency to local governance in an effort to restore that confidence.

That is why I was surprised to learn of current efforts in the Capitol to use the delicate budget negotiations to circumvent the public collaboration process currently under way in Ventura County to decide the future of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) site. The item in question is a proposed resources trailer bill, RN 11 12008, which would effectively squash years of hard work between the community, the state and federal government and Boeing by codifying two administrative orders issued by NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy.

Suppose an acquaintance invites you to lunch. You meet him in front of the restaurant where he announces that he is a little strapped for cash. Turns out he can’t host lunch, but he will split the bill with you. You feel uncomfortable because you are on a brown bag budget, but nevertheless agree.

During lunch, he does most of the talking. It is clear he is trying to impress you. When the bill arrives it amounts to twenty-six dollars. Your companion takes out his wallet and stares intently at its contents for a few moments, before mumbling he has only eight dollars. This is unsettling because you barely have enough money for half the bill. At this point he excuses himself to use the restroom. As you observe him, he crosses the room passes the restroom door and darts out an exit. That’s when the realization hits you that you will be spending the afternoon washing dishes.

You’ve just had lunch with Jerry Brown.