Uncategorized

Jerry’s Message and a Rambo Take on the Budget?

17 Comments

Well, the concept of a June election is now dead. So where do we go from here?  We don’t have a lot of time, even qualifying a ballot measure to get on a November special doesn’t offer a ton of time.  So, in theory, Jerry could get to work on getting his deal on the budget right now. And in the video (to the right) that seems to be what he’s after.

But the folks at CalBuzz have a different scenario in mind:

Here’s how it would work: Set things up so that the Democrats  approve, with a majority vote, a conditional all-cuts budget that presumes no tax extensions. (We wonder if Republicans would vote for it.) Then gather signatures to place that on the November ballot, with a provision that if the measure fails the cuts will not occur because the 2009 taxes and fees will be re-instated for five years. As a practical matter, cuts can be delayed to occur after November. And costs can be shifted to local government for local responsibilities whether the measure wins or loses.

Then let Grover Norquist, Jon Fleischman, radio heads John and Ken and the rest of their not-our-problem cadre be forced to argue for the budget ballot measure while Democrats and labor argue against it.

In other words, make the “yes” position a vote for cutting programs for widows, orphans, fish and fawn and the “no” position a vote for freedom, justice and common decency on our streets and in our homes. Recall: in the history of ballot propositions in California, “no” beats “yes” 67% of the time.

Of course, there are a lot of interesting moving parts in this scenario, some that will probably require some legal approval. But why not go for something that will a) work and b) might be something that progressives can really support.  

Now, I tend to think that the CalBuzz/Jerry Brown revenue package proposed is hardly progressive.  In fact, I can’t really see any way to argue that it is.  It takes money disproportionately from those that can’t afford to save money.  So, why not put on a revenue package, either in addition to, or instead of, that at least includes some sort of a fair share for corporations and resource hogs.  Why not put that oil extraction on there? Or an overhaul of the income tax system that actually provides for more than two tax brackets.

There are more that we all could think of if we brainstormed, but maybe a little creativity here could be beneficial.

17 thoughts on “Jerry’s Message and a Rambo Take on the Budget?”

  1. Incorrect…

    Here’s how it would work: Set things up so that the Democrats  approve, with a majority vote, a conditional all-cuts budget that presumes no tax extensions. (We wonder if Republicans would vote for it.) Then gather signatures to place that on the November ballot, with a provision that if the measure fails the cuts will not occur because the 2009 taxes and fees will be re-instated for five years.

    Corrected…

    Here’s how it would work: Set things up so that the Democrats  approve, with a majority vote, a conditional all-cuts budget that presumes no tax extensions. (We wonder if Republicans would vote for it.) Then gather signatures to place that on the November ballot, with a provision that if the measure fails the cuts will occur because the 2009 taxes and fees will not be re-instated.

  2. The CalBuzz proposal is interesting…  But I am not sure it will withstand the voting requirements.  If it happens, you can bet on extended litigation…

    And the reason why you may not want to put other progressive revenue proposals on this ballot is two-fold:

    1)  Don’t want to cloud the issue; keep this single focused.

    2)  An off-year election is less likely to draw a more progressive turnout, making the chances of passing the progressive taxes lower.

  4. * Oil exploration fees, as many have suggested.

    * Sales tax on out-of-state internet stores, such as Amazon. That would generate LOTS of revenue and have the added effect of pushing people to buy local, since savings on sales taxes would be negligible.

  5. Is that even possible to do? First, it sounds like the proposition would be to approve the all cuts budget, which by that point would have passed in the Legislature. So essentially a yes vote wouldn’t do anything. And a not vote would actually make the change, to extend the tax increases. I don’t think that is allowed. The no always means that nothing is changed. I’ve never heard of a proposition where “No” actually means “yes”

  6. In general you can’t insert “a provision that if the measure fails” X happens.  But they could do that by first passing an extension of the taxes, and then putting on the ballot an all-cuts budget that contains a repeal of the extension.

    The only question is if extending a temporary tax increase falls under the 2/3rds rule.

  7. Let’s just get the tax extensions on the ballot

    There is a tendency to include other progressive ideas

    But, that may cloud the issue

    I’d love to see an oil severance tax or a tax on internet sales,,,,,,,,, but….

    Putting those thinkgs on the ballot would cloud the issue of tax extensions and bring out Big Oil and a lot of High Tech companies against their issues and probably agai9nst the tax extensions

    Do the Tax Extensions first.

    Later, let’s work on the oil severance and internet sales tax

Comments are closed.