Visit our sister site
home to conservatives
in arts and entertainment
Hollywood and Vine
by Julia Gorin
Who Protect Us
The Secret of Their
by Burt Prelutsky
Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From San Francisco
by Burt Prelutsky
by Mark Steyn
|Get Into a Car With a Drunk Behind the Wheel?
by Jon Coupal 9/6/07
For over two months, a small, well disciplined cadre was able to hold off a howling army of eager spenders in the State Capitol. While Senate Republicans may not go down in history along side the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae, by holding out for a better deal on the state budget they achieved more than expected for California taxpayers. Because of their courage, the budget is a lot closer to being in balance, and the $40 billion in state infrastructure bonds, passed by voters last November, will be spent more efficiently.
This victory for taxpayers was made possible by the constitutional requirement that a budget receive a two-thirds vote of each house for approval, a mandate that has been in effect for more than 70 years. (If you thought this vote requirement was the result of Proposition 13, sorry, but that is just another urban myth.)
Coupal is an attorney and president of the Howard
Jarvis Taxpayers Association -- California's largest
taxpayer organization with offices in Los Angeles
and Sacramento. [go to website] [go
to Coupal index]
Now that we have a state budget that meets the sanity test, those lawmakers who want to spend, regardless of the cost to future taxpayers, want to change the rules. The halls of the Capitol are atwitter with conversations about establishing a new budget approval process that jettisons the two-thirds vote. Senate President Don Perata has already written a letter to Governor Schwarzenegger asking that a budget revision panel be put together. It appears lawmakers have forgotten that when voters were given the opportunity to eliminate the two-thirds vote requirement less than four years ago with Proposition 56, it was soundly rejected.
However, even some prominent fiscal conservatives have suggested that a majority vote should be sufficient. If the majority big spenders approve a budget that leads to disaster, then "they own it," the reasoning goes. This, they continue, will lead to their dismissal by the voters in the next election cycle.
This may sound good in theory, but let's look at how such a system would work in real life. Suppose you and three friends, Dick, Don and Fabian go to a party. (Any similarities between Dick, Don, and Fabian and actual persons is purely coincidental). You and Dick behave responsibly, while Fabian and Don hoist a few and then a few more. After becoming extremely inebriated, Don, dangling the car keys from his hand, says it's time to go. You and Dick argue that Don should not be driving, but Fabian chimes in, "He's fine. Besides, half of us say it's okay and we will take responsibility."
Now if you and Dick go along with this and end up in the hospital, no amount of Fabian's and Don's posturing about willingness to "take responsibility" will make your injuries heal any quicker. During your recuperation you will have time to contemplate how you should have held out for calling a cab, rather than follow two fools to disaster.
And that of course is the point of the two-thirds vote. It guarantees a broad-based consensus on budget decisions that will have profound impact on taxpayers and service recipients.
Given the opportunity, some in the Legislature would spend much more than the revenue available. To them, the end, funding their programs or projects, justify the means, going massively into debt. They show no concern or understanding of the impact this can have on the state's taxpayers, credit rating or economy. In just a short time they can do incalculable damage.
As long as we continue to elect a majority of the Legislature who are intoxicated with spending, we need the two-thirds vote to protect us from their irresponsible behavior. CRO
2007 Howard Jarvis Taxpayers association