Dan Walter’s “Pop” Analysis Fails As History

I don't claim to understand every aspect of how the process works or doesn't work. However I do know a couple things. They always spend more than they take in. Many good bills pass through the Senate and Assembly only to be vetoed by one person. Many useless bills that require funding get passed. The tough stuff always gets moved to the next legislative year so nothing every changes.

The bills to clean up our justice system and protect us were all vetoed. They were all expected to pass because they are necessary, but the Law Enforcement Unions own the Governor. So it really doesn't matter what us citizens believe. We are just the ones who pay for everything and are affected by their political goals and quest for job promotions.

Our system is grid locked and just doesn't work. The majority should rule. Let that majority take responsibility for it's errors or successes. Then when things go well that party takes the credit. The same is true for their mistakes. Let them take credit. The mistakes are what will drive people to change the ruling party. The problem now is they blame each other constantly. I'm tired of partisan politics and this explains low voter turnout. People just give up.

Walters is conveniently forgetting the fact that Willie Brown was elected Speaker in 1980 with a substantial number of *Republican* votes. If anyone was the pick of the Democratic establishment at the time it was Howard Berman, Brown's rival for the speakership at the time. Republicans have nobody to blame but themselves.

The rest of Walters' history is bunk, based on his fundamental premise that the problem with California politics is that too many damn people here dare vote for Democrats.

Once again, Cavala is dead on, though there are some details I would argue with. Cavala does not emphasize enough that California's dysfunction is directly a result of the 2/3rds vote requirement put in by Prop 13 (which would be declared unconstitutional today by a conservative State Supreme Court by its many violations of the single subjet rule).

Notes:
I can't help but note it's ironic that Walters _blames_ a "competitive" court-ordered redistricting for legislative dysfunction, since that is, according to him, the cure-all for the legislature.

The term-limited legislature elected in court-ordered (and therefore "better") districts gave us such policies as electric deregulation and the car tax reduction, probably the two worst policy decisions of the legislature since it became full-time.

Cavala notes:

We have gridlock – not because the state is so large and heterogeneous – but because one major party has been seized by ideologues who view the failure of government as a goal.

But this "major" party only has any power because of the 2/3rds rule. This should have been declared a revisions by the State Supreme Court and tossed, as it has much more major consequences than any of the revisions they have tossed.

While I agree with publius' attack on the 2/3 rule, it goes back further than Prop 13. The first 2/3 rule for state budgets came in 1933 for any budget that increased spending beyond 5%. In 1962 the 5% rule was dropped, meaning ANY budget needed 2/3 support in the Legislature. Prop 13 merely compounded the problem by adding a 2/3 rule for raising taxes.

In any case, the 2/3 rule is by far the biggest impediment to effective government in California. But because that rule helps Republican obstructionism, Walters won't raise a peep about it, as his only problem with CA government is that there are just too many Dems.

Bob notes:

While I agree with publius' attack on the 2/3 rule, it goes back further than Prop 13. The first 2/3 rule for state budgets came in 1933 for any budget that increased spending beyond 5%. In 1962 the 5% rule was dropped, meaning ANY budget needed 2/3 support in the Legislature. Prop 13 merely compounded the problem by adding a 2/3 rule for raising taxes.

But the requirement for raising taxes is the important one--we've seen in the years of Republican rule in Washington that Republicans are very willing to spend, they just don't want to tax (creating deficits for our children--this is responsible government?). Gridlock is caused by the raising taxes 2/3rds vote--the Republicans would be glad for the Democrats to take the onus for raising taxes and then they would help spend the money (particularly for prisons).

Now, how a reduction in local property taxes can be considered as the same subject as a legislative requirement regarding raising taxes can both be considered as the same subject (aside from "taxation" in general) is beyond me, and the current court would have tossed it under single subject.

Post a comment