The recent budget debacle is reason enough to drop the 2/3'rds requirement. But dropping the supermajority requirement means that voters need to do their part and vote out the lawmakers who don't truly represent the interests of their constituency. Right now we have a lot of outside money influencing local issues - city, county and state. Voters need to smarten up.

California is one of only three states that requires more than a simple majority to pass budget bills. Rhode Island, like California, requires a two-thirds vote. Arkansas requires three-fourths votes to pass most appropriation bills and simple majorities to approve a separate bill that sets the state's spending priorities. These states are not in the same league as California in size, operational budgets or population. We can not operate like a state with the population of one of our mid size cities.

Does anyone remember why there's a 2/3rds requirment to increase taxes in California?
People seem to have forgotten that their grandparents were being taxed out of their homes.
Prop 13 was passed.
The legislature still didn't get the message, so we got and passed prop 98.
We still get shafted, what used to be taxes got renamed "fees" and those continue to get raised.
The state has continually increased spending over and above population and inflation increases.
This is unsustainable, especially in a down economy, and the dung has hit the fan once again. No accounting trickery can hide it this time.
Those that can move to a lower tax state, will.
The rest of us are going down the drain.

Pop Quiz for KoeJos:

Which elected official makes TONS of money with his company milking everyone's fears regardng Prop 13? Hint: He is a Republican and he is further south. The name of his company is Landslide Communication.

KoeJos,

What do you expect? You live in the most populous state, by far. And that concentration of population creates costly illegal immigration problems, attracts more crime, demands more services and draws on more resources than anywhere else in the Nation.

Yet no one wants to leave, so they encourage their lawmakers to provide more and more in the way of health care, better transportation, increased water & power resources, to buy up open space and other natural attractions, to increase fire & police services, to underwrite the jets & yachts of the wealthy, to subsidize film production, etc etc.

Then guys like you and I get the bill for all this. No one wants to pay. Some will even blame teachers for the problem. Too many of us decide that children are fair game so we can both deny them health care, education AND stick them with an IOU.

If you truly believe you're not getting your money's worth for all that you're demanding from the state, then maybe you really should consider moving to Wyoming or Arkansas. I guarantee that your taxes will be much lower, along with your income and the level of services you can expect.

KoeJoes,

Has it worked thus far to keep taxes low?

2/3 approval protects the small minority that pays most the taxes in this State.

Jeff,

The 2/3 approval rule allows a small minority to hold the entire state hostage. It protects no one and does a tremendous amount of damage. If the minority, Republicans, want to protect those who pay the most taxes then they need to be involved in the process rather than just saying no. Their tactics hurt everyone even other Republicans.

Once again we catch Phony Tony in a filthy lie. The truth is that states that pass budgets and taxes with a simple majority have lower taxes than California. That is because the 2/3rds requirement prevents small changes up or down in revenues and spending that would even things out over time, in Ca the wackos like Phony Tony and Fraudra Strickland prevent small changes so the problem builds to the point where big tax increases and big cuts are needed, blame the Strickland's and the 2/3rd for paying higher taxes folks!

CA is the 33rd least taxed state. That means there are 16 states that are taxed higher than CA.

The real question is:

Who's getting taxed too much....CA's middle class or CA's wealthiest 5%. I'm betting its the former because the anti-tax folk are happy to sing the song about lower taxes but they always manage to do it only for the top 5% by spreading the State's operating costs on to the rest of us.

It's called The Re-Distribution Of Debt.

What is the deal with you Gary, do you just sit around and make up your own statistics? If you're going to throw out stupid stuff like "CA is the 33rd least taxed state", then please cite your sources.

Tell you what, I'll give you a link to a credible study done by the Tax Foundation, which compares various taxes from all 50 states and does a comparative ranking. They examine sales taxes, corporate income taxes, property taxes, personal income taxes, etc. According to their study California ranked as the 6th highest taxing state. It should be noted that that ranking was BEFORE California imposed its recent sales tax, personal income tax and vehicle license fee increases, which will undoubtedly move us even higher in the rankings. And we have the highest marginal tax rates in the nation, so your claim that the wealthy are somehow under-taxed is also total B.S.

Then again, we all know that you personally benefit from higher taxes. You almost seem disappointed that California isn't #1 overall. But don't worry, we are well on our way. I guess it's safe to assume that you will continue to be in favor of raising taxing on everyone else so long as it keeps putting more money into your own pockets.

Check today's LA Times, BK. That's where I got my info...not from the talking point memos sent out by the Stricklands, to their paid minions.

Very true, gs. It was in Steve Lopez' column today.

http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-me-lopez25-2009feb25,0,4172534.column

But I have found with some people that you can give them studies, statistics, figures, links to numerous OpEds, articles and worthy research, YET they still only believe what they want to believe.

What they tell me: Statistics lie, polls lie, the "liberal" news media lies, university professors lie, government lies, politicians lie. But the guy at the end of the bar and talk radio, now THEY speak the truth.

In the end, it is good that we are all engaged and that we care.

Fortunatey for us, voter-hating politicians like Strickland and cranky old DOR-wannabees like BK have been proven wrong on every single issue they've tried to support over the years.

They've become insignificant.

Insignificant, Gary? I don't think the word "insignificant" describes the way Tony Strickland is feeling after winning the last election, but I could be wrong.

I never said Tony feels insignificant. I fact, he feels great, having once again trumped his obligations to look out for the people of CA and instead solidified his rabid, far right base....however small it's become.

No, Tony feels great screwing the people he's suppose to represent.

I followed the 19th SD race pretty closely and I don't remember any time that Strickland suggested he'd support raising taxes. I even attended a few events at which he spoke and both times he clearly stated he would not vote to raise taxes. Since he got elected even after repeating that message throughout the campaign, how is he screwing the people he's representing?

I've read on several occasions that Strickland only won by 857 votes and that he has no ayhbe that's correct. Still, it doesn't explain why he should support the biggest tax hike in California history after campaigning on a no new taxes message.

If Hannah-Beth Jackson had won the election by 857 votes, would you expect Republicans to be suggesting that she oppose the tax increases and vote against the budget because she had no mandate when almost everyone in her party was doing otherwise?

There's been only one significant vote thus far in the legislature and Strickland voted the same way as 95% of his party. Why is this surprising? Is he supposed to break campaign promises and govern like a democrat because he didn't win by a 2 to 1 margin?

I can guarantee that had his opponent won, none of her supporters would have expected her to break from the party line on issues and votes.

There's no doubt that the typical Strickland derangement syndrome will continue on these blogs but don't kid yourself into thinking we all can't see right through the bitter jealousy and chuckle a little bit.

Bubba Kidd said:

"Remember that taxes come from the earnings of private citizens and corporations. This is not free money."

Thanks for the reminder.

test

my posts got deleted :(

KoeJoes,

Sorry that your comments for deleted. An entire entry I wrote was deleted. I haven't figured out what happened yet.

But thanks for reading and posting on my blog.

Several days worth of posts were deleted from this thread. Too bad, since it was just getting to be interesting.

Hey, where is that Barbra Williamson campaign contribution thread? Or are we just doing Strickland bashing threads this year?

Bubba,

Every time you complain I put it off again. I have told you over and over that it isn't a pressing issue, it isn't time sensitive, there isn't an election anytime soon, and I was trying to check some of my facts.

The last entry I had up said that State Senator Tony Strickland was doing a good job making himself available to the public. It wasn't a Strickland bashing entry. I posted it quickly because it was time sensitive because his public meeting was the next day. In that entry I said nothing critical of him but I did say he was doing a good job. I am interested in how you came to the conclusion that when I said he was doing a good job that I was somehow being critical of him.

The entry you just posted on had not a single critical comment from me directed at State Senator Tony Strickland.

The top entry is a plug for candidate Jeff Gorell's blog.I wrote nothing critical of him there. In fact, I said several complimentary comments directed towards him in the past.

Lower on my page is an interview with a Republican candidate for governor. You had no comment on that entry.

Seriously, try reading what I write before you label anything "bashing".

The Barbra Williamson issue was time sensitive since the city attorney had completed their investigation and released their results. It is time sensitive since the media most likely will not be covering it anymore since she has already been fined and the story is now over. By avoiding talking about it you are allowing an important local issue to quietly disappear. When exactly do you suppose we are suppose to talk about it? Most likely all the Williamson apologists on your blog are happy that you refuse to discuss such an uncomfortable issue.

And yet you have time to post stories on the radiation rangers, Sarah Palin, Knolls development, the dailykos. Those issues don't seem all that pressing. Seems to me that some people around here just want to make the Barbra Williamson story go away. I seriously doubt that somebody like Strickland, Foy or Gallegly would be given the same get out of jail free card.

In the meantime I count THIRTEEN threads that you have created in just the past two months specifically directed at the Stricklands:

Tony Strickland on the Budget - January 12
Cowboy Strickland to Raise Money for Young Republicans - January 14
State Assembly Member Audra Strickland Endorses Jeff Gorell to Replace Her - January 15
Assembly Member Audra Strickland Preparing to Run for Secretary of State Against Debra Bowen - January 19
Tony Strickland Taking Questions - January 22
State Senator Tony Strickland Took Money From Recently Arrested Republican Leader - January 24
Clearing the Field w/Jeff Gorell - February 2
Thursday Education Protest at State Senator Tony Strickland's Office - February 4
Protest Coverate - February 5
Photos From Budget Protest Outside State Senator Tony Strickland's Office - February 9
State Senator Tony Strickland Pulling the Parties Together - February 16
State Senator Tony Strickland on KFI AM 640 News - February 23
State Senator Tony Strickland Hosting Event in Camarillo - February 28

Your blog has become a forum for continual Stickland bashing. Many of these threads repeatedly cover topics that are overtly negative, such as politically motivated protests outside of his office or the prosecution of a staff member. Virtually every thread you create directed at the Stricklands ends up becoming a free-for-all bash fest of endless attacks.

In the meantime, you continue to refuse to create a thread covering campaign finance violations by Barbra Williamson, who is a politician for whom you have repeatedly expressed admiration and respect. In the past there have been numerous allegations by bloggers in your threads alleging campaign ethics violations against various republicans, including Stickland. Yet the only person who has been actually fined for campaign ethics violations is Barbra Williamson, and on that topic there is a palpable silence. Why the double standard?

Bubba, the Star's blog system had a bit of a hiccup. I lost an entry and had to rebuild two days worth of comments from backup. Brian lost stuff, too, and probably doesn't have the patience for the rebuilding.

Anyway, I'm not going to post my treatise on taxes here again, but I agree it was interesting.

Bubba,

You read very little of what I said. How is an entry where I said State Senator Tony Strickland hosted an event and that I think he did a good thing in any way, shape, or form negative towards him?

I said I admire her willingness to engage the public over the internet. She has answered questions for a few years on this blog and others. I never said I endorsed her, nor did I give her money, walk a precinct, post a sign or make a phone call for her.

A free pass and silence from me? I never said she was correct to take the money, nor did I say she should keep it.

Go look at the archives. I posted an entry every single time there was an update in the story. That isn't silence. What council member attracts more attention then that across Ventura County.

If I post this months from now that just reminds readers of what happened. That isn't a free pass. In fact, it is the exact opposite. This is not a time sensitive issue because if I post an entry now or in a few weeks it won't alter votes in an election, nor is it covering an event that is going to happen soon, like the meeting that State Senator Tony Strickland hosted that I complimented him for.

Your count is really odd. You added in stories I broke ( Audra Strickland opening an account to run for higher office) with events that were happening soon ( State Senator Tony Strickland hosting a public event).

Did you forgot this entry:

http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/dennert/archives/2008/11/simi-valley-cit-6.html#comments

It has 104 comments on it and I quoted from news story written by Anna Bakalis. Did you think the quotes were "free passes"? Have you ever noticed she is amongst the very few reporters with their own archives?

What have you wanted to say that you haven't said yet?

Lastly, I said before I am trying to verify some information that I want to include. That hasn't happened yet. I would post an entry without it if there was an election in a few weeks, but it seems like there is plenty of time.

OK Brian. I've given my opinion on the topic in any case. The Stickland coverage just seemed a little bit obsessive compulsive as of late. To be fair, the worst attacks come from a handful of your contributors. It just gets tedious to have one thread after another end up becoming the same old smear job against the same guy. I believe that it impacts the level of participation on your blog. I agree that the recent discussion in this thread on taxation was becoming interesting, but, unfortunately, ended because of a technical glitch. But even this thread had its fair share of Strickland bashing (before many of those posts got deleted), including attacks actually directed against his physical appearance. It just seems that any thread with his name in the title goes in a predictable direction, and creating threads every few days with his name is like adding fuel to the fire. But it's your blog and you can choose the topics of conversation.

Captin obvious shoud answer you concerns Bubba.

Who are the local state senator and representitive?

Who has been annointed by the Stricklands?

What do you want a thread on, taxin' Jackson?

Bubba,

I delete references to personal appearances to keep it civil. It isn't coming from a group of Democrats or his other critics but from the same person. If you stop mentioning it and I keep deleting it things stay more civil.

Brian, the smear attacks occur just the same with or without my involvement, so me mentioning it makes no difference. And virtually every discussions on your blog involving the Stricklands does not stay civil. All I have suggested was talking about something else for a change, since the election is over and Strickland thing is getting old. But you can run your blog however you see fit.

Bubba, why do you and Daniel pester Brian about his Strickland entries and not me? I write far more pointed criticisms of him -- and well deserved when I do it, in my opinion.

I think it's in everyone's interest to shine a light on his activities.

You might want to know that Brian and I have been campaigning to get a conservative blogger (other than Daniel) added to the mix. The Star's tech department has been decimated like everything else over there and they just haven't gotten around to it. (They also have blogs still up for people who no longer work there)

I agree, Brian does not attack Tony Strickland and if the discussions don't stay civil, it is the poster(s) fault and the nature of the trangressions of the perpetator(s).

I happen to think attacks on personal apperances or on family members are never, ever appropriate.

I've seen many an anonymous poster say terrible things on this and other public blogs - talk can be real cheap.

And for awhile, there was a Star sanctioned blogger who was completely out of line - thankfully he was removed.

Basically Bubba Kidd knows that any time Tony Strickland is mentioned it comes out how unethical and phony Strickland is. This makes Bubba Kidd angry and makes him cry. Tony Strickland has a long history of unethical behavior and he will never ever be elected again for any office, live with it Bubba or do us all a favor and quit blogging, we are all tired of your crying and your personal attacks on people like GS and Marie who have the guts to tell the truth whether you like it or not!

Sticks and stones my friend. I enjoy the fact that my opinions irritate you so much, it means that I must be saying something right.

Actually Bubba you don't irritate me at all, you make me laugh, I always laugh at clowns and you and Phony Tony and Fraudra are the 3 biggest clowns I know!

the 2/3 protect us all. don't be dummy and think it only protects the rich. that what they want you to believe. Because there are not enough rich ones to pay for it all. So when all the rich ones move out who do you think is stuck with the bill. I know most of can figure this one out.

the 2/3 protect us all. don't be dummy and think it only protects the rich. that what they want you to believe. Because there are not enough rich ones to pay for it all. So when all the rich ones move out who do you think is stuck with the bill. I know most of can figure this one out.

Paul,

How has it worked thus far? Has it stopped higher taxes? States without the requirement don't all have higher taxes.

At times it seems the requirement for a 2/3rds consensus makes it easy to pass large budgets because so many factions need money to sign off on the bill.

I want the California Republican Party to think f ways to become the dominate party, not resign themselves to being a small minority.

Thanks for reading and commenting on my blog.

Brian:

When did you start worrying about how to lead the CA Republican Party out from its current walk through the minority political dessert?

Somehow, taking on the mantle of the GOP's John the Baptist just doesn't seem to fit your profile, Dennert.

Besides, you are a student of Scripture, and metaphorically speaking; surely you know the risk that John the Baptist took when he stretched his neck too far..

Regarding the 2/3's requirement for raising taxes, in this Democrat's opinion, it shouldn't be lowered, at least not by this bunch of political amateurs. The pitiful way in which the dealt with the State’s budget crises shows me I can’t trust any of them..

Especially the way in which the so-called political leadership of both parties in this State, including our Girly-Man Governator, have put the good citizens of this State through fiscal hell during the last six months. With such an abysmal fiscal stewardship record, why should they be rewarded now with more power over our hard-earned dollars?

After all, they all, in their own way, fiddled, while the State's fiscal house burned, almost to a crisp. If anyone doubts that, check out their fundraising data during that period.
I assure you that all of them, Democrats and Republicans alike, didn’t miss a beat in raising money for their re-election coffers, even while the State came precariously close to bankruptcy.

Then, at a few minutes before fiscal midnight, they muster the two-thirds votes in both houses required to pass their latest government ponzi-scheme which they have the fiscal chutzpah to call a balanced budget. I wonder if any of them hang-out with Bernie Madoff?

Given this fiscal madness, we'd all be fools to make it easier for these Bloviating Bozos to reach their grubby little hands into our pockets and grab more of our hard-earned dollars.

As it is, the so-called Democratic leadership, with a little help from a few of their Republican friends, pushed-thru a budget which will cost the average working-class family of four (that is if they still have a job) in this State somewhere between $1,000 to $1,200 more in State taxes and fees in the next year.

What's worse; among taxes that they increased include the sales tax, the most regressive form of tax available in the mix of government funding options.

And to add insult to injury, they came-up with the sliding scale income-tax surcharge, based on the amount of Federal Stimulus bill aid that will be received by the State, measured (are you ready for this?) on April 1, 2009 (See AB 16XXX) That’s one hell of an April’s Fool Day joke on the State’s taxpayers!!

Even if there was no recession (or more likely soon to be a global depression) such tax increases on hard-working families would be fiscally unsound. Under current economic conditions, they are morally unconscionable.

With apologies to Howard Dean, I'm from the working-class portion of the Democratic Party. Not the Montecito, latte-sucking, limousine-liberal portion that sells-out the least amongst us, the working poor, the old, sick and disabled, hardworking school teachers and our future, the kids in school, in favor of tax-cuts to Silicon-Valley technology corporations and Hollywood film giants.

Can we say thank you to all your High-Tech and Hollywood high-rolling contributors, State legislators?

And what's worse, that State budget was based on rosier revenue projections made by Mike Genest, the Governator’s Director of Finance back in November, well BEFORE the worst of the last three months of growing joblessness, consumer constipation, and market-meltdowns.

And don’t take my word for it, read the latest from Democratic State Controller, John Chiang, the guy who signs the State’s checks, as rubbery as they may be.

Here’s what he told the California’s Capital Blog during an interview yesterday, March 8th. Controller Chiang was asked by Blogmeister Greg Lucas whether or not he thought that the State Budget just passed solved the State’s fundamental budget problems.

His final answer: “.Not even close. This budget doesn’t anticipate if we have further deterioration in the state revenue situation. They’re going to probably find themselves out of balance because the economy is getting a lot worse.

The current numbers are based on November and December. Look at more recent numbers. Within the last few weeks, the national Gross Domestic Product was revised from its original minus 3.8 down to minus 6.2. Unemployment was a little over 8 percent last November. Now it’s at 10.1 percent.

They ought to have solutions in place already for next year’s budget to anticipate a weakening economy.

We had bad numbers for the month of February — $900 million less than expected. The disbursements came in light. It could have been a lot worse. But it’s still a $900 million net loss to the state budget..� So says the guy who signs the State’s checks…

Even though I strongly disagree with the budget that was passed by the skin of two-thirds of the Legislature’s political teeth last month, I gotta hand it to old Abel Maldonado. He’s the only one up in Sacto with both the brains and balls to bend the good old-boys’ political reality to his political will. And that’s about as good a definition of political power I’ve encountered.

If the Republicans had a Willie Brown, he'd be it. Who knows, Abel may be the Republican’s Dark-Horse favorite for Governor in 2010!!

NostraDemus

What evidence is there that suggests that Sacramento can pass any fiscal solutions while the obstructing party controls one more vote than needed to tie up the budget indefinitely? If they can't manage to solve the problem after more than three months of deadlock and a poor compromise, how will they develop ANY solutions for future years?