At the 4 PM News Break State Senator Tony Strickland was questioned over his opposition to removing the 2/3rds requirement to the state budget. He said something along the lines that without the 2/3rds requirement the tax increases in the state budget would have been even larger.
An Argument against the 2/3rds budget is that no party is held accountable. I would like the two parties to be competitive and offer the voters of California different visions that can create electoral coalitions. It currently seems like legislative Republicans are satisfied with their status in the legislature.
The Republicans against lowering the requirement seem to be speaking with the assumption that they are going to be in the minority. While that might currently be true, it isn't outside the realm of possibilities that they will retake the majority. If they do, they might have a different view on the 2/3rds requirement when they are trying to get a bunch of Democrats to vote for their budget when the Democrats are putting themselves out there as defenders of public safety or education.
It would be interesting to see a budget created by moderate Democrats that could attract the whole Republican caucus to cross over to support it. Most of this seems like an academic debate as the voters have expressed their preference for the 2/3rds majority vote many times. But with the frustration over the recent budget more people might be willing to listen to a convincing argument.
If you see any great arguments for or against the 2/3rds requirement leave a comment with a link. I am not convinced we need to change it, but I am willing to study the issue more. I have been reading some interesting posts on the subject over at Calitics.com.
Click on continue reading to see the provocative and controversial "Heads on a stick" graphic on John and Ken's website.