The California Constitution is one of the most bloated ones in the country - it needs to be revamped!

The problem with rewriting the constitution is that teh legislature will appoint their own ilk as well as the activists and lobbyists who pollute the current system to do the rewrite.

We only think the current constitution is screwed up. After that bunch finish rewriting it, it would be a major disaster especially to the common citizen.

[Comment removed by moderator. All comments from this blogger will be removed from here on in. Threats of violence are not acceptable on this blog.]

The United States Constitution is small enough to fit in a shirt pocket and the California State Constitution is the size of War and Peace. The problem is it is constantly being changed through the initiative process which has made it a crazy quilt of contradictions and locked in spending. It needs to be changed.

ImMadAsHellAndImNotGoingToTakeItAnymore

Only a fool would demand a cuts only budget and most of the state is in agreement. As Marie's post quotes David Binder's poll only 36% of the states citizens support a cuts only budget. This is the same 36% who feel the need for an authoritarian government and really don't believe in a civilized society.

[Comment removed by moderator. All comments from this blogger will be removed from here on in. Threats of violence to others are not acceptable in this forum.]

So ImMadAsHellAnd ImNotGoingToTakeItAnymore, you are advocating the violent overthrow of the United States and California Governments? Hello FBI!

Hi Marie:

I reviewed the Mr. Binder's poll and didn't see that he posted a list of his questions, his approach on how he arrived at a random sample and the nature of the "voter" who didn't vote in the special election is not clarified.

Do these registered voters, who didn't vote in the special election, only vote in presidential elections, general elections or all elections except special elections?

Anyway, PPIC releases their questions and methodology, so I'm a little more inclined to find their results slightly more acceptable. However, If I remember correctly, PPIC polled voters and said gay marriage opponents would be defeated. That didn't happen.

PPIC also had poll results saying voters wanted "some tax increases and spending cuts." We just had that proposal and it was defeated badly.

Personally, (and I'd have to go back and check) I think PPIC's polling methods do not grasp voter intensity on issues very well in their polls. Second, I'd say by the two examples I listed above, they often miss the influences base politics and organization have on California's undecided population in the lead up to an election.

PPIC is often quoted nationally as the expert on California, so I view it's role in California more in line to shape public opinion rather than just report it.

Marie, Marie, Marie,

I love how the Democrats (including our dear President) keep using polls to tell us what we believe. Frankly, I know what I believe, I know what my neighbors and colleagues believe (because they tell me), and this poll is not reflective of mainstream California. In fact, these polls, like the ones that the Dem’s used for the takeover the banks, the car companies and now healthcare are just more propaganda, similar to same tactics that Stalin used when he took over Russia. Come on folks look around you and ask your friends and neighbors what they believe and see if it matches up with these so-called polls. You might be surprised what you find, as the dirty little secret with these polls, is if you rig the question, you will get your desired result.

But Marie, keep going, keep just feeding us the talking points like a good Democratic soldier. Don’t question your leaders; don’t challenge these polls or their assumptions and see where our country ends up? Oh yeah, we know exactly where we will end up – because we’re there now – in complete chaos on the brink of collapse.

And, btw, no one said that the 1A-D proposition defeat was all about taxes. It was about taxes, spending, accountability, fiscal concern, vision, control, and the California Dream.

In fact, if people don’t want the huge cuts, it’s only because they don’t have all the information on what our state government has been up to these last 15 years. I have the numbers and why and how it happened which I will discuss in my next essay “Paradise Lost.” Indeed, my essay on the California financial crisis is nearly complete and I will address some of the issues contained in this ridiculous poll.

Martin

Who needs two scientific polls when we have right-wing pundits and bloggers to tell us what we think?

Martin I always ask you for data and links to back up your claims and you never provide them.

Scott, I don't have access to all of Binder's data but I researched him thoroughly before I decided to use his poll and he is very well respected.

I knew these propositions would fail because the Left was equally against them, but for different reasons. My friends over on the progressive blog Calitics recommended a No vote on all of them.

I can't think of anyone who wants the state parks to shut down, to cut off all grants to college students, and end health care benefits for poor children. Ending CalWORKS is hugely unpopular as well; there are many more cuts proposed.

Martin, in your essay don't forget to mention that state revenues have dropped 27 percent in the last 18 months.

Marie :

Would you say Mr. Binder's poll meets the standards for minimal disclosure provided the American Association for Public Opinion Research? Link provided.

Just because I personally don't have access to all of the data does not mean it doesn't exist.

I'll send him an email and see what I get back.

Martin,

Just because you don't like a poll doesn't mean it is inaccurate. Your nonpartisan position has become so rigid it might as well be an ideology!

Your poll of friends and neighbors has many reasons for not giving you an accurate reflection of public opinion.

Martin,

How did you vote on 1E? Please explain how your vote reflected how it was about "taxes, spending, accountability, fiscal concern, vision, control, and the California Dream."

The legislature voted to cut funding from a program and the public refused.

Martin you are sounding particularly biased for someone claiming to be of neither persuasion.

Thanks Marie. I'll be interested to see if he posts the minimal disclosure.

Scott,

Did you look at the 42 page pdf at their website that Marie linked to in her post? Did that answer your questions?

Where on the ballot did you see spending cuts?

Marie - It's amusing to read about post analysis polling on how voters really feel after the clear message sent to Sacramento during the latest proposition defeat. And it's comical to start analyzing the stats associated with percentage of voters that overwhelmingly defeated the propositions. Or it's funny to read how the two thirds requirement and proposition 13 are to blame for the overspending mess we are in.

The reason it's humorous is the stats and the data spewing out of Sacramento are not truthful. I'll give you one example to start with regarding the property tax myth (obtained from a blog by Chris Reed in the SD Union Tribune):

"...shortly after Prop. 13's adoption, property tax revenue increased by 579 percent. That is not a typo. It went up 579 percent.

During the same span, population went from 24 million to 38 million -- an increase of 58 percent.

As for inflation, as of January 1981, the rough midpoint of the 1980-81 fiscal year, the Consumer Price Index -- which gauges inflation -- was 88. As of January 2007, it was 202.4. That is a 133 percent increase.

So property tax revenue has increased by more than triple the combined rate of inflation and population growth -- 579 percent versus 191 percent."

A modification of the above analysis restated the combined inflation and population growth increase of a 268 percent instead of the 191 percent.

The politicians and pundits should feel free to try and make the case that State of California and its city governments need even more revenue by getting rid of the pesky prop 13. But let's not try and trick the voters with data and stats that don't jive with reality.

Marie,

Sorry, for being unable to deliver in what you believe to be a timely fashion. In my own defense, let me just say that I do not have that much time to be an “activist” as I have a full-time job and teenagers. My first obligation is to my family, then my job. I also volunteer my time (so do my teenagers) to help the less fortunate so my time to actually sit down and write my little essays is very minimal.

With respect, to “Not Martin” and “Nonpartisan,” who are clearly staff members for some Democratic Legislative member, or want-to-be member, – yes, you have outed me, I am actually a liberal Democrat like you that apparently do not pay taxes, but wants everyone else to pay them. Or attempts to demonize hard working Americans about not wanting to pay more in taxes for assistance for the less fortunate but then never volunteer their own time. You see, we don’t actually need government to solve all our problems, some are easy to fix, if people just step up. Government is just an inefficient middleman.

Or could it be that you’re afraid of ideas that do not come from one of your established political parties? Can you imagine a world where people actually to have think for themselves and not carry out orders given by Madam Pelosi or Msr. Rove?

Martin

Brian:

Pg. 42 of the PPIC link? Yes, it goes through how the poll was conducted. My issue was with Mr. Binder's 4 pages, not PPIC's disclosure.

"Where in the ballot did I see spending cuts?"

Not sure I did see that actual phrase on the ballot. It was much more implicit.

For instance, would a rainy day fund mean cuts to programs to maintain it? Most likely and many argued it would.

In Marie's article on 1D she wrote, "What Prop. 1D would do is take approximately $1.68 billion in dedicated funding away from established, locally controlled learning, health and family programs for preschoolers and their families and give the money instead to the state legislature to appropriate for non-specified state children's programs."

She goes on to write, "According to information provided by the Community Commission of Ventura County, "in Ventura County this would result in the loss of as much as $24.4 million over the next five years meant for sustaining current local First 5 Programs for our young children.""

I'm sure we can get into a debate on semantics of what a spending cut is and isn't, but I generally interpreted Marie's statements and the statements of others to mean programs were being cut even if it just mean reallocation to "non-specified funds."

I see people picking apart two polls and nobody refuting them with hard facts aside from their own opinions and those of their neighbors.

Then Alex quotes another unrelated poll and tells us since he thinks that one was bad, they are all bad.

Martin, I have three jobs in addition to this blog. I also have teen-agers (and younger). And I sit on boards and commissions and volunteer all over town.

It takes about 15 minutes to Google and find facts and data.

Good job Marie.

ImMadAsHellAnd ImNotGoingToTakeItAnymore's rhetoric was that of a Domestic Terrorist not unlike Scott Roeder, the man charged in Dr. Tiller’s murder or that of Timothy Mcveigh who bombed the Oklahoma Federal Building.

Marie - I have not quoted a poll. It's a simple analysis of the increase in property taxes.

Sorry, Alex, you're right. I typed poll and I meant analysis.

I see bad information from Republicans, too. Tom Campbell, who I like and admire, had an OpEd on education statistics which was mixed up.

I try really hard to be accurate here. If I make a mistake, please let me know.

Forgive me, I'm going to go a bit philosophical here. But first, let me chuckle at the idea of "I found it on the web, it must be factual."

Partisan politics are like a bloody riot in the streets after the game, where the team owners and players have already left the stadium with the rioters' ticket money, laughing all the way to the bank.

The 2/3 majority requirement is sound. Reasonable people in a reasonable system should be able to agree on a budget. If they can't, something is wrong elsewhere in the system.

This is not a time to raise most taxes. It is time to cut spending. Bankrupt the state, or else aggressively renegotiate all the good-time union contracts. No one with a shred of common sense would guarantee defined future payouts with no assurance the money would even be there. Pay/benefit reductions of 20-25% across the top 3-4 compensation quintiles will preserve essential services. Everyone has to do with less.

And toss out 25% of the ridiculously onerous and inane laws and regulations on the books while we're at it. Too many legislative primadonnas are strangling our collective humanity. No wonder we can't get an economy going--we're too busy jumping through circus hoops like SB375.

The phony wealth created by a corrupt and unregulated financial system has evaporated. Anyone who got through Econ 101 saw this coming. Our entire economic valuation, including salaries and benefits, MUST adjust downward.

This is not the end of the world. Costs will also drop and a new baseline will be found from which new growth can begin. Nothing changed except the perceived amount of "currency" we possessed. The REAL items and skills we possess and trade with each other are still there. If income and expenses are held relative instead of absolute, we will be just fine. No need for the word--or the experience--"draconian."

Marie : It isn't my purpose to refute the poll, otherwise it must be true. I merely pointed out a couple weaknesses from the data provided. We should be very careful in drawing policy prescriptions solely from polling data.

I didn't exactly "find it on the web." It was part of a presentation made to many media sources. Most of my progressive comrades have used the data, including Calitics, Majority Report, Progress Report and the veteran journalist and now blogger Jerry Roberts. And it's from a well respected pollster. Same with PPIC; they are unquestionable.

Wendy, you did not mention the money that is locked in by all these ridiculous propositions. It takes a vote of the people to overturn them. You can't just "toss them out." (They tried with 1D and 1E. The voters said no.)

Did you read the Star's editorial?

"... Voters who keep approving unaffordable ballot initiatives, such as one to build a $40 billion bullet train between San Francisco and Los Angeles by issuing $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds to partially fund it, as they did in November?

Voters who in 2006 approved state Sen. George Runner’s Jessica’s Law, which requires, among other things, lifetime Global Positioning System monitoring of felony registered sex offenders? The nonpartisan analyst put the cost of Mr. Runner’s Proposition 83 at $200 million annually within 10 years, not including the one-time mental-hospital and prison capital outlay of several hundred million dollars. ..."

The proposed pay reductions, taken together with the furloughs, will be a 15 percent pay reduction for state workers. And 5,000 will lose their jobs altogether.

Draconian is the obscene cuts to education, to children's health and the closing of the state parks. It fits. The Christian Science Monitor called it "beyond draconian."

Marie : I visited David Binder research online. I just wanted to give readers a bit more background. David Binder's client list is a who's who in the Democratic party. I think until he releases his methodology, it is healthy to be skeptical.

"Reasonable people in a reasonable system"

What gave you the idea anybody was reasonable?

Here's their business clients:

AT&T
California State Automobile Association
Clorox Company
Costco
DirecTV
Elsevier Sciences
Home Depot
hotels.com
Insurance.com
Lennar Homes
Longs Drugs
National Soft Drink Association
Safeway Stores
San Francisco Chronicle
SBC
Trader Joe’s
Verizon Online DSL (Telocity)
Walgreens
Yahoo!

He also has political clients. And he is well known and is a popular speaker nationwide.

Just because I figured somebody would pick on this poll, I purposely included the PPIC poll as backup.

Hey Scott,

I just found out who sponsored the poll. it was the NO ON 1A campaign. Interesting huh? And not what you likely thought. Binder's firm is highly respected.

Other findings:

 75% support increasing taxes on alcoholic beverages (62% support among ‘No’ voters)
 74% support increasing taxes on tobacco (62% support among ‘No’ voters)
 73% support imposing an oil extraction tax on oil companies just like every other oil producing
state (60% support among ‘No’ voters)
 63% support closing the loophole that allows corporations to avoid reassessment of the value of
new property they purchase (58% support among ‘No’ voters)
 63% support increasing the top bracket of the state income tax from nine point three percent to
10 percent for families with taxable income over $272,000 a year and to eleven percent for
families with taxable incomes over $544,000 a year (51% support among ‘No’ voters)
 59% support prohibiting corporations from using tax credits to offset more than fifty percent of the
taxes they owe (55% support among ‘No’ voters)

“Martin, I have three jobs in addition to this blog. I also have teen-agers (and younger). And I sit on boards and commissions and volunteer all over town.
It takes about 15 minutes to Google and find facts and data.”

Marie, if you manage all those things, I will tip my hat to you and suggest perhaps that you should run for the Governor since you appear to be a self-starter and efficiency expert that California so desperately needs.

I will disagree with you on the 15 minutes quote. I think it takes 15 minutes to find alleged facts and data but to find the real facts and data takes a much longer time – nearly 3 hours or more per subject. Maybe, I overkill the research but I try to read the underlying sources that are referenced in each report or commentary to determine if it supports the points made. And, you might be surprised to learn how many times, the real facts and data do not support the points made. Indeed, I have been amazed by how many times so-called non-partisan groups use “partisan” facts and data that manipulates the truth.

You see when I tackle an assignment, I do not have any preconceived notion of where I will end up (well, at least as much as humanly possible). I just jump in and follow the facts. I think the opposite is true for many in the media, with specific reference to L.A. Times and Fox News, as they both clearly have a certain viewpoint that they wish to validate with manipulation of the facts and data. And, this holds true for many of the public policy groups that occupy the Californian political landscape.

For instance, I was very surprised to learn that “Next Ten” an alleged “independent nonpartisan organization that educates and engages Californians so that, together, we can improve our future economy and quality of life” misstates the facts and misuses the data to make certain conclusions.

So you see, if I would have only taken 15 minutes to google “Next Ten” and not checked their sources and then cross-referenced those facts and data, I would have never known how they manipulate everything.

I've emailed back and forth with the Next 10 folks and used their online budget exercise here because it was the only one available at the time. They are non-partisan but they really do have a green agenda, no doubt.

I like green agendas, so I have no problem with them. I made that clear in the blog I wrote on them and also pointed out that they left off many options in the budget exercise. Of course they couldn't include everything, either.

I must be a faster Googler than you! And yeah, I do manage to do all that. Sleep is overrated.

Here at home we get the Star, The Wall Street Journal, LA Times, Time Magazine and Forbes. I read much, much more online.

I find all these publications have a point of view. The best idea is to read a variety of sources and then you can find balance.

Marie:

That is an interesting note on Binder. Look forward to hearing more about the poll...

If 1A was only about taxes and a spending cap that wouldn't work as conservatives claim then how come the ballot statements against it were from the former heard of the Ventura County Democratic Party?

hoo...Have tried to make this post twice already...thanks I think to the lousiest DSL connection in town, that I have, courtesy of ATT...now I'm trying again....

All this talk of majorites, mandates, 2/3 rds majorities....well, here is some easily gathered info from the California Secretary of State's website...

As of 5/4/09:
There were 23,385,815 eligible voters in Calif.
There were only 17,153,012 actually registered.

That is like about 74% of eligibles actually registered.

On 5/19/09 for the "Special Election":
Only 4,713,887 people bothered to vote...
Of those only 3,081,575 voted no..on Prop 1A.

That is, as I calculate it, about 17.9% of registered voters to vote down 1A.

That is about 13% of all eligible voters who made this "decision".

I think it is pointless to debate some of the statistics mentioned in prior posts in light of these dismal voter turn-out numbers.

The "Binder Poll" may be of intellectual interest, but it would seem to be of little relationship to those who actually got off their dead butt and bothered to vote at all.

It is pathetic really...I think more people voted inte last Iraqi election percentage wise...and those people risked stuff like being shot or blown up.

What did the California electorate, some 80%+ who sat it out risk??? Not watching TV?

I'm sorry but in light of these sort of numbers..what do polls matter?

On another matter...I am glad that Marie...or the "Moderator" chose to censure remarks that are outside the limits of even vigorous debate.

Too many time I've seen remarks that are inappropriate on these Boards. It is one thing to disparage anothers remarks, opinions or even intelligence...but increasingly it goes beyond even that.

About time something was done. Hope other "moderators" notice this.

Thanks, Tom. The few who won't behave can ruin it for those of us who like to have civil discussions. I don't mind anonymous and I don't mind funny. Mean and violent bloggers will find their posts get deleted.

Count on it from now on. If they don't like it they can blog somewhere else.

I don't know what ImMadAsHellAndImNotGoingToTakeItAnymore actually wrote, but it's certainly time for those Californians with their good judgment intact to find a way to take back their state -- no illegal means implied. The current situation is intolerable, indeed, an affront to good judgment. Republicans and Democrats share the blame alike. We can't continue to fool ourselves about what's wrong. We are the problem and we need to change our attitude about what government's role is and is not before it's too late (if it isn't already too late). We cannot tax and spend our way into everlasting fat-dumb-and-happy-land.

By the way, polls don't impress me. They're too easy to manipulate as already pointed out.

Roy:

I appreciate your comments, specifically the part about changing our attitude.