California is in deep trouble because it has a dysfunctional system of government. Much of the problem can be changed by one sentence.
I have sent to the Attorney General a ballot proposition for the 2010 ballot called The California Democracy Act, whose content is the following:
All legislative action on revenue and budget must be determined by a majority vote.
It would change two words in the Constitution, turning "two-thirds" to "majority" in two places. It is simple, understandable, and it is about democracy.
I will be speaking on this in Los Angeles Thursday night. (See below.)
As I see it, democracy is the main issue in the governance of our state. The two-thirds rules have an anti-democratic effect. Our legislature is currently under minority rule. One-third plus one -- only 34% -- of either the Assembly or Senate can block the will of the majority until their demands are met. This is undemocratic.
Minority rule is why we have gridlock in the legislature. Minority rule has brought our state to near bankruptcy, causing crises throughout the state.
A majority of California voters have elected a majority of the state legislators, and that majority is responsible and, so far as I can tell, overwhelmingly dedicated to sane fiscal management and to serving the needs of our citizens. But they are handcuffed by minority rule.
Democracy can work in California. What the majority of voters want, a majority in the legislature will enact. And it only take a majority of voters to enact that one-sentence amendment.
Changing the vote requirement to a majority for budget and revenue will ensure that California's budget can meet the state's needs and be passed on time. One sentence can end economic uncertainty and provide for an improved credit rating, for payment of our bills with money instead of IOUs, and will bring stability to our schools, nursing homes and universities. One sentence can make California a well-run state again.
How does minority rule happen? By trickery. Don't be fooled. The way a minority of one-third plus one comes to run the show is by imposing a 2/3 rule. It may sound more democratic, but it is less democratic. It allows a minority to rule by gridlock, by thwarting the will of the majority in the legislature, and hence, a majority of the voters in the state.
No other state is run by such a minority. In no other state can a ruthless minority cause the chaos, disruption, pain, and near-bankruptcy that our state has suffered. A majority of the voters, can end the tyranny of the minority.
Democracy means majority rule. One sentence will do the job.
Of course, there will be a blowback. Conservatives will say, as they always do, that this is just a ruse to raise taxes.
But this is about democracy, not about how or whether revenues are raised. What the majority of citizens want, a majority of elected representatives will enact. The question is simple: do you want democracy?
Here's what government is about in a democracy. Government has two sacred moral missions: to protect and empower its citizens.
Protection starts with police and public safety and extends to protection for consumers, for our food, for workers, for the elderly, for those sick and helpless, for the environment, and for investors.
Empowerment is what allows us to earn a living and live decent lives: public roads and buildings; a working power grid; water; a basic educational system; a system of public health and nursing homes; a system of higher education with advanced research in medicine, computing, and agriculture; banks and insurance companies you can trust, and court system that works.
No one earns a living in California without protection and empowerment by the government. No one makes it without all of these things. Without them, the California Dream becomes a nightmare. Without revenue and a sensible budget, there can be no protection and no empowerment, and the world's seventh largest and richest economy starts to look like a third-world country.
Minority rule is closing California. State parks: closed. Schools: closed. Fire departments: closed. Nursing homes: closed. Medical clinics: closed. Libraries: closed.
We do not have to stand for it.
The majority of voters choose the majority of legislators. That's simple democracy. When the majority of legislators rule, the majority of voters rule.
Can this work? It can, with strong support. What is needed is a serious campaign making the case for democracy, and allowing the voters to see that minority rule is the root of the problem.
Since the minority is a strongly conservative Republican minority, progressive Democrats running for the legislature in 2010 can run on a pro-democracy platform, placing the blame for gridlock where it belongs, on their opponents.
The main question is whether we can run such a campaign successfully. That is simply a matter of organization, commitment, support, and funding. None of those is trivial. But we know how to do them.
If you want to join the movement, go to: www.camajorityrule.com or on Facebook.
We have begun raising funds for a poll. To contribute, go here.
***
Announcement
I will be speaking Thursday night at 7 pm to a coalition meeting of a wide variety of organizations dedicated to ending the 2/3 rules.
Where:
SEIU 721
500 S. Virgil Los Angeles, CA 90020
Auditorium (Located on the first floor)
R.S.V.P.: susieanneshannon@ yahoo.com
or call (323) 939-5475
George Lakoff is Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at UC Berkeley and the author of Don't Think of An Elephant! and The Political Mind.
What difference does it make how much the state brought in if it doesn't cover the bills? I don't think the state should be paying for cars or per diems for legislators - they knew where the job site was when they applied - especially at the same time the state is cutting funding for crucial programs benefiting those most in need. I also think that cutting those perks would be a drop in the bucket, not coming anywhere near the amount needed to close the deficit.
The minority that has all of California by the short hairs refuses to approve any tax increases as long as the budget is full of "wasteful spending". As many years as I have hears that, they have never identified said wasteful spending. The alternate budget they presented last year called for the same cuts in the same programs that benefit seniors, children and the needy. Apparently, they cannot identify this supposed "wasteful" spending any better than the majority.
- Stop allowing illegals to use your emergency departments as primary care doctors, this alone will save you BILLIONS
- Allow your Police to arrest and than deport illegals when caught in crimes or misdemeanors
- Stop ruining the lives of your Farmers by placing unrealistic water restrictions on them
- Get your heas out of this Uptopian cloud you live in and get real, make hard decisions and be ok with not making everyone happy all the time. Its life!
1. Most illegals here pay for private insurance.
2. The Prison Industrial Complex houses illegals, but the INS or the illegals government don't help to pay deportation cost, since these are human beings and we californians recognize that, we create a path to citizenship, thereby creating revenue for the State via their earnings.
3. CA has been in a 3 year drought. Also, water rights is a current issue being addressed with Colorado and Nevada since we share the water supply.
4. Your illusions about CA is based on Hollywood movies. There is more to the State than that and we residents know it, its the rest of the country that doesn't.
You know as well as I do that the minority is standing in the way of opinions of the masses and those opinions arc to the Left. Gay Marriage will be a reality in Alabama. A Black man will be President of the US and may well pass his office on to *gasp* a woman. 30 years ago none of that was possible. 60 years ago that was all barely thinkable.
Don't pretend that fear of the opinions of the majority comes from the Left. Seems to be coming from the Right lately.
The rights of minorities should be protected from a tendency for majorities to discriminate against them: that's absolutely true.
On the other hand, the ability for the majority to make decisions for all is fundamental to any democratic system of government.
Both of these propositions are absolutely essential. Sometimes they come in conflict, but to hamstring the system so that no democratic decision-making is possible is no solution.
And that's what we've got in California: a situation where an ideological minority thwarts the will of the people at every turn, making the state absolutely ungovernable.
Our country was founded on the notion of natural rights...that is the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Slavery violates natural rights...and you are right we should not have written around that when creating the constitution (I am reading between the lines of your comment here a little).
Furthermore, I don't what the value added is to have government involved in a marriage contract.. Government is not involved in any other type of contract. If marriage was a completely private arrangement then we would not be fighting over gay marriage. Gays could do what ever they wanted in terms of forming a contractual union. Marriage is NOT a natural right and thus government should not be involved in such an agreement.
Lastly, the Supreme Court does not exist to enforce popular opinion....they are there to apply the constitution to the law. In my opinion they have done a rather poor job of that the last 100 years or so. I don't think the SCOTUS has any jurisdiction over the gay marriage thing.
Recognize marriages granted by religions as civil unions under the law and provide benefits to people in civil unions.
Religions get to keep marriage it truly is theirs. We get to get a religious institution out of civil society, where it belongs, religions get to freely choose whom they marry, and everyone joined under the obligations of the state civil union gets the benefits and penalties.
Gays who want the shorud of a religious union only a church can grant that to you. Religious that don't want sinners to have benefits we have a first amendment that prevents establishing religion and requires equal rights under the law.
At least that's my preferred solution but I'll vote for equality either way.
Were they wrong to do so?
And it still was not enough. Take public employee unions for example. Why should we be paying to allow these folks to retire at 50 years old and receive 90% of their pay in pensions for life? It is stuff like this that is drowning us....we already have the highest taxes in the nation now.
The framers of the constitution made it very difficult on purpose to change the document. Their reasoning was to prevent what is indeed happening now on all levels of government.
We have invented all kinds of new "rights" since then. Our founding fathers observed that humans have what is referred to as natural rights....that is the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights cannot be controlled by anyone else. Over our history, however, we have invented many, many new rights. Now we have the "right" to health care, retirement, quotas, clean needles, food and on and on...I think you get the point. These are not natural rights in that to insure that each individual shares these "rights" you most often have to take something from another citizen. So one man's rights can often be another man's tyranny.
This is what we have now. All you need in most places in order to take someone else's property by force is a 50%+1 vote. This is not what the founders envisioned and it is not what will ultimately sustain our society. We use government as a legal means to steal from Peter to pay Paul....this is not only immoral by ultimately damaging to our way of life.
What you fail to mention is that the citizen who is "taken" from also benefits, even when the only benefit is avoiding the cost of not "taking" from that citizen.
When did support for the common good become tyranny?
In 2007 the top 50% of federal tax returns accounted for 97% of the revenue generated by income taxes. Average tax bill for the top 50% of returns was $15000, average tax bill for the bottom 50% was $450. Its real easay to always ask for "more" when there is no cost to you.
And there is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority. Just because 50% +1 wants something, does not make it right, and their ability to make it legal constitutes a tyranny in and of itself.
You'd still have to amend out the parts of the constitution that require 2/3 vote for raising taxes (like in prop 13) and the part that requires the Budget Act be approved by 2/3 vote, otherwise you're creating conflicting provisions in the constitution, and you'd have to wait for a court case to get a ruling on which provisions should prevail - not very effective.
Your language is terrible. "All legislative action on revenue and budget must be determined by a majority vote." You don't mean "legislative action" you mean bills. The legislature can only act through passing bills (try reading the constitution you want to amend).
"on revenue and budget" - now you've conjoined the two items, meaning the provision will apply to a bill addressing both, but won't apply to a bill addressing either separately – try “or” instead of “and.”
"revenue" is too broad - you mean taxes, so say so (revenue from fees is already majority vote) . "Budget"? - you mean the Budget Act.
"Must be determined by a majority vote" - you mean "shall be passed by a majority vote of each house of the Legislature." The Legislature doesn't "determine" anything. Again - try seeing how legislation is actually worded.
This one sentence won't fix anything in its present form. Unfortunately, people writing ideas on napkins and submitting them as propositions is a big reason we have the problems in California that we do.
Sign me up for a full constitutional rewrite.
Although I would probably vote for a well written majority rule section considering the line item veto and veto abilities of governor's acts as a check on legislative abuse which could then trigger the supermajority override. Still some checks but more freedom to act. Republicans shouldn't worry much since Brown left we've had 1 democratic governor and he didn't finish his second term and they would pass the hot potato to their governor.
Redistricting will hopefully help with some depolarization as well. Maybe not however.
"as an option" (the obligatory phrase to placate the private, for-profit insurance barons); and
"as per every participant's contribution" (right now it's about $100 a month per recipient). Make it $150 for those under 65, and it's a deal that :
pays for itself ;
does not require 1000+ pages of legalese.
Lots of things might be changed by the inclusion or subtraction of a word or phrase, like thou shalt kill or all men are not created equal. But there is in this author's example, a devilish amount of work and heavy lifting and special interest mooting that has to go on before his phrases might be part of an amended California constitution-- and that work must be done by a population that seems to see itself as post-political and past caring.