Tom McClintock gave the LA Times’ George Skelton some interesting thoughts about the state’s requirement that budgets be passed by a 2/3 vote:

“A perverse result of the supermajority requirement is that it does not constrain state spending,” McClintock says. “What it does is bid up the cost of the budget with each additional vote. Every additional vote comes with louder calls for higher spending.

“You hear, ‘This program is really, really important to me and I’m not going to vote for the budget unless it’s thrown in, plus a park in my district.’ ”

… Moreover, McClintock contends, allowing the majority party to pass a budget on its own would pinpoint blame. “Voters deserve to know which party is responsible for the budget and hold it accountable,” he says.

This argument has substance. The two-thirds requirement is fundamentally undemocratic; it creates brain cramps in Republicans as they attempt to justify its use in the state legislature while decrying supermajorities elsewhere (see: filibuster debate, 2005). Supermajorities should be for changing constitutions, and that’s about it.

However, any attempt to change the two-thirds requirement should be coupled with other reforms: first, less partisan redistricting, as set out in this fall’s Prop 77, should strengthen the middle ground of the legislature.

The second reform will be heresy to many — extending term limits so legislators have something to lose if they are tossed out, and act with a time horizon longer that the life of a light bulb. This may prevent another Fabian Nunez, the Assembly speaker with all of 2-1/2 years of experience as an elected official. And Republicans who desire a long career might begin to put up more than token resistance to Democrat’s spending increases.

McClintock’s argument sounds right — but only if, should voters get fed up with the party in power, there are fair elections with real consequences for the incumbents.

Technorati Tags: California, politics

This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 6th, 2005 at 4:00 am by A Senior Administration Official and is filed under 2005 Initiatives, California Schemin'. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.