5 ms·

Could you elaborate on that? I don't see a direct causal link between two-thirds vote requirements and higher union pension obligations, and your comment appear

Could you elaborate on that? I don't see a direct causal link between two-thirds vote requirements and higher union pension obligations, and your comment appears to be popular.

TomOfTTB 16y ago
Though not the original commenter I can elaborate. The people of California are well intentioned. So they tried a very liberal approach to their public employees pensions. This quickly got out of control. But the fact that they need 2/3rds of the vote to get anything done combined with special interest money has made it impossible to repeal this well intentioned system that simply doesn't work. Because doing so would require a cut in the budget for said program. So we're being bankrupted. This is true of many of California's problems. Our State Government lacks the ability to even pass a budget on time so repealing the public sector mess that has been created is far beyond what they are able to accomplish
- jacoblyles 16y ago
  My understanding is that the union contracts are harder to roll back than normal spending because they are legally binding contracts. Even if they got a 2/3rds majority in the Democrat controlled legislature to repeal union benefits, would they have the legal power to do so? And is the 2/3rds vote on everything, just budget related items, or taxes? I hear the complaint about how hard it is to raise taxes in California alot, but California has a high tax burden.
- anamax 16y ago
  > But the fact that they need 2/3rds of the vote to get anything done combined with special interest money has made it impossible to repeal this well intentioned system that simply doesn't work. Because doing so would require a cut in the budget for said program. Repubs are just under 40% of the CA legislature. The stereotype is that repubs would cut any budget, so you're most of the way to a cut without any Dems. The 2/3 req means that around a third of the Dems have to agree to a cut. A majority reqt means that around one sixth of the Dems have to agree to a cut. In other words, the reason that CA doesn't cut things is that so few Dems are unwilling to do so. The reason that CA's spending goes up is that all of the Dems want it to go up and they manage to find a Repub or two to go along. Do you really think that letting Dems pass a budget without any Repub votes (and losing some Dem votes) would result in lower spending?
  - gte910h 16y ago
    There are 2 ways to get a balanced budget: Raise Taxes OR Cut Services If you strip the 2/3rds rule at the moment, you'll see taxes go up. And you know what party high taxes are great for, republicans. You'll get a more active republican party and you'll be able to win more seats, especially after the taxes go up. Most importantly, you'll get fiscal republicans running for office, instead of social republicans, and independent and some dems are much more likely to defect to social republicans than moral republicans. So if you ditch the 2/3rds rule, you'll get 4 years of democratic rule, and you'll have a good shot at gaining republican control of the house after that. Remember, California is not the liberal mecca people portray it as in the East Coast media. It's a very purple state which has some very republican ideas widely popular in the state along with some very relaxed republicans which have wide voter approval. It's the state of Regan, that keeps hiring republican governors for some reason. While right now, most of the legislators are democrats, if the 2/3rds rule ended, republicans could actually win the legislature. And more importantly, BOTH parties could get working budgets that don't leave the state doing wacky things with furloghs, random shutdowns, and paying people in scrip. Remember, killing the 2/3rds rule also allows repubs to be repubs. The teachers unions and prisons unions in Cali will support republicans as well as long as they're on board with cuts. Republicans now are in the tenuous position of having to support organized labor to get elected. That's a very odd message to support in today's republican party. It's just people who are terrified of the other side rather than terrified of broken government who keep the state locked up in the status quo instead of in the 2 stable working states it could be in.
    - anamax 16y ago
      > The teachers unions and prisons unions in Cali will support republicans as well as long as they're on board with cuts. Since neither the teachers' nor prison guards' unions are on board with cuts.... If you really think that either one will change, please supply supporting evidence beyond "they need to do it" and "It must be true because I need it to support my conclusion". I don't expect either union to support cuts in their budgets.
      - gte910h 16y ago
gte910h 16y ago
Alright, in a normal state, there is either a majority of democrats or a majority of republicans in the legislature. Either way, the state is able to use typical party based agreement to get a budget passed. This works well in these states: If taxes get too high, fiscally conservative, tax cutting republicans get office. If services get too incomplete, public policy creating, program creating democrats are put in office, in the majority, and their party can make a budget, and taxation to go with it to support their plans. The people get control over this process by booting state legislators of the wrong party when the state runs to excess in one or the other area. Now in California, with this bonehead 2/3 rule, one party can get a majority (50% +1) for sure, but rarely a supermajority. That's where horsetrading comes in. People have to give things to the other side of the isle to get them to vote for this. And one of the things they can give to the other side of the isle would be votes to stay in office and money to run for re-election. And that's where the magic of special interests come in. They can cause their interested members to vote for these people who only will vote for the budget if they get something out of it. They're now getting votes/campaign contributions, so they get to keep their legislator job longer. If you got rid of the 2/3rds requirement, when repubs got in office, they'd cut services, when dems got in office, you'd get new ones, and you'd match the rest of the states in the union. While it turns out voter amendments turn out to often be hijacked by the special interest groups as well, that is not the huge problem. The property tax freeze is not the problem. The fact that 1/2 the legislature has to give away the farm to get the remaining 1/6 of the legislature to pass a budget is the issue. Get rid of that, and public unions, and every other special interest in California will feel its powers go down greatly.

Could you elaborate on that? I don't see a direct causal link between two-thirds vote requirements and higher union pension obligations, and your comment appears to be popular.

TomOfTTB 16y ago

Though not the original commenter I can elaborate. The people of California are well intentioned. So they tried a very liberal approach to their public employees pensions. This quickly got out of control. But the fact that they need 2/3rds of the vote to get anything done combined with special interest money has made it impossible to repeal this well intentioned system that simply doesn't work. Because doing so would require a cut in the budget for said program. So we're being bankrupted. This is true of many of California's problems. Our State Government lacks the ability to even pass a budget on time so repealing the public sector mess that has been created is far beyond what they are able to accomplish

jacoblyles 16y ago
My understanding is that the union contracts are harder to roll back than normal spending because they are legally binding contracts. Even if they got a 2/3rds majority in the Democrat controlled legislature to repeal union benefits, would they have the legal power to do so? And is the 2/3rds vote on everything, just budget related items, or taxes? I hear the complaint about how hard it is to raise taxes in California alot, but California has a high tax burden.
anamax 16y ago
> But the fact that they need 2/3rds of the vote to get anything done combined with special interest money has made it impossible to repeal this well intentioned system that simply doesn't work. Because doing so would require a cut in the budget for said program. Repubs are just under 40% of the CA legislature. The stereotype is that repubs would cut any budget, so you're most of the way to a cut without any Dems. The 2/3 req means that around a third of the Dems have to agree to a cut. A majority reqt means that around one sixth of the Dems have to agree to a cut. In other words, the reason that CA doesn't cut things is that so few Dems are unwilling to do so. The reason that CA's spending goes up is that all of the Dems want it to go up and they manage to find a Repub or two to go along. Do you really think that letting Dems pass a budget without any Repub votes (and losing some Dem votes) would result in lower spending?
- gte910h 16y ago
  There are 2 ways to get a balanced budget: Raise Taxes OR Cut Services If you strip the 2/3rds rule at the moment, you'll see taxes go up. And you know what party high taxes are great for, republicans. You'll get a more active republican party and you'll be able to win more seats, especially after the taxes go up. Most importantly, you'll get fiscal republicans running for office, instead of social republicans, and independent and some dems are much more likely to defect to social republicans than moral republicans. So if you ditch the 2/3rds rule, you'll get 4 years of democratic rule, and you'll have a good shot at gaining republican control of the house after that. Remember, California is not the liberal mecca people portray it as in the East Coast media. It's a very purple state which has some very republican ideas widely popular in the state along with some very relaxed republicans which have wide voter approval. It's the state of Regan, that keeps hiring republican governors for some reason. While right now, most of the legislators are democrats, if the 2/3rds rule ended, republicans could actually win the legislature. And more importantly, BOTH parties could get working budgets that don't leave the state doing wacky things with furloghs, random shutdowns, and paying people in scrip. Remember, killing the 2/3rds rule also allows repubs to be repubs. The teachers unions and prisons unions in Cali will support republicans as well as long as they're on board with cuts. Republicans now are in the tenuous position of having to support organized labor to get elected. That's a very odd message to support in today's republican party. It's just people who are terrified of the other side rather than terrified of broken government who keep the state locked up in the status quo instead of in the 2 stable working states it could be in.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > The teachers unions and prisons unions in Cali will support republicans as well as long as they're on board with cuts. Since neither the teachers' nor prison guards' unions are on board with cuts.... If you really think that either one will change, please supply supporting evidence beyond "they need to do it" and "It must be true because I need it to support my conclusion". I don't expect either union to support cuts in their budgets.
    - gte910h 16y ago

gte910h 16y ago

Alright, in a normal state, there is either a majority of democrats or a majority of republicans in the legislature. Either way, the state is able to use typical party based agreement to get a budget passed. This works well in these states: If taxes get too high, fiscally conservative, tax cutting republicans get office. If services get too incomplete, public policy creating, program creating democrats are put in office, in the majority, and their party can make a budget, and taxation to go with it to support their plans. The people get control over this process by booting state legislators of the wrong party when the state runs to excess in one or the other area. Now in California, with this bonehead 2/3 rule, one party can get a majority (50% +1) for sure, but rarely a supermajority. That's where horsetrading comes in. People have to give things to the other side of the isle to get them to vote for this. And one of the things they can give to the other side of the isle would be votes to stay in office and money to run for re-election. And that's where the magic of special interests come in. They can cause their interested members to vote for these people who only will vote for the budget if they get something out of it. They're now getting votes/campaign contributions, so they get to keep their legislator job longer. If you got rid of the 2/3rds requirement, when repubs got in office, they'd cut services, when dems got in office, you'd get new ones, and you'd match the rest of the states in the union. While it turns out voter amendments turn out to often be hijacked by the special interest groups as well, that is not the huge problem. The property tax freeze is not the problem. The fact that 1/2 the legislature has to give away the farm to get the remaining 1/6 of the legislature to pass a budget is the issue. Get rid of that, and public unions, and every other special interest in California will feel its powers go down greatly.