3 ms·

I'm not a fan of direct democracy but this article isn't factually based. Notice they only give one specific example. That one example is Prop 13 which limite

I'm not a fan of direct democracy but this article isn't factually based. Notice they only give one specific example. That one example is Prop 13 which limited the amount of taxes that could be put on property and required a two-thirds majority to pass any tax increases. Now let me ask this: If Prop 13 is such a hindrance why is California in the top 5 highest taxing states across the board? Beyond that most of the initiatives are either social issues (Gay Marriage) or done by Percentage (Prop 98 that requires 40% of general fund spending be spent on Education). So California's problems are not because of direct democracy. The reason the Economist is writing about this now is because they are (by their own admission) a left-leaning publication and Democrats in California believe the solution to California's problems is a tax hike. But they can't get it done without a couple Republicans because of the 2/3rd rule (imposed by Prop 13, again the only named example in the article). So the problem from their immediate perspective is "Direct Democracy". But mark my words, some day down the line Republicans will get power in California and they will want to cut money to public schools. When that happens I'd bet all the money in my Bank Account the Democrats are going to be holding Direct Democracy up as their savior.

protomyth 15y ago
I notice that they do not examine the financial condition of other states that have referendums (e.g. North Dakota). California's problems are more a story of "group voting". I thought we already had this story...
scarmig 15y ago
1) I believe your "top 5 highest taxing states" is inaccurate. In 2000, at least, California ranked 19th in combined state + local tax burden according to the U.S. Census Bureau, which is decidedly middle of the pack. Pretending like we're the most highly taxed state in the country is deceptive and gives the impression that good governance (well, bad in our case) comes for free. Note that though the ranking of 19th does factor in our larger economy, it doesn't account for the reality that more highly advanced economies require a better trained and more specialized bureaucracy. So just as we shouldn't be surprised when Sweden has a better compensated civil service than Namibia, all things being equal we should expect for California government to account for a larger portion of the economy than Mississippi's or Oklahoma's, instead of being in the middle of the pack. 2) The Economist is left-leaning? Heh. 3) Most technocrats, be they left or right, absolutely hate the 40% rule as well. As a Democrat, I'd gladly trade a repeal of Prop 98 for a repeal of Prop 13. Hell, I'd repeal Prop 98 just on its own. Government by ballot box is terrible.
- hugh3 15y ago
  I believe your "top 5 highest taxing states" is inaccurate. In 2000, at least, California ranked 19th in combined state + local tax burden according to the U.S. Census Bureau, which is decidedly middle of the pack. Is that burden in dollars-per-capita or burden in percentage-of-GDP? Since California has a higher GDP per capita than most states you could both be right. * Note that though the ranking of 19th does factor in our larger economy, it doesn't account for the reality that more highly advanced economies require a better trained and more specialized bureaucracy. So just as we shouldn't be surprised when Sweden has a better compensated civil service than Namibia, all things being equal we should expect for California government to account for a larger portion of the economy than Mississippi's or Oklahoma's* Sweden vs Namibia ain't exactly California vs Oklahoma. In particular, Oklahoma's state government provides pretty much exactly the same services as California's... it just provides them much cheaper. The point remains, I think, that it's fairly disingenuous when folks (almost always folks whose own personal ox is unlikely to be gored in this case) suggest that Prop 19 is responsible for the California budget woes. California's state government is rolling in money, it's just that they're incredibly bad at spending it.
- anamax 15y ago
  > Most technocrats, be they left or right, absolutely hate the 40% rule as well Since technocrats hate any restrictions on their power.... Technocrats have had small successes but in the large they've been a disaster. > Government by ballot box is terrible. It's better than the alternatives.
- anamax 15y ago
  > In 2000, at least, California ranked 19th in combined state + local tax burden according to the U.S. Census Bureau http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_tax_levels_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_tax_levels_in_the_United_... says that CA is 11th on a per-capita basis. However, Alaska (which is number 1) gets almost all of its tax revenue from folks who buy oil, most of whom are in other states/countries. IIRC, Wyoming, #4, is similar. I don't recall whether CT and DE, #5 and #7, get a lot of their revenue from corporate francise fees, which are also (effectively) paid by folks in other places.
deadsy 15y ago
>but this article isn't factually based There's more than one article and there's lot's of facts in them. >If Prop 13 is such a hindrance why is California in the top 5 highest taxing states across the board? I don't understand your question or the point you are trying to make. >So California's problems are not because of direct democracy. I'm sure it can be argued that CAs problems are not the initiative process, but you haven't begun to do that. >they are (by their own admission) a left-leaning publication Source? "free trade, free markets" - doesn't sound left leaning. They claim to be centrist. Unless there is some other proof that they are in cahoots with CA democrats it seems pretty unlikely that they ran the articles to help them.
- irickt 15y ago
  > free trade, free markets" - doesn't sound left leaning The Economist is proudly liberal: for free trade. Parent post is reacting from a narrow USA partisan perspective: "liberal" as code word for the left.
omouse 15y ago
Why aren't you a fan of direct democracy? I thought The Economist leaned right on some issues....
akeefer 15y ago
>>> "So California's problems are not because of direct democracy." Saying someone else's arguments for X aren't good isn't the same as making an argument for not X, and you've totally failed to do that. There have historically been two major issues in California: Prop 13 itself, and the 2/3 requirement for budgets. Prop 13 has not only made it difficult to raise taxes as necessary, it's forced the state (and municipalities) to rely on less-stable, less-efficient methods of financing. Property taxes are historically a much more stable source of revenue for states than income taxes, and states that rely heavily on income taxes (like California) tend to have less stable revenues than states that rely more on property taxes. Prop 13 forced California to rely more and more heavily on income taxes, destabilizing its revenue. The 2/3 requirement to pass a tax has also made that basically impossible, so initiatives are financed through even-more-expensive bond measures. Also note that Prop 13 helped shift the tax burden away from corporate property owners (since corporations can live forever, they never have to transfer property), further drying up a source of revenue for the state. So while the best analysis I can find indicates that the initiative "earmarks" of funding are at worst a minor hindrance, Prop 13 is really the elephant in the room, and it couldn't/wouldn't have happened outside of the initiative process. But without it, we wouldn't be talking about the initiative process as an issue, because the CA budget wouldn't be such a mess. Meanwhile, the 2/3 budget requirement also made things a mess by historically making it impossible to get a budget passed without compromising/buying off enough legislators to get it through. Since everyone knows the majority party needs every last vote to get things through, they can all hold out for their pet concessions, making it impossible to come up with any kind of a responsible, honest budget. Thankfully that issue was sort of resolved by another initiative this past year, though by not addressing the tax side of the equation it's only a half-measure: spending cuts can now be done with a simple majority, but revenues can only be increased by a 2/3 vote, which means that the legislators are basically trying to balance the budget with only half the available options.
- TomOfTTB 15y ago
  Did you read my comment? Because you certainly didn't respond to it. My argument in regards to Prop 13 and taxes was "if it's so hard to raise taxes to an acceptable level why are we already the 9th highest taxed state (I mistyped 5th)". You counter with "The 2/3 requirement to pass a tax has also made that basically impossible,". That's not a response to the argument I put forth (which is a valid one). So again my point is this: If 41 states can make it by with lower per-capita tax revenue than California COULD as well meaning the 2/3rd rule is not the root of the problem. As far as compromise every state legislature has to compromise and the arguments you make could be applied to any close legislature. Even those ruled by majority vote. We see the same shady deals being made in the U.S. Congress all the time and it's run by majority too.

protomyth 15y ago

I notice that they do not examine the financial condition of other states that have referendums (e.g. North Dakota). California's problems are more a story of "group voting". I thought we already had this story...

scarmig 15y ago

1) I believe your "top 5 highest taxing states" is inaccurate. In 2000, at least, California ranked 19th in combined state + local tax burden according to the U.S. Census Bureau, which is decidedly middle of the pack. Pretending like we're the most highly taxed state in the country is deceptive and gives the impression that good governance (well, bad in our case) comes for free. Note that though the ranking of 19th does factor in our larger economy, it doesn't account for the reality that more highly advanced economies require a better trained and more specialized bureaucracy. So just as we shouldn't be surprised when Sweden has a better compensated civil service than Namibia, all things being equal we should expect for California government to account for a larger portion of the economy than Mississippi's or Oklahoma's, instead of being in the middle of the pack. 2) The Economist is left-leaning? Heh. 3) Most technocrats, be they left or right, absolutely hate the 40% rule as well. As a Democrat, I'd gladly trade a repeal of Prop 98 for a repeal of Prop 13. Hell, I'd repeal Prop 98 just on its own. Government by ballot box is terrible.

hugh3 15y ago
I believe your "top 5 highest taxing states" is inaccurate. In 2000, at least, California ranked 19th in combined state + local tax burden according to the U.S. Census Bureau, which is decidedly middle of the pack. Is that burden in dollars-per-capita or burden in percentage-of-GDP? Since California has a higher GDP per capita than most states you could both be right. * Note that though the ranking of 19th does factor in our larger economy, it doesn't account for the reality that more highly advanced economies require a better trained and more specialized bureaucracy. So just as we shouldn't be surprised when Sweden has a better compensated civil service than Namibia, all things being equal we should expect for California government to account for a larger portion of the economy than Mississippi's or Oklahoma's* Sweden vs Namibia ain't exactly California vs Oklahoma. In particular, Oklahoma's state government provides pretty much exactly the same services as California's... it just provides them much cheaper. The point remains, I think, that it's fairly disingenuous when folks (almost always folks whose own personal ox is unlikely to be gored in this case) suggest that Prop 19 is responsible for the California budget woes. California's state government is rolling in money, it's just that they're incredibly bad at spending it.
anamax 15y ago
> Most technocrats, be they left or right, absolutely hate the 40% rule as well Since technocrats hate any restrictions on their power.... Technocrats have had small successes but in the large they've been a disaster. > Government by ballot box is terrible. It's better than the alternatives.
anamax 15y ago
> In 2000, at least, California ranked 19th in combined state + local tax burden according to the U.S. Census Bureau http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_tax_levels_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_tax_levels_in_the_United_... says that CA is 11th on a per-capita basis. However, Alaska (which is number 1) gets almost all of its tax revenue from folks who buy oil, most of whom are in other states/countries. IIRC, Wyoming, #4, is similar. I don't recall whether CT and DE, #5 and #7, get a lot of their revenue from corporate francise fees, which are also (effectively) paid by folks in other places.

deadsy 15y ago

>but this article isn't factually based There's more than one article and there's lot's of facts in them. >If Prop 13 is such a hindrance why is California in the top 5 highest taxing states across the board? I don't understand your question or the point you are trying to make. >So California's problems are not because of direct democracy. I'm sure it can be argued that CAs problems are not the initiative process, but you haven't begun to do that. >they are (by their own admission) a left-leaning publication Source? "free trade, free markets" - doesn't sound left leaning. They claim to be centrist. Unless there is some other proof that they are in cahoots with CA democrats it seems pretty unlikely that they ran the articles to help them.

irickt 15y ago
> free trade, free markets" - doesn't sound left leaning The Economist is proudly liberal: for free trade. Parent post is reacting from a narrow USA partisan perspective: "liberal" as code word for the left.

omouse 15y ago

Why aren't you a fan of direct democracy? I thought The Economist leaned right on some issues....

akeefer 15y ago

>>> "So California's problems are not because of direct democracy." Saying someone else's arguments for X aren't good isn't the same as making an argument for not X, and you've totally failed to do that. There have historically been two major issues in California: Prop 13 itself, and the 2/3 requirement for budgets. Prop 13 has not only made it difficult to raise taxes as necessary, it's forced the state (and municipalities) to rely on less-stable, less-efficient methods of financing. Property taxes are historically a much more stable source of revenue for states than income taxes, and states that rely heavily on income taxes (like California) tend to have less stable revenues than states that rely more on property taxes. Prop 13 forced California to rely more and more heavily on income taxes, destabilizing its revenue. The 2/3 requirement to pass a tax has also made that basically impossible, so initiatives are financed through even-more-expensive bond measures. Also note that Prop 13 helped shift the tax burden away from corporate property owners (since corporations can live forever, they never have to transfer property), further drying up a source of revenue for the state. So while the best analysis I can find indicates that the initiative "earmarks" of funding are at worst a minor hindrance, Prop 13 is really the elephant in the room, and it couldn't/wouldn't have happened outside of the initiative process. But without it, we wouldn't be talking about the initiative process as an issue, because the CA budget wouldn't be such a mess. Meanwhile, the 2/3 budget requirement also made things a mess by historically making it impossible to get a budget passed without compromising/buying off enough legislators to get it through. Since everyone knows the majority party needs every last vote to get things through, they can all hold out for their pet concessions, making it impossible to come up with any kind of a responsible, honest budget. Thankfully that issue was sort of resolved by another initiative this past year, though by not addressing the tax side of the equation it's only a half-measure: spending cuts can now be done with a simple majority, but revenues can only be increased by a 2/3 vote, which means that the legislators are basically trying to balance the budget with only half the available options.

TomOfTTB 15y ago
Did you read my comment? Because you certainly didn't respond to it. My argument in regards to Prop 13 and taxes was "if it's so hard to raise taxes to an acceptable level why are we already the 9th highest taxed state (I mistyped 5th)". You counter with "The 2/3 requirement to pass a tax has also made that basically impossible,". That's not a response to the argument I put forth (which is a valid one). So again my point is this: If 41 states can make it by with lower per-capita tax revenue than California COULD as well meaning the 2/3rd rule is not the root of the problem. As far as compromise every state legislature has to compromise and the arguments you make could be applied to any close legislature. Even those ruled by majority vote. We see the same shady deals being made in the U.S. Congress all the time and it's run by majority too.