We all know the problem of the current state budget crisis. Our governor and controller agree that California is a large state located on the West Coast facing financial armageddon, even though they disagree about everything else. I won't waste time identifying the problem again. It's time to start fixing it!
Only problem is, I don't know how. So consider this a request for input and a call to action!
Note that I'm assuming all readers here are familiar with the general outlines of Proposition 13, the current budget crisis, and milestones in between; if you're not familiar, Google is your friend.
A. Two Solutions: The two most damaging sections of Proposition 13 are the 2/3 majority requirement, and its extension to corporations.
- Change the Supermajority requirement? Prop 13 requires any new tax to be approved by a 2/3 supermajority. This means that 34% of the state legislature (or virtually all of the Republicans) can block any new tax or any increased tax. Most states require smaller majorities. A 51% majority, or even a 60% majority, means that all of the Republicans and even some Democrats can vote "no" but the increase still passes.
Pros and cons: Obviously, we'll be able to get budgets passed. I like this solution less than #2 because it doesn't solve what I see as an inherent structural problem in California (people want everything, but also don't want to be taxed to pay for everything); eventually we'll end up with an extraordinarily high personal income tax rate and/or taxes on many things considered nontaxable, and we'll be in a pickle every time revenues decrease, e.g. a recession/depression. Tax revenue unknown -- up to future legislatures. Political difficulty is assumed, btw.
- Change Prop 13's extension to commercial property? Prop 13 sets as a base for tax assessment the property's value at time of purchase or 1978, whichever came later, with nominal increases thereafter. As senior citizens pass on, new owners take over and houses get reassessed; however, corporations live forever, so their properties will never be reassessed. In other words, Disneyland is assessed at its value in 1978 prices (plus nominal increases), while California Adventure is assessed at its value in 2001 or so (plus nominal increases).
Pros and cons: I like this solution better because it spreads potential tax revenue sources more evenly, so we won't be as dependent on income taxes alone. I have heard $5 billion/year, which won't rescue us from this $42B snafu year, but is that figure correct and will it be enough for later years? Political difficulty is likewise assumed.
- Other ideas: I don't mean to single Prop 13 out as the sole factor in California's crisis, although IMO it's a biggie. Redistricting Republican districts to be less ideological has already been tried by Proposition 11.
B. Request for feedback: No silly polls with pie as a choice, please. I've diaried on pie, but it's time to set aside childish things. Please comment with substance -- specific thoughts, comments, questions, what-about-this?'s.
C. What to do? I have a history of, every once in a while, getting really upset about things and crusading until they change and I can go back to being a soccer mom. The last time, I helped to stop a water tank that was going to be built next to a national park (and on one of my running trails, not that I was taking it personally or anything). I met some like-minded people, we went to meetings, we got the water tank changed. This is a bigger issue. Are there groups already formed? Do I just post diaries here? I'm a lawyer, I have some spare time, and I think this year is our best chance to restore the California dream.