Prop 25 - Changes Vote Requirement to Pass State Budget from 2/3 to 1/2
Prop 25 - Changes Vote Requirement to Pass State Budget from 2/3 to 1/2
How Things Are Now:
Prior to each fiscal year (July 1-June 30), the Governor is required by the State Conatitution to submit a budget by January 10 of the previous FY. The Legislature has until June 15, but must pass "urgency" bills, revenue bills and General Fund appropriations (the guts of California's budget) by a 2/3 majority, rather than by a simple majority. So-called "trailer" bills, bills that accompany the budget, usually instruction bills to State departments related to how to spend line items in the budget (because they take effect on July 1, with the budget, as opposed to the following January 1) are "urgency" bills, and so require a 2/3 majority.
The passage of (or failure to pass) the budget has no effect on the salary of the Legislators.
What This Changes:
The 2/3 requirement for appropriation bills and "trailer" bills, but (most likely) not revenue bills, would be reduced to 1/2. If a budget is not passed by June 15, the Prop would prohibit legislators from collecting any salary or reimbursements for expenses until a budget is presented to the Governor.
My Take:
Imagine, if you will, an alternate-universe California, where you find yourself in the minority (for most of the people reading this, this will be a stretch, but it works for Republicans too...it's just that the alternate universe is this one). In this universe, the Legislature of AU California shares none of your values. For instance, it places almost no value on environmental regulation, and just as little on polluiton control. It spends the minimum on education, allows 60+ students per classroom (whatever the market will bear), and defunds public transportation entirely. Sadly, the only thing keeping this from happening is the change of 14 Assemblymen, 7 state senators...AND this Proposition. A 2/3 requirement requires that both sides work together. While it means that the budget is often late, at least it means that, as bad as many feel the State priorities are, they aren't as bad as they could be.
Bluntly, the "no budget, no pay" part of this Prop is a disingenuous distraction from what this Prop will do. Does anyone really believe that legislators will (a) suffer through budget proceedings without getting pay forme somewhere, (b) not make it up on the back end, and (c) make measured, reasonable budgetary decisions, and not "whatever we can cram into this pig" with a cutoff impending?
My vote (no kidding) is NO.
How Things Are Now:
Prior to each fiscal year (July 1-June 30), the Governor is required by the State Conatitution to submit a budget by January 10 of the previous FY. The Legislature has until June 15, but must pass "urgency" bills, revenue bills and General Fund appropriations (the guts of California's budget) by a 2/3 majority, rather than by a simple majority. So-called "trailer" bills, bills that accompany the budget, usually instruction bills to State departments related to how to spend line items in the budget (because they take effect on July 1, with the budget, as opposed to the following January 1) are "urgency" bills, and so require a 2/3 majority.
The passage of (or failure to pass) the budget has no effect on the salary of the Legislators.
What This Changes:
The 2/3 requirement for appropriation bills and "trailer" bills, but (most likely) not revenue bills, would be reduced to 1/2. If a budget is not passed by June 15, the Prop would prohibit legislators from collecting any salary or reimbursements for expenses until a budget is presented to the Governor.
My Take:
Imagine, if you will, an alternate-universe California, where you find yourself in the minority (for most of the people reading this, this will be a stretch, but it works for Republicans too...it's just that the alternate universe is this one). In this universe, the Legislature of AU California shares none of your values. For instance, it places almost no value on environmental regulation, and just as little on polluiton control. It spends the minimum on education, allows 60+ students per classroom (whatever the market will bear), and defunds public transportation entirely. Sadly, the only thing keeping this from happening is the change of 14 Assemblymen, 7 state senators...AND this Proposition. A 2/3 requirement requires that both sides work together. While it means that the budget is often late, at least it means that, as bad as many feel the State priorities are, they aren't as bad as they could be.
Bluntly, the "no budget, no pay" part of this Prop is a disingenuous distraction from what this Prop will do. Does anyone really believe that legislators will (a) suffer through budget proceedings without getting pay forme somewhere, (b) not make it up on the back end, and (c) make measured, reasonable budgetary decisions, and not "whatever we can cram into this pig" with a cutoff impending?
My vote (no kidding) is NO.