Jim.Sweeney: December 2008 Archives

Some aspects of a state budget deal, should one ever emerge, are likely to require voter approval, meaning a special election is a good possibility in 2009. And various interests already are trying to get their own proposals on the ballot.

An initiative submitted by the California Teachers Association would raise the state sales tax by a penny, raising about $5 billion a year, which would be earmarked for education. Public schools would take a hit of up to about $10 billion if any of the proposals now pending in Sacramento are adopted. The initiative still is being reviewed by the attorney general, but petitions could be circulating soon.

Meanwhile, two initiatives surfaced last week to rewrite the two-thirds rule. Both were submitted by a law firm that frequently represents Democrats in political cases. One would effectively eliminate it for the state budget, the other would eliminate it for raising taxes other than property taxes.

Presumably, both sponsors have the resources (i.e., cash for signature gathering) to get their measures on the ballot. Between them, they could set up an interesting fight over California's rules for raising and spending public money.

-- Jim Sweeney

Here's a chilling thought for Christmas week: A survey by HCD Research says 62 percent of Americans say they would pay off their state's governor for a job with a salary topping $100,000 a year if they knew they could get away with it. Perhaps Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich had an advance look at the data - or just a distressingly prescient sense of the public. The same poll found that 58 percent would pay off the governor to get out from under a drunken driving charge, and, by varying majorities, to obtain the same health insurance as legislators and the governor, an all-access relationship with the governor and a state ruling that would ensure that a business becomes profitable. Fewer than half of respondents would pay for a letter of recommendation for their child for a state university or military academy or guarantees that their trash would be picked up or pot holes fixed on their neighborhood streets.

I wonder if people took this survey seriously ... and I wonder what else they might be willing to buy from an obliging politician. Who knows, maybe this could be a budget-balancing option for the state of California.

-- Jim Sweeney

With gas prices topping $4 a gallon last summer, a 27-year-old federal ban on new offshore oil drilling was washed away in an election-year wave. The most effective line of the 2008 campaign may well have been, "Drill, baby drill."

The Interior Department is working on new leases, and there's no hint that the Obama administration plans to reverse the policy.

Meanwhile, oil prices have collapsed. After peaking at more than $145 a barrel in July, oil for January delivery has fallen below $40 a barrel. Prices at the pump are at levels not seen in several years.

Obviously, they'll go back up. And the primary argument for new offshore drilling - reducing our reliance on imported oil - hasn't changed.

Meanwhile, Americans are driving less, which is unprecedented and one of the reasons for falling prices.

All of which is a long-winded way of getting at this question: Should we raise the tax on gasoline to discourage people from returning to old driving habits? The idea surfaces regularly in letters to the editor, not to mention Tom Friedman's column.

How much would be reasonable?

If nothing, do you think people will stick to driving less despite lower prices? Or that we'll find enough oil to keep prices down?

As for a gas tax hike, I'd favor one, but given the realities of unemployment and a shrinking economy, I'd suggest ratcheting it up slowly (maybe 25 cents a gallon now, another 50-75 cents spread over two to three years). I'm mostly torn over whether all the revenue ought to go to developing alternative fuel sources, as many propose. Having thumped along the potholes on I-5 recently, I've got no doubt that it's time for some major road repairs, which are funded by gas taxes.

What do you think?

-- Jim Sweeney

There could be votes on income, sales and gas tax increases in the state Senate and Assembly as early as tonight, and the Los Angeles Times is reporting that legislative Democrats will use a complicated legal maneuver to pass them with majority votes.

Tax increases typically take a two-thirds majority, which has held up proposals to raise revenue and cut spending to address the state's whopping budget deficit, now estimated at $41 billion over 18 months.

A little-known and seldom-used provision of the two-thirds rule allows legislators to pass tax measures that are revenue neutral by a simple majority vote. Legislative Democrats say their plan meets that requirement, even as it pumps about $9 billion into the general fund.

How?

By taking revenue from a quarter-cent sales tax now given to local government, they trigger a quarter-cent increase for the same purpose (evidently this is a provision of the budget-balancing plan submitted to voters after the recall). Next, comes a bill to eliminate the excise and sales taxes on gasoline, which feed a special fund for transportation. But don't look for prices to fall at the pumps. A new 39-cent per gallon user fee will be created for transportation projects. User fees aren't subject to the two-thirds rule. A half-cent sales tax and a 2.5 percent income tax surcharge will raise about the same amount as the former gas taxes, making them revenue neutral and, thus, eligible to pass by a simple majority. At least that's the plan.

The plan also contains about $7 billion in spending cuts, most of it from public schools and higher education.

No word yet if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will go for it.

If the taxes pass, bet on an almost immediate legal challenge.

-- Jim Sweeney

Does this scenario sound familiar? A Republican chief executive negotiates a deal with legislative branch Democrats - the majority party - to address a major fiscal issue. The plan is shot down by the chief executive's fellow Republicans, using rules that allow the minority to thwart the will of the majority.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature on the state's budget, right?

Yes, as a matter of fact, that's one example.

But the scenario is the same in Washington, where Senate Democrats blocked a bailout plan for the Big Three automakers despite an agreement between President Bush and congressional Democrats.

This seems like a good time for a segue to make an observation about all the commentary we've heard about majority rule since the election and Proposition 8.

But I'll leave that one alone for now, in part because (as I've already stated on this blog) I think it makes more political sense for opponents of Proposition 8 to try to overturn it at the ballot box rather than in court.

U.S. Senate Republicans have given us their alternative: Let the automakers file for bankruptcy and see if they can reorganize themselves. You may not agree, but it's a clearly articulated position. I wonder when Republicans in Sacramento will produce a no-new-taxes budget proposal that identifies $40-plus billion in spending cuts over the next 18 months. Until they do, they're just intransigent.

(One aspect of the Schwarzenegger/legislative Democrats' plan is a sales tax increase. You can vote on that in our instant poll on this page.)

-- Jim Sweeney

How many times have you heard someone say that?

If you've said it yourself, you may be in luck. Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, is sponsoring a "there oughta be a law" contest, and he says he may introduce the winning entries as legislation in Sacramento.

A similar contest sponsored by a different legislator resulted in a state law several years ago requiring motorists to turn on their headlights when it rains hard enough to require windshield wipers.

Perhaps we can help get Huffman started. Post your ideas here for new laws - or those that ought to be repealed. Maybe we'll find a winner.

I, for one, would like to outlaw the New York Yankees. Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen. So, perhaps I'd settle for a law requiring a public vote before granting retroactive benefit increases for public employees, such as the 3 percent at 50 public safety retirement that was made available (in many agencies) to people closing on retirement who had been paying in at a lesser rate for their entire careers.

-- Jim Sweeney

The Associated Press reported this week that the Food and Drug Administration has rejected an application to identify a handgun as a medical device.

No, that's not a punch line.

Matthew M. Carmel of Maplewood, N.J. is designing a single-shot, oval-shaped handgun that fits in your palm and has a thumb-operated button instead of a trigger. He says the elderly and disabled are easy targets for crime and wants his handgun on the list of devices that Medicare will pay for. First, he has to get it past the FDA.

No dice, says the FDA, it's not a medical device.

Maybe single-payer health care advocates could ally themselves with Carmel and his Palm Pistol. That might attract National Rifle Association support for a government-paid health care plan, which in turn could bring along rural congressmen.

Who knows, we could end up with some new advice from the doctor: "Cap off a couple rounds and call me in the morning."

-- Jim Sweeney

The battle over gay marriage may have intensified since Election Day.

Proposition 8 is in front of the Supreme Court, demonstrations continue, and we're still receiving letters to the editor practically every day. Joining the debate this week is in Newsweek, which challenges the idea that marriage between one man and one woman was ordained in scripture. In challenging the case for traditional marriage, the article tracks through Bible passages on polygamy ("one man and as many women as he could pay for," is how one scholar puts its) and ambiguous relationships such as King David and his friend Jonathan, notes that few contemporary people adhere to rituals for sacrificial slaughter of animals or negotiating prices for slaves, and quotes Jesus telling his followers to leave their families. Also cited are modern changes such as dropping "obey" from the vows. The article doesn't find a direct endorsement for gay marriage in the Bible, but quotes several liberal religious scholars who cite New Testament teachings of inclusiveness. It's not likely to persuade evangelical Christians (and, in fact, there's already some blow back), but it makes for an interesting debate.

What do you think?

-- Jim Sweeney

A common lament on our letters page is that salaries can't be cut for officeholders and other top government officials. It wouldn't make a dent in the deficit, in Sacramento or Washington, but that's not entirely the point, right?

Well, Schadenfreude-istas everywhere may be in luck. It seems that Hillary Clinton will be barred from becoming secretary of state unless she takes pay cut. And if President-elect Barack Obama dips into Congress for any other Cabinet appointments, so will they.

Why?

The emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution (that's Article I, Section 6) says: "No senator or representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time." Emoluments, if you haven't got the Oxford English Dictionary handy, refers to compensation.

And since Clinton's 2006 re-election, the salary for Cabinet officers has been increased from $186,600 a year to $191,000 a year.

Judicial Watch, one of the groups that spent a lot of time investigating the Clintons while they were in the White House, raised the issue this week. Several conservative blogs have followed up, all arguing that she is disqualified from serving as secretary of state.

Of course, this isn't the first time the issue has come up. In the past, most recently when Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas was appointed Treasury secretary, Congress passed a bill cutting his pay. Similar legislation is planned for Clinton, but don't be surprised if there's a lawsuit targeting her appointment.

-- Jim Sweeney

The speeches of Fidel Castro were once a staple of Cuban politics, and their extraordinary length, sometimes lasting four hours or more, was fodder for late-night comedians in the United States.

Well, it seems Castro had nothing on Gavin Newsom, the San Francisco mayor and potential candidate for governor.

Newsom has just completed a state-of-the-city address lasting more than seven hours. Yes, seven hours. It's posted on YouTube. In case anyone wants to watch that much Newsom. "The good news is no one has to," he told the San Francisco Chronicle. "For those that don't want to, don't."

Newsom advisers defend the approach, saying local TV isn't going to give much coverage to a mayoral address. That's true. They also say that newspapers wouldn't devote considerable space or print a text. True too. And they argue that within a year or two, this approach will be typical. Let's hope not.

As governor, Jerry Brown was known to give state-of-the-state speeches that lasted barely 10 minutes. Perhaps that was a bit sparse, but only the worst junkies are going to sit through a seven-hour political speech un-coerced.

I'll admit that I haven't watched any of the Newsom speech. If you have, post a reaction here. Or offer a thought about politics by YouTube video.

-- Jim Sweeney