Proposition 56
Proposition 56
Given that I am in disagreement with most of the Propostitions of California's ballot (with the exception of 58, i am unsure about that one), I must rant about the problems with them. 56 is the worst one of the bunch because it has the longest term of effects.
Now, granted, part of the proposition forces legislators and the governor to pass a budget or face days without pay. It also forces the legislature to remain in session until that budget is passed. These ideas are somewhat good, although I think that they are not the solution. Spending is California's main problem; and not only spending, but that damn general fund that we have set up.
The biggest problem with Prop. 56 is the alterations it would make to how a budget gets passed. Currently, a 2/3's, or approx 67%, majority is needed to pass any Fiscal legislation. Prop. 56 would lower that requirment down to 55%. Now, sit back and think about this for a minute. I do not want to make to many partisan accusations but I am compelled to in this instance. Spending will increase dramatically is Prop. 56 is passed because the Democratic majority doesnt have to worry about making any budget bill bipartisan. Democrats possess a majority in the Assembly, which they have held for a number of years. Prop. 56 gives them an easy ticket to propose high price tage budgets and renders the assembly minority powerless to stop it. The only individual who could stop it would be a Governor veto, and the other aspects of Prop. 56 could contribute to a more apprehensive relationship between the Legislature and the Governor; people hate working for free, and if a gridlock where to happen, media coverage and partisan attacks would become more vehement (hey, they want to get paid, not do whats in the best interest of California).
So for all you California's, if you havn't looked at prop. 56 yet, I would suggest giving it a read.
None the less, any thoughts?
Given that I am in disagreement with most of the Propostitions of California's ballot (with the exception of 58, i am unsure about that one), I must rant about the problems with them. 56 is the worst one of the bunch because it has the longest term of effects.
Now, granted, part of the proposition forces legislators and the governor to pass a budget or face days without pay. It also forces the legislature to remain in session until that budget is passed. These ideas are somewhat good, although I think that they are not the solution. Spending is California's main problem; and not only spending, but that damn general fund that we have set up.
The biggest problem with Prop. 56 is the alterations it would make to how a budget gets passed. Currently, a 2/3's, or approx 67%, majority is needed to pass any Fiscal legislation. Prop. 56 would lower that requirment down to 55%. Now, sit back and think about this for a minute. I do not want to make to many partisan accusations but I am compelled to in this instance. Spending will increase dramatically is Prop. 56 is passed because the Democratic majority doesnt have to worry about making any budget bill bipartisan. Democrats possess a majority in the Assembly, which they have held for a number of years. Prop. 56 gives them an easy ticket to propose high price tage budgets and renders the assembly minority powerless to stop it. The only individual who could stop it would be a Governor veto, and the other aspects of Prop. 56 could contribute to a more apprehensive relationship between the Legislature and the Governor; people hate working for free, and if a gridlock where to happen, media coverage and partisan attacks would become more vehement (hey, they want to get paid, not do whats in the best interest of California).
So for all you California's, if you havn't looked at prop. 56 yet, I would suggest giving it a read.
None the less, any thoughts?