All legislative action on revenue and budget must be determined by a majority vote.
What a concept! Majority rule! Here's how the segment with Amy began, where he lays out the basic background:
AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to the budget crisis here in California. The state faces a projected deficit of $21 billion, according to a new report from the state's budget analyst. The prospect for further cuts loom.
I'm joined now from Berkeley, California by a man who says the real cause of the state's fiscal problems is its "dysfunctional system of government." George Lakoff, an author, progressive activist, professor of cognitive science and linguistics at University of California, Berkeley, he has sent the attorney general a ballot proposition for the 2010 ballot that he says can end the gridlock in the state legislature. It's called the California Democracy Act and reads, quote, "All legislative action on revenue and budget must be determined by a majority vote." It changes two words in the state's constitution, turning "two-thirds" to "majority" in two places. It would roll back the two-thirds majority needed to pass a budget and, Lakoff argues, end the gridlock created by minority rule in the state.
George Lakoff, joining us now from the University of California, Berkeley, I welcome you to Democracy Now! Lay out what your proposal is, Professor Lakoff.
GEORGE LAKOFF: It's a pleasure to be here, Amy.
The proposal is very simple: namely, end minority rule by simply having the majority decide on economic-day-to-day economic issues. That's what this says. It says, on revenue and budget, let the majority in the legislature, you know, decide these things, just as happens in forty-seven other states. California is the only state in the union that is completely-that has minority rule in the legislature on both issues.
AMY GOODMAN: How did it happen? What is the history of this?
GEORGE LAKOFF: The history was, back in the '30s there was a two-thirds rule on the budget put in. And then in Prop 13 back in the 1970s, over thirty years ago, there was a hidden part of Prop 13. Most people thought Prop 13 was primarily about, and only about, property taxes. And that said that you needed a two-thirds rule locally to raise property taxes. And what was hidden in there was the idea that you needed two-thirds rule to raise any taxes in the entire state. And that meant that the legislature was basically under minority rule, that one-third plus one, 34 percent, could thwart the majority on any major economic issue simply by saying no until the majority gave in.
AS far as the UC system is concerned, the result has been that as funding has been cut back in tough times, fees have increased. Then when the economy recovers, the fees stay in place, and public funding is never restored. There are multiple causes for this, but clearly a major factor is that even a majority of the state legislature can't easily act effectively--which means that people aren't even inclined to try lobbying them. And thus the rot of anti-democratic politics spreads throughout the system. A brief rundown of how that has played out from a diary at "Remaking the Univeristy", "Doomsday Medicine"
In Major Downturn 1 (1992-1995), UC lost about 20% of its state funding and raised fees (excluding campus fees) from $1624 to $3799, an increase of 134% in 3 years.
In Major Downturn 2 (2002-2005), UC lost about 16% of its state funding and raised fees from $3834 to $6141, an increase of 60%.
In Major Downturn 3 (2008-??), UC has already lost 25% of its state funding. This is by far the worst of the downturns, and is hitting the state workforce hard. Fees started at $7126 in 2008. Were they to rise by the average of the two previous increases, or say 100%, they would be at about $14,250 by 2011-12 - up another $4000 from 2010-11 (set yesterday at $10,302).
Were the fees in this downturn to go up as much as they did in Downturn 1 (134%), they would stand at $16,685 in 2011-12. If the downturn stays bad, more cuts will come and fee hikes will be even higher - to $20,000, with the usual stipulations about 33% return-to-aid.
So, student fees have grown from $1624 in 1991 to $10,302 now--an increase of 6 1/3 times. I assume this isn't adjusted for inflation. But it's still a staggering increase.
Thank God they didn't increase taxes for millionaires, or else the state would really be in trouble!
STATE BLOGS
