Why Local Reps Don't Want Voters Deciding Jerry Brown's Tax Plan

To hear Jerry Brown tell it, Republicans are holding democracy hostage by refusing to let California voters decide for themselves whether to wipe out the state deficit with temporary tax hikes.

Naturally, GOP legislators see things differently. For starters, they say voters should have a choice of anti-deficit ballot measures, including pension reform, a spending cap, even tax cuts.

However, when asked if adding those other measures to the ballot would change their stance on putting Brown's plan to a popular vote, some backpedaled (see accompanying video).

What's the hangup with letting voters decide? Below are the top objections of local Republican legislators. But first, a brief refresher course. 

Deficit 101

When Brown took office in January, he inherited a $26-billion deficit. Soon after, he took a buzz saw to the budget, slicing that figure nearly in half. Arguing that further cuts would wreak havoc on schools, law enforcement and other popular programs, Brown said voters should decide what to do next: Guillotine the budget or temporarily extend a 2009 increase in DMV fees (0.5 percent), the state income tax (0.25 percent) and sales tax (1 percent).

To get the question on the June ballot, Brown needed a handful of Republican votes in the state Senate and Assembly. No dice. Although five GOPers tried to wheel and deal with the governor, negotiations ultimately broke down.

It's now too late for a June special election, but Brown hasn't given up. Hoping to cajole Republican legislators into allowing a fall election (which would cost about $90 million), .

Additional heat is coming from the California Teachers Association, which recently launched TV ads, and from Democrats threatening to punish the districts of Republican lawmakers who block Brown's plan from reaching the ballot.

To further muddle things, state tax revenues unexpectedly climbed $2 billion last month, whittling the deficit to about $13 billion. Republicans seized on the news as evidence that Brown's tax proposal is unnecessary. But the governor contends the surge could just as quickly evaporate, torpedoing his five-year plan to repair state finances for the long haul.

Against that backdrop, state Sen. Mark Wyland  and Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, who represent San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente, offered the following rationales for not letting voters have final say on Brown's proposal.

Reason No. 1: Deja Vu

Harkey: "Voters declared a resounding no to the same tax scheme less than two years ago." 

Wyland: "Californians already rejected these tax increases in 2009.  They said loud and clear what Sacramento refuses to hear." 

Patch Analysis: It's true that voters shot down a similar tax plan in 2009--as well as a November 2010 proposition to fund state parks with a small DMV surcharge. After the second measure went down in flames, Brown commented, "The voters last night turned down a mere $18-a-year car tax by about 60 percent, so I would say that the electorate is in no mood to add to their burdens."

However, two new polls show a majority of voters want Brown's proposal on the ballot--and they agree taxes should be raised to erase budget red ink. But there's a catch: Most want taxes raised only on the rich.

We wanted to ask the governor if he would consider revising his tax plan to target only wealthy Californians, but he hadn't replied by the time this article was published.

Reason No. 2: How About a Multiple-Choice Ballot?

Harkey: "Without a firm spending cap and pension reform on the ballot, the voters do not have a choice at all."

(Wyland said he could envision no scenario under which he'd allow voters to weigh in on a tax increase.)

Analysis: The idea of giving voters a choice of anti-deficit ballot measures has been echoed by a number of Republicans. However, it's unclear how serious they are. For example, in this videotaped exchange, Harkey backpedaled when Brown called her bluff about putting pension reform and business deregulation measures on the ballot alongside his plan.

It's also worth noting that pension reform is no cure-all. Although pensions will pose huge headaches in the future, right now they represent a mere fraction of California's budget woes. Even if the state could somehow revoke every penny of the retirement benefits it will shell out next year, the deficit would shrink by only $3.7 billion, according to the Los Angeles Times. That would still leave the deficit at about $10 billion.

Reason No. 3: Fixing the Deficit is Sacramento's Job

Harkey: "Why should the governor and the Legislature abdicate their responsibility to yet another special election? ... If representatives in the Legislature want to raise taxes or balance the budget by any other means, they may vote to do so. The voters decided when they elected their representatives that those hired for the job should be up to the task.  So far, it would appear, they have not."

Wyland: "If the governor and Sacramento liberals want to put a tax increase before the voters in 2011, they can collect signatures and follow the initiative process like every other group in California."

Analysis: In theory, it is indeed Sacramento's job to balance the budget. But in reality, under both Republican and Democratic governors, state officials have spent years dodging a day of reckoning. Perhaps that helps explain why just 19 percent of registered voters approve the Legislature's job performance. And that brings us back to our original question: Who should decide Brown's tax plan--politicians or voters?

Do-It-Yourself Budget Chopper

Think you could deep-six California's deficit? Try your luck with the interactive budget balancers created by the Sacramento Bee or L.A. Times. But beware the fine print: Not every program you might like to cut can be touched.