CA Constitutional Convention... any thoughts?

[gunn]

I don't know about the rest of you but I'm getting quite tired of all the excuses. From what I understand, a LOT of this is due to the restrictions we place on the legislature through all those damn propositions. They lock up the majority of the budget and prevent any real budget cutting from being implemented.

Even though I voted there, I hadn't even heard of a "voter proposition" until after I left Texas and moved here. Alongside the crazy gerrymandered voter districts which encourage polarizing candidates vs moderates (something that Texas DOES suffer from), we have a real problem here.

Now that it looks like my wife and I want to put down roots here, well, I thought perhaps we should start looking at different ways to fix our state.

I came across this group:
http://www.repaircalifornia.org/

They are having an information session in the South Bay on July 31st so I thought I might check it out to see if
a) it's a bunch of normal people or just
b) a bunch of activist policital nutjobs.

I've never been one to care much about government (even back in highschool/college) as long as "the govt" didn't really interfere with my life (i.e.: let me make money and spend it on what I want). Seeing as how CA seems to be one of the more invasive governments I've lived under, it might be worth doing something about it.

Q: What do you guys think?

Obviously, the 2nd Amendment slant would be to join this group and encourage that the Right to Bear Arms as an Individual actually appear in the next rev of the Constitution. I believe there are a few antis with the exact same idea. While I cannot seem to find the reference, one commentor said to an article about hte constitutional convention process "great idea, we can fix ... and repeal Prop 13 for commercial real estate ... [IMO all good stuff]... and ban assault rifles." sigh.

PS. Here's an article from The Economist about this very issue
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2009/06/the_trouble_with_california.cfm

[dfletcher]

God only knows what sort of systemic damage could be put in place by the folks likely to have influence at a state constitutional convention. Perhaps I'm overly negative, but the politicos have their hands in my pocket and that's bad enough - I don't want to invite them to work on my car and rebuild my home, so to speak.

[glockman19]

A California Constitution would be very bad. Make them work within the existing rules.

The Constitution is fine...it's the people that have to work within it's framework that have an issue with it.

It's like changing baseball to 4 strikes because they don't like 3 or outs in an inning. It no longer is baseball.

Let the politicians hang themselves. They should be easily replaced in the next few years as they prove to be failures.

[Rem222]

Do you want the Socialist to control Kalifornia even more?

[schnellfeuer300]

I'm more optimistic that people realize how completely borked the entire State government is and a Constitutional Convention would do a world of good.

We would need to mobilize like never before to get RKBA written into the (new) State Constitution, but I'm cautiously optimistic that it would be possible.

[Flopper]

The constitution as it is, is just fine.

It's the politicians that abuse power, waste money, deny equal protection, and obstruct rights that are the problem.

(I think this thread could possibly use a poll.)

[GuyW]

I'm open-minded about the CA Constitution being revised on an issue-by-issue, vote up-or-down, basis.

Opening the whole thing up to revision? A freaking socialist nightmare....
.

[slamfire]

Don't let the monkeys monkey with the constitution.They will destroy what protections we do have, and then they'll put the screws to us.They absolutely refuse to rein in spending if there is any possible way they can squeeze it out of the taxpayer.Prop 13, and the 2 thirds vote to increase taxes is all the working Californians have going for them,constitutional convention = eliminate these protections.

cheers

[bwiese]

I'm open-minded about the CA Constitution being revised on an issue-by-issue, vote up-or-down, basis.

Opening the whole thing up to revision? A freaking socialist nightmare....
.

I absolultely agree.

And just watch Prop 13 go away...

While CA constitution has its flaws (i.e, quite a bit of what should be statutory law included), it's not that bad off - but I can just see the far left and Greens etc go crazy. And it's pretty easy to motivate the homeless & illegals to vote.

[bulgron]

A California Constitutional Convention can only turn out badly for California. All the wrong people are in control of the political process in this state. If you think it leans left now, just you wait to see what they'd do if they could have a convention.

The good news about a convention is that I might actually be able to convince my wife to move away from this hell hole once and for all if they had one. The reason would be the insanely high taxes that the socialists would slap on this state once they had free reign here. As it is, it's only the 2/3rd majority vote required to raise taxes that keeps the Dems from truly burying this state in unsupportable taxation.

If we want to fix this state:

1. End gerrymandering
2. Force the legislature to become part time.
3. Create a rule that requires the legislature to consider NO OTHER business until they've passed that year's budget.
4. One senate seat per county; no more proportional representation in the CA senate.

Then, MAYBE, you'd see some sanity return to Sacramento. But don't count on it. So long as people blindly vote D or R without any consideration for the person they're voting for, this state will continue to sink into the abyss.

[berto]

A delegate scheme stacked by the usual lefty suspects will create a jambled collection of their misguided pipe dreams for the easily influenced masses to approve. Think things are bad now? Wait until the dem machine gets to completely re-write the rules.

[Flopper]

\
If we want to fix this state:

1. End gerrymandering
2. Force the legislature to become part time.
3. Create a rule that requires the legislature to consider NO OTHER business until they've passed that year's budget.
4. One senate seat per county; no more proportional representation in the CA senate.


Those are great ideas. I think another good addition would be cutting the state legislators' salary and pensions completely or to a symbolic, very low level, a la New Hampshire ($100 a year). Political service should be very nearly volunteer.

One question: wasn't the gerrymandering mess recently fixed?

[sorensen440]

When you have someone who cant figure out how to drive the car you do not let them work on the engine

[Librarian]

Noted a TV editorial in support of a ConConv - she said the CA constitution has been modified 512 times.

I think, in the abstract, it might be a good idea. As with many good ideas, the implementation is the problem.

What we need before a convention is a solid idea of what we think a Constitution is for, and what is the role of government in society.

Seen the political theory books in libraries and bookstores, and the political theory classes in colleges? That tells me that out of 33 million CA residents [ about 27 million 18+ ], we'd get probably 5-7 identifiable clusters (a million or more each), all mutually incompatible.

I think delegates to such a convention ought to be 30 - 60, never elected to or appointed to public office, and never an officer in a political party or a union, and probably not a lawyer or a tenured PhD. I'd want them to have held a real, paying job not directly from any level of government at some time in their lives, not necessarily currently.

Perfectly fine to have folks I exclude as consultants, but not voting members.

And the delegates ought to be drafted; no one appointed or 'anointed' by current power brokers.

[GuyW]

I think delegates to such a convention ought to be....never elected to or appointed to public office, and never an officer in a political party or a union, and probably not a lawyer or a tenured PhD.


The above is not necessarily inconsistent with the following:



I'd want them to have held a real, paying job not directly from any level of government at some time in their lives, not necessarily currently.




I think delegates to such a convention ought to be....never elected to or appointed to public office, and never an officer in a political party....and probably not a lawyer....


Ooops - there goes the Founding Fathers....

.

[Librarian]

One question: wasn't the gerrymandering mess recently fixed?

No. An initiative try to fix it failed.

[RomanDad]

I absolultely agree.

And just watch Prop 13 go away...

While CA constitution has its flaws (i.e, quite a bit of what should be statutory law included), it's not that bad off - but I can just see the far left and Greens etc go crazy. And it's pretty easy to motivate the homeless & illegals to vote.

Prop 13 would go and 2/3rds majority for tax increases would be gone.... Taxes in the state would SKYROCKET.... I wouldnt be surprised to see a 15-25% state income tax rate and another 5% in sales tax.

NO THANKS! I dont care if they have a budget.... Let the state SHUT DOWN.

[Librarian]

The above is not necessarily inconsistent with the following

My model for what I don't want is former governor of Michigan John Engler. He went from college to a series of elected jobs - so far as I can tell, never worked outside that arena. Don't know what he's doing now.

If we can find anyone with the 'civic virtue' opinions (encouraging 'civic virtue', that is) of the late 1770s and 1780s, I'd be happy to try to draft them into being delegates. One would risk getting some rather snooty aristocrats, though.

[KylaGWolf]

Problem is if they rewrite it they take the few good things that work and toss them then let the special interest groups rewrite it and we have a worse mess than we started with. I think they should add only three things to the state constitution as it stands now:

1) RKBA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2) If they can't set a budget then the legislator and governor do not get paid until they do and NO back pay for the time it took them to do in the first place.
3) If they decide party line is more important than what their constituents want then they get booted out of office no pension or other benefits.

Yeah I know never happen but nice to dream once in a while. :sleeping:

[woodsman]

Look at what the dems want to do during a convention. They want to further limit the voice of the people.

http://info.sen.ca.gov:80/cgi-bin/casen/postquery_SDC?bill_number=sca_16&house=S&sess=CUR&site=SDC

"Legislators would be able to adopt initiatives before they go to voters. The point of this bill is to help alleviate the cost of the initiative process and reduce voter fatigue."

Their interest is only to further thier agendas.

The 2/3 vote requirement is a good thing. If it was the other way around do you think the dems would want to get rid of it. Heck no. It provides a check and balance and prevents the controlling party from forcing everything on their agenda through.

[rabagley]

The existing constitution is completely and utterly broken. A 50%+1 vote on a referendum can amend the Constitution twice a year (which is normally won using the dirtiest of propaganda), but a 2/3 supermajority of the legislature is required to pass a budget.

Further, because of the constitutional restrictions on various budget items (passed by referendum), there's no way for the legislature to actually make a sane budget without increasing taxes.

The risk, as others have pointed out, is that a post-convention Constitution could be even more spectacularly stupid than the one we've got now.

[taloft]

No. An initiative try to fix it failed.I was under the impression that Prop 11 passed.:confused:

[7x57]

I agree with the many comments: a new CA Constitution would be far more liberal than anything we have now. We have a right to defense in the CA Constitution and a right to arms in the Federal one, and as long as we win the ultimate Incorporation endgame I cannot see how a new Constitution could really help our topic. But it's easy to see how it could hurt it. I'd be much more worried about what it would to do non-gun topics that we cannot argue are Federally protected in court.

I'd go so far as to say that a new CA Constitution at this point in time would probably positively deny any right to private property.

7x57

[Librarian]

I was under the impression that Prop 11 passed.:confused:
I'm confused, too. It did.
Prop 11 (http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop11-title-sum.htm) and results (http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2008_general/6_official_results_on_statewide%20ballot_measures. pdf) OFFICIAL DECLARATION OF THE VOTE RESULTS
ON NOVEMBER 4, 2008, STATE BALLOT MEASURES
The following proposed laws were approved by voters:
State Ballot
Measure Number Ballot Title
1A Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act.
2 Standards for Confining Farm Animals. Initiative Statute.
3 Children’s Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program. Initiative Statute.
8 Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional
Amendment.
9 Criminal Justice System. Victims’ Rights. Parole. Initiative Constitutional
Amendment and Statute.
11 Redistricting. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Votes were 6,095,033 50.9% Yes 5,897,655 49.1% No

So why did I think it had lost?

Ah, here's the problem. http://www.bsa.ca.gov/redistricting
Please check this webpage frequently for updates. The application process for the Citizens Redistricting Commission will begin no later than January 1, 2010. Tentative calendar of the process at that link.

Nothing much has happened yet. Dropped out of sight. I apologize for my short attention span and the resulting wrong answer.

[Swatter911]

I think a convention would be a bad idea. The special interest groups would be on it like fly on you-know-what.

[Loner]

No conventions, it'll only let the looters and moochers have free reign on the state. Prop 11 passed and will end the gerrymandering in a timely fashion. With the current state of affairs for the PRK, the current government is slowly dieing.

[Sunwolf]

Constitutional convention?Bad idea!

[Satex]

a LOT of this is due to the restrictions we place on the legislature through all those damn propositions. They lock up the majority of the budget and prevent any real budget cutting from being implemented.


That notion is incorrect. The issues we are having is with an out of control legislature which tries to circumvent the constitution and laws in order to serve their interests. A strong majority vote for a budget is the best thing that happened to CA since sliced bread was invented.

[NeuTag]

Constitutional convention?Bad idea!

+1000 :beatdeadhorse5:

[dustoff31]

I agree with the many comments: a new CA Constitution would be far more liberal than anything we have now. We have a right to defense in the CA Constitution and a right to arms in the Federal one, and as long as we win the ultimate Incorporation endgame I cannot see how a new Constitution could really help our topic. But it's easy to see how it could hurt it. I'd be much more worried about what it would to do non-gun topics that we cannot argue are Federally protected in court.

I'd go so far as to say that a new CA Constitution at this point in time would probably positively deny any right to private property.

7x57

I agree. As one of the common complaints is that "normal" people have been rendered politically insignificant in CA, who could possibly believe that allowing the majority to change the constitution to their liking could ever be a good thing?

[sierratangofoxtrotunion]

the CA constitution has been modified 512 times.

One problem with our current state constitution is that so many of those modifications were just some stupid spending pet project that got enough signatures for "constitutional amendment" status. So now there's this spending that's actually written into the constitution that the legilslature couldn't cut if they wanted to.

I've got an idea to amend the CA constitution. Ok, we've got 2/3 vote needed in the legislature for a budget or for taxes? First, make that a constitutional amendment if it isn't already, and then add that any propositions put to the voters that involves any kind of spending or taxes, up or down or anything, also require 2/3. SO much spending would never make it.

[Californio]

Prop 13 assassination has already begun. I have seen the same talking points on many editorial pages. They are using the bad and ugly apartment owners as the profiteers of Prop 13 and the State would not be in a fiscal mess except for Prop 13, pure BS but assassination has begun.

[ilbob]

Prop 13 would go and 2/3rds majority for tax increases would be gone.... Taxes in the state would SKYROCKET.... I wouldnt be surprised to see a 15-25% state income tax rate and another 5% in sales tax.

NO THANKS! I dont care if they have a budget.... Let the state SHUT DOWN.

Amen. A little pain will motivate everyone involved to find a way to cut the budget so CA spends no more than it takes in.

I would bet there is some state law provision for continuation of "essential" services. My question is what the heck is any government doing providing services that are not "essential".

[Bugei]

And the delegates ought to be drafted; no one appointed or 'anointed' by current power brokers.

What do we do if the guy you want to draft would prefer not to be involved? This is going to be a big, long, hard job and the guys you're looking for generally have other things to do with their time.

[gunn]

I think this post has spawned some interesting points that are more diverse from my friends in SF -- who view me as a raving conservative comparatively :)

Taking one issue: Prop 13.
* It seems that quite a few of you guys, as long time Californians, are against overturning Prop 13 -- presumably because you are long time property owners.

* As a fairly recent arrival (2004), I'm not exactly a fan of this Proposition since it means that my tax burden is significantly higher than yours. To me, that's unfair -- just in the same way i view rent control in SF (both as wealth transfer from the longterm landlords to renters as well as unfair to newer renters who must bid on a more limited pool of apartments).

Q: As a longtime property owner, would you agree that your tax burden is "under market rate"?
Furthermore, if a significant portion of the population was "under market rate" for taxes, would you agree that this means that the newer property owners must pay "over market rate"?

----
Q: Finally, would you guys consider some kind of 'sun-downing' of Prop 13 or elimination of prop 13 for commercial real estate owners or would you use the "slippery slope argument"?

Right now, I believe you can avoid a tax re-assessment by transferring property within families. By sun-downing, I'm suggesting the this portion be eliminated so that eventually, all property will end back up at the market rate. This way Grandma won't be kicked out of her home due to drastically increased property taxes (I believe this was the classic argument FOR prop 13).

--
Now, I figure that most of you folks will disagree with my reasoning but I'm sure we can debate this civilly. I hope you understand my position from my point of view (a relatively new arrival who DOES want to contribute to this state).

-g

[GuyW]

By sun-downing, I'm suggesting the this portion be eliminated so that eventually, all property will end back up at the market rate. This way Grandma won't be kicked out of her home due to drastically increased property taxes (I believe this was the classic argument FOR prop 13).


You realize that when you get old, and are living off your pension or savings, you WILL be taxed out of your home, don't you? Socialists have no limit to their need for your money.

.

[gunn]

[QUOTE=Flopper;2713803]Those are great ideas. I think another good addition would be cutting the state legislators' salary and pensions completely or to a symbolic, very low level, a la New Hampshire ($100 a year). Political service should be very nearly volunteer.

While I dislike these professional legislative clowns as much as the next guy, the one concern I have about not paying them a salary for a "full time job" is that they will need to / try to generate income in other fashions.

Just like Mexican cops who are not paid a 'living wage', they will be forced to take bribes, etc in order to keep feeding their kids.

I don't like paying them for not doing their job (like passing a budget) either but I don't see how you can just pay them for not doing their job.

-g

[gunn]

You realize that when you get old, and are living off your pension or savings, you WILL be taxed out of your home, don't you? Socialists have no limit to their need for your money.

.

I fail to see how the sundowning idea would tax me out of my home. I'm not proposing anything change for existing homeowners. If there is a slow creep up in the tax burden for an elderly couple, it would be the same under the existing prop-13 or my idea. If you cannot afford your home now, you won't be able to afford your home under my idea. Nothing would change for grannie (or me).

Of course, the gameplan would be to save enough money (in both USD and other currencies as a hedge against future regional economic downturns) to insure that my wife and I are provided for in our doddering old age. I may be fairly young (30) but I'm doing that now. I don't believe there is a single person my age who believes they will see a dime of social security. This is an individual responsibility.

Now, back to the topic at hand:
I believe in Texas we had something similar to keep old folks in their home. If you were over a certain age, you could defer taxes on your home until you died. Then, the taxman would come and assess the taxes on the estate. Sure, this might leave your kids with less inheritence, but they would have gotten less anyway if you had to pay the taxes as the bills came in annually.
It is a win-win: old people keep their home and the govt gets its money.
http://www.texastaxback.com/program.htm

My proposal would NOT be to collect 'back taxes' when the homeowner dies (like the Texas plan) but to insure that the property goes back to market rate (and everyone pays a fairer portion of their assets value) in taxes.

-g

[dustoff31]

I think this post has spawned some interesting points that are more diverse from my friends in SF -- who view me as a raving conservative comparatively :)

Taking one issue: Prop 13.
* It seems that quite a few of you guys, as long time Californians, are against overturning Prop 13 -- presumably because you are long time property owners.

* As a fairly recent arrival (2004), I'm not exactly a fan of this Proposition since it means that my tax burden is significantly higher than yours. To me, that's unfair -- just in the same way i view rent control in SF (both as wealth transfer from the longterm landlords to renters as well as unfair to newer renters who must bid on a more limited pool of apartments).

I think you have fallen into the trap of thinking that taxes have anything whatsoever to do with fairness.

Why do people who pay no income taxes get money returned to them, i.e. EIC?

Why do people with no children have to pay school taxes?

Why do people who haven't called the police in the last five years pay the same as the people who have the police at their house every Friday night?


Q: Finally, would you guys consider some kind of 'sun-downing' of Prop 13 or elimination of prop 13 for commercial real estate owners or would you use the "slippery slope argument"? Right now, I believe you can avoid a tax re-assessment by transferring property within families. By sun-downing, I'm suggesting the this portion be eliminated so that eventually, all property will end back up at the market rate. This way Grandma won't be kicked out of her home due to drastically increased property taxes (I believe this was the classic argument FOR prop 13).


Covered by GuyW in his post.
--
Now, I figure that most of you folks will disagree with my reasoning but I'm sure we can debate this civilly. I hope you understand my position from my point of view (a relatively new arrival who DOES want to contribute to this state).

And you are contributing. Be happy.

[hvengel]

I'm confused, too. It did.
Prop 11 (http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop11-title-sum.htm) and results (http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2008_general/6_official_results_on_statewide%20ballot_measures. pdf) Votes were 6,095,033 50.9% Yes 5,897,655 49.1% No

So why did I think it had lost?

Ah, here's the problem. http://www.bsa.ca.gov/redistricting
Tentative calendar of the process at that link.

Nothing much has happened yet. Dropped out of sight. I apologize for my short attention span and the resulting wrong answer.

The first election this will affect is 2012 since the next redistricting can not happen until after the 2010 census. So we will have the same gerrymandered system until the 2012 election.

[radioman]

let's start with prop 13, I voted for that as the state was out of control. now everyone votes for bonds when they come up, voting for bonds is voting for debt, don't do that. as far a new Constitution go's it would read " underwear will be worn on the outside so we can check that you are wearing underwear.

[Californio]

gunn,

California has suffered because of property inflation and I believe a tax on Inflation, unrealized gain is wrong. My Father has a cost of 20K in his home, in 40 years the value has inflated to 1.5M+-. In the 40 years he paid-off his mortgage and retired. He has never benefited a penny from the inflation but has had to replace wear and tear items in the home. Today due to inflation the property tax on the property would be over 40% of his retirement income, without Prop 13. His fixed income certainly has not inflated like his Real Property.

No tax is fair, it is redistribution of wealth, a wealth tax on unrealized gains is even worse. You buy a stock, you pay tax on the real gains, not the unrealized gains, you only pay tax when you sell the stock. The problem, the Home has been converted or perverted into an investment vehicle instead of a place to live. I believe my 90 year-old Father, Veteran of WWII, has earned the right to die in his own home, period. On his death the government will step-up the basis of his home and tax the heirs, I don't agree with death taxes as well, but the property tax will be adjusted to the new basis.

You mention Rent Control, so what of the Landlord who owns a Rent Control Apartment Building and is constrained by the government, price fixing, and then Prop 13 gets modified so his taxes go up on his unrealized Real Property gain.

The apartment owner winds up getting it from both ends at the same time, oh joy. Would you be happy earning 2.5 to 3% on a risk investment?

The problem is government is so out of control that nothing works. We need to strip the layers of government back and start again the current is unfixable.

I believe in Charity to others with less but I don't think government is the vehicle or solution for that cause. Government really does not want to help anyone, it just wants more and more power.

[navyinrwanda]

On his death the government will step-up the basis of his home and tax the heirs, I don't agree we death taxes as well, but the property tax will be adjusted to the new basis.
Well, maybe.

Proposition 58, effective November 6, 1986, and Proposition 193, effective March 27, 1996, are both constitutional amendments approved by the voters of California which exclude from reassessment transfers of real property between parents and children, and from grandparents to grandchildren, providing that all the parents of the grandchildren who qualify as children of the grandparents are deceased as of the date of transfer.

I don't like of taxes on inflationary gains, nor do I like of estate taxes. But these additions to Prop 13 lend a whole new meaning to the phrase "landed gentry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landed_gentry)."

[badreligion]

I like the idea of changing our government for the good of all. Honestly though nothing good can come from a constitutional convention. This state of ours is nothing short of confused on everything we do. We as voters decided to vote for a President who is one step from being a socialist, Chickens have rights and same sex couples are less than the rest of us!?!?!?!? I really doubt that we could get any size group to come together and raise a flag of unity that would make anyone happy.


And can someone explain why we pay property tax at all? Seems to me like another way that the government has its hands in my life.

[ilbob]

what CA needs is to cut spending, not raise taxes.

you can fiddle with the property tax system to get a few more bucks out of it, but that is just raising taxes instead of dealing with the real problem which is that many people benefit in some way from the existing system that (mostly) steals at the point of a gun from the productive to give to the unproductive.