We here in America sometimes let our “democratic” principles get the better of us. For instance, there is a school of thought that proposes that since requiring a majority to pass something is good, requiring a super-majority must be even better. In California, as in a number of other states, this has led to constitutional amendments requiring super majorities to pass state budgets. The result is predictable. A small minority can hold the majority hostage. The “super majority” requirement effectively empower the minority, which, having failed to win the support of the majority of voters, can nonetheless hold a state hostage until it gets its way. And of course, when Republicans are in the minority, they have no problem doing just that. California is currently without a budget. In typical Republican fashion, Arnold has reacted by cutting the salaries of low paid state workers to the minimum wage. A typical Republican reaction, of course. This is just one of many features of the California political system that comes courtesy of referenda, which taken together have made the nation’s largest state virtually ungovernable. This outcome, by the way, was not by chance, but by design of the proponents of these referenda, which have been sold as measures to provide tax relief, enhance democracy, control excess, etc. The intent was to prevent government from succeeding.
Which brings me around to Groton, where the Town Council will be considering the charter we proposed last week. We (the Charter Revision Commission) have rejected the idea of a budget referendum. On Tuesday, the Council holds a public hearing to get citizen input. My sources tell me that the Groton Long Point Selfish Citizens PAC is putting together a petition to demand a referendum. I’m sorry to say that Democrat Paulann Sheets still appears to be carrying water for these folks, as is our State Representative, Elissa Wright, who seems to be fine on state wide issues, but remains myopic on these local issues.
The Commission was required to issue a report to the Town Council, which we did. We did not discuss the budget referendum, except to say we decided against it, because the purpose of the report was to talk about what we did, not what we didn’t do. The two members of the commission who still favor a referendum penned a minority report (copy below if you’re interested), to which I responded on behalf of the other members, also attached below. While a budget referendum does not legally hand control of the budget process to the minority (as in California), it has the practical effect of doing just that. It is the method of choice on the local level for people who don’t want government to work to make sure government can’t work. In the main, by the way, these are folks who can’t or won’t get their hands dirty actually running for office and putting their views out their in the open for people to assess. They’d rather just destroy the work that dedicated people perform, in elections dominated by slogans about taxes in which low turnouts give them a dominant voice.
I certainly encourage everyone, whatever your views on this issue, to make them known to the Town Council. My sense is that an email to any single councilor will end up in the Public record, so if you can’t make it to the hearing, you can make your views known that way.
Post a Comment