Home »  Writings »

The Latest Democratic Tax Plan is Boldest Yet

By Brian P. Janiskee

Posted August 15, 2003


Print This

The conniving crowd of Democrats in Sacramento has set a new standard for monetary malfeasance. It is as if they are padding their statistics to ensure induction into the Tax Collector's Hall of Fame, joining such villainous luminaries as the Sheriff of Nottingham, King George III, and Caesar Augustus.

Governor Davis, Lieutenant Governor Bustamante, and key Democratic members of the legislature are proposing an immediate increase in both the tobacco and income taxes. This plan is putatively scheduled for a vote in a few weeks-before the October 7 recall election. These tax hikes, argue the Democrats, would require only a simple majority vote of each chamber of the legislature.

This is a violation of the California Constitution, which clearly states that tax hikes imposed by "increased rates or changes in methods of computation" must be passed by a two-thirds majority of each legislative chamber. Of course, since when does the rule of law hold any place in the hearts of the Golden State's ruling Democratic junta?

This all started back in June when Governor Davis and Controller Steve Westly, both Democrats, decided that the state's fiscal emergency necessitated a tripling of the car tax by administrative fiat. The two-thirds requirement, they argued, was not operative because Davis and Westly were simply restoring the tax to its previous level before it was slashed during Pete Wilson's administration.

This decree played a role in the recent budget negotiations between Democrats and Republicans. The GOP hung tough against the Democrats by refusing to support increased taxes. The Democrats caved and finally agreed to a deficit reduction plan that relied on a combination of spending cuts and bond revenues to fill the gap.

The dirty little secret of this deal, however, was the fact that all the major players involved in the negotiations implicitly relied upon the revenues from the illegally imposed car tax in their budget calculations.

Not to worry, many thought. Those in the Republican ranks who, in the end, voted for the budget could salve their consciences. After all, the car tax would eventually be declared unconstitutional by the courts or invalidated by an initiative that is being spearheaded by fiscal warrior State Senator Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks).

In the meantime, however, the recall happened. And the GOP car tax accommodation plan, like most other battle plans, did not survive first contact with the enemy.

The Democrats are running scared from the recall. They are now proposing a plan that, if passed, could be the effective end of constitutional government in California. They are proposing to swap an elimination of the car tax increase for hikes in tobacco and income taxes. They are also claiming that this new plan does not require a two-thirds vote in the legislature because the plan does not increase taxes.

How can this be? Certainly, those who will pay higher income taxes and tobacco taxes will beg to differ. The Democratic answer is that the new income and tobacco taxes are merely replacing revenue that would have been collected anyway by the increased car tax.

The audacity of this plan is shocking. An unconstitutional tax imposed by executive decree will be replaced by a tax imposed by an unconstitutional simple majority. If the people of California abide this blatant disregard for their constitution, they will abide just about anything.

Some members of the GOP are involved in this treachery to the extent that they implicitly relied on the tripling of the car tax in their own budget plans. This should serve as a valuable lesson that compromise is only possible when each side shares at least some basic respect for the rule of law.

The Republicans are in a tough spot. If they fight the tax shift on the grounds that it requires a two-thirds vote, they risk appearing as obstacles to the elimination of the car tax increase. On the other hand, if the GOP allows the increased taxes to go into effect with little protest, then they appear weak in the eyes of their core supporters, which could have a negative effect not only for the recall race but future elections as well.

George Orwell offered the following in his novel 1984: "Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two equals four. If that is granted, all else follows." We in the Golden State might adjust this aphorism slightly to proclaim that freedom is the freedom to say that two-thirds means two-thirds. If that is granted, all else will follow.

These are momentous times in the nation's largest state. If we merely shrug at this kind of deviant political behavior, then Americans will find it easier to accept even more malevolent actions in the future. This crisis offers a rare opportunity for a statesman to rise up and proclaim that the rule of law must be upheld and that rule by fiat violates the fundamental principles of American government.

About the Authors

Brian Janiskee

Brian P. Janiskee is an Associate Professor of Political Science at California State University, San Bernardino. Dr. Janiskee holds a Ph.D. from Michigan State University with fields in American Politics, Public Administration and Policy, and Statistics.

Dr. Janiskee's research interests include state and local government, public policy, presidential elections, and public administration. Along with co-author Ken Masugi, Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Local Government, Dr. Janiskee has authored an innovative California government text called Democracy in California: Politics and Government in the Golden State (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003). This text uses many ideas raised by Tocqueville to analyze the current workings of California politics.

In addition, Janiskee and Masugi have coedited a collection of timely essays on California politics titled The California Republic: Institutions, Statesmanship, and Policies (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004).

Dr. Janiskee's articles on California's three strikes law, co-authored with Claremont Institute Senior Fellow and colleague at Cal. State, Edward J. Erler, has received national attention. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor relied on Janiskee and Erler's research in her recent majority opinion in Ewing v. California, which upheld California's three strikes law.

Other articles on topics ranging from local government to presidential elections have appeared in such journals as: Perspectives on Political Science; The Journal of Public Service and Outreach; Nexus: A Journal of Opinion; Talking Politics: The Journal of the Politics Association.

Dr. Janiskee's analysis of contemporary trends in local, state, and national politics has appeared in such outlets as the Washington Post, Orange County Register, San Diego-Union-Tribune, Investor's Business Daily, Boston Globe, Baltimore Sun, and USA Today.

As of September 2002, Dr. Janiskee began a four-year term on the National Executive Council of Pi Sigma Alpha, the political science honor society, which has over 600 chapters nationwide. The 19-member Executive Council is the governing body of Pi Sigma Alpha. Dr. Janiskee's service on the Executive Council was preceded by his award-winning work as a Chapter Advisor at the local level. In recognition for the excellence of its programs, the Theta Iota Chapter at Cal. State, San Bernardino received the National Best Chapter Award for two consecutive academic years, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. In addition, Dr. Janiskee received the National Best Chapter Advisor Award in 2002.

Go to:

Search the Site

 

E-mail Newsletter

Enter your email address below to join Precepts, the Claremont Institute's email newsletter.

 

My Claremont Login

Stay up to date with the Claremont Institute events, programs, and publications most important to you. Claremont Review of Books subscribers receive complete online access from the first day an issue is published. Please login below or click here to sign-up.

E-mail
Password

Copyright © 2002-2008 The Claremont Institute. Technical problems may be brought to the attention of the webmaster.