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.

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. Mimi Walters and Assemblyman Don Wagner, who represent Lake Forest, offered the following rationales for not giving voters final say on Brown's proposal.

Reason No. 1: Deja Vu

Walters: "The voters spoke clear and loud in 2009 when they rejected the tax increases [on the ballot then], and I don't believe that anybody would say they are better off than they were in 2009."

Wagner: "Voters have already spoken."

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.

Patch wanted to ask the governor if he would consider revising his tax plan to target only wealthy Californians, but he hasn't replied.

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

Walters: "Without real reforms placed side-by-side with the tax increases on the ballot, there is nothing to talk about. Without the voters getting an opportunity to choose reforms which are badly needed, and which they have been clamoring for in order to stop the annual cycle of out-of-balance budgets, the only thing more taxes will do is encourage the same problems to continue without any remedy."

Wagner: "Give the voters choices on a broader range of things. Raise taxes, lower taxes, make other changes. I'm happy to give that vote."

Analysis: The idea of giving voters a choice of anti-deficit ballot measures has been echoed by a number of Republicans. However, some don't want those choices to include anything backed by Democrats. For example, when Walters was asked if adding her reform ideas to the ballot means she'd let Brown's plan also come to a vote, she said (through a spokesman), "No."

Wagner seemed more open to compromise, saying he'd support a special election on Brown's plan if the ballot also included measures to lower taxes, shrink the state workforce, loosen business regulations and reform pensions. 

Incidentally, 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.

Reasons 3 and 4

Tune in Friday for Part 2 of this article. We'll also tell you how to test your own budget-cutting skills as a virtual legislator. 

-- Debbie Tharp contributed to this article.