Confusing Signs on Prospects for a Pension Initiative (& Everything Else)

Earlier posts on this blog have outlined the possibility that some pension initiative could end up on the 2012 ballot that would override the Regents' December 2010 decision on the UC pension.

There are two "legacy" organizations that descend from the Prop 13 property tax initiative of 1978. In a previous post, we noted that one of them - Peoples Advocate - has filed a pension initiative and seems to be fishing for someone or some group to provide financial backing for a signature and election campaign. But now the other group, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, has said it is not interested in dealing with pensions in 2012. See http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_worker/2011/08/taxpayers-association-not-taki.html

An earlier post also noted that a bill heading to Governor Brown's desk would make signature gathering for initiatives (all initiatives - not just pensions) more difficult by forbidding payment on a piece rate basis per signature. However, the governor has vetoed the bill on the grounds that it seemed odd to make signature gatherers less productive. (That was the goal of the bill, no?) See http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/08/jerry-brown-vetoes-signature-g.html

Meanwhile, referenda are now in circulation that would undo parts of the recently enacted California budget. The so-called "Amazon tax" - requiring out-of-state online retailers to collect and remit the state sales tax - could be reversed by voters under one referendum. Another would undo a fee for rural fire fighting. And there was a complex deal involving local redevelopment agencies that was part of the budget and could be undone. When referenda get on the ballot, that prevents the law they are aimed at repealing from going into effect until the issue is decided. So there could be a loss of revenue to the state, even if the voters ultimately reject repeal. More would be lost if they enact a repeal.

Finally, an earlier post noted that finding out what would happen if the U.S. was allowed to hit the federal debt ceiling would not be a good social science experiment to run. It appears that the "solution" being enacted in Washington is also not a good social science experiment to run.

We are living in a land of confusion: