Someone asked me this morning if there was any kind "budget deal" that contained a good enough spending/budget reform that would allow me to support a tax increase.
I thought about this for a while, and came to the conclusion that the answer is actually yes. But the spending/budget reform that would get me to that point is hardly something that the liberals who run the legislature would be open to supporting. I would need to have a true "Gann" style cap that places a hard limit on the size of state government — where state income is not allowed to expand beyond a specific formula factoring in population growth and inflation.
Of course this reform requires a vote of the people, so I guess it would have to be tied to the tax increase so that we either got both or nothing.
What is really needed, of course, is the limit, and tax cuts, as we really need to reduce the size of state government. But recognizing politics involves some give and take — this is the limit of my "generosity" on the tax issue.
Today the Governor is meeting with legislative leaders to discuss the budget. Of course, the "post-partisan" Arnold is meeting with all of them, but he really should, as a Republican, be having a private meeting with GOP leaders Cogdill and Villines to start a process of developing a joint REPUBLICAN strategy. But a lot of our woes come from the fact that the Governor has positioned himself as some sort of in-between point, with Democrats on the left and his own party on the right.
If he were to have such a pre-meeting with Republican leaders, then he go a long way towards re-opening budget negotiations (as opposed to being overridden) by acknowledging that there is not the political will for a tax increase, and formally taking that option, and any advocacy on his part of one, off of the table.
Why on earth would legislative Republicans want to uphold a veto that will then take them back to a negotiation table with Democrats AND a Governor, both insisting on new taxes?