And now you say I am not worth arguing with. So you think that bringing your views closer towards reality is not worth doing?

Anyway, although you may not find me worth arguing with, I found it very worthwhile arguing with you. Attempting to explain what the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy is in response to your varied misconceptions, has refined my own understanding, even independently of any effect my efforts may have had on yours, and I have found out the term “expansionary fiscal consolidation” which might help my searches in the future. So I thank you for your contributions to my education and will be happy to argue more with you in the future if a suitable topic presents itself. And again, if you still have some questions about the details of the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy, please ask me and I will do my best to answer them.

You, like Chris, aren’t worth arguing with.

Rather, we have some very specific examples in history that led to the development of the General Theory, examples that rather cleanly demonstrated specific problems that resulted from cutting spending (and especially pro-cyclical cuts in spending) during downturns.

Clearly I am not doing well in explaining the ““post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy to you. My apologies. Just because problems resulted in some cases after spending was cut during a downturn does not prove that the cutting spending caused the problems, any more than the recovery in the UK and in NZ after the government cut spending during the recession means that the government cuts in spending caused the recoveries. Can you see the parallel reasoning? Do you have any questions about the post hoc fallacy?

The reality is that the mainstream of economics thinks that you are selling snake oil. Citing a couple of dissenters and some obscure example that falls within the post hoc fallacy, and getting all cutesy about the Upton Sinclair quote, doesn’t change this.

Jolly good thing then that rather than citing some obscure example I cited some rather famous examples (there is nothing obscure about Margaret Thatcher’s time as PM of the UK, and NZ’s reforms during the 1980s Labour Government and the National Government in the early 1990s are well known amongst macroeconomics, and of course I explained to you how they didn’t fall into the post hoc fallacy in my previous post), and of course you yourself can see that I found more than two dissenters. Roger Kerr, Anotonio Afonso, Gabriele Guiduice, Alessandro Turrini, and Jan Veld, that’s five by my count, and I didn’t exactly bother with an exhautive list.

As for cutesy, I suppose cute is in the eye of the beholder. You introduced the Upton Sinclair category, I presumed as an explanation of why you changed your mind about what every non-crank economist believed, and your way of doing it made me wonder why your own interest was originally tied up in it being a bad idea to cut government spending in a recession. I’m still curious, can you explain it?

Your arguments are similar to climate change denialists or creationists who choose the 1 or 2 scientists, somewhere, who buck the consensus. Heck, even Holocaust deniers use the same technique.

Ah the ad homimen fallacy! I wondered when that was going to come up.

What you have forgotten is that you made the following claims:
1. “There’s no accepted economic theory that says it’s a good idea to slash government spending during a recession. Not even right wing economists believe that.”
2. “Actually, among economists who are not discredited cranks (i.e., not Austrians), Keynesian stimulus is basically universally accepted. “
And your implicit claim that:
3. “peer-reviewed, academic economists” never believe that it’s a good idea to slash government spending during a recession. (I say it’s implicit, because your response to my disproof of your first claim was to say that politicians are not peer-reviewed academic economists.)

You were making absolute claims, so one dissenting economist who meets your criteria was enough to disprove the claims you have quoted. And of course I found more than 1 or 2, but 5.

What you really have proven is that if you look hard enough, I guess you can find someone to advocate anything.

Nope. May I suggest reading Karl Popper? No amount of positive examples can confirm a theory, one negative example is sufficient to disprove it.

Meanwhile, thankfully, our President and the Democrats in Congress reject the deniers and are trying to spend money to fight the recession and put people back to work.

Whether we should be thankful or not depends on whether it’s a good idea to increase government spending during this recession.

You refuse to admit it.

There isn’t a blanket cap on raising all taxes in California, as you said. Only on property taxes.

The voter-approved mandated spending can be suspended by the same two-thirds vote of the Legislature that it takes to pass a budget. It is not 100 percent locked in.

You won’t defend your original assertions. Why? You can’t.

So you pretend to have answered them.

I don’t understand the tit-for-tat nature of your posts. The reality is that the mainstream of economics thinks that you are selling snake oil. Citing a couple of dissenters and some obscure example that falls within the post hoc fallacy, and getting all cutesy about the Upton Sinclair quote, doesn’t change this. Your arguments are similar to climate change denialists or creationists who choose the 1 or 2 scientists, somewhere, who buck the consensus. Heck, even Holocaust deniers use the same technique.

What you really have proven is that if you look hard enough, I guess you can find someone to advocate anything. Meanwhile, thankfully, our President and the Democrats in Congress reject the deniers and are trying to spend money to fight the recession and put people back to work.

What do you mean by “at least as valid”? There’s several goals here– incapacitation and deterrence, sure, but also cost-effectiveness (we could lock every offender up for life and have absolute incapacitation, but I assume you would agree that was a bad idea) and rehabilitation.

3 strikes laws preclude the system from making any attempt at differentiation, and commit the state to spend a ****load of money including locking up people 20 or 30 years after their last crime. Differentiation is difficult and sometimes mistakes are made. But 3 strikes just makes all the mistakes in the other direction and is a budget-buster.

Your last post, in tone and (lack of) substance, speaks for itself.

It isn’t quite that. Rather, we have some very specific examples in history that led to the development of the General Theory, examples that rather cleanly demonstrated specific problems that resulted from cutting spending (and especially pro-cyclical cuts in spending) during downturns.

Now, is it possible that the consensus is nonetheless wrong? Sure. It isn’t likely, but it’s possible. But it is going to take more than a couple of isolated examples of governments cutting spending and a recovery happening anyway to establish that.

I asked him to defend his assertions …

“The bottom line is that NO government can function based on a system where there are strict limits on taxation and mandatory spending.”

… in light of the fact that there is only one tax (property) that is strictly limited and in light of the fact that the “mandatory spending” he refers to is suspendable on the same two-thirds vote it takes to adopt a budget.

What is the lie you are referring to?

On the other hand, why am I wasting my time dealing with someone as nitwitted as you?

Goodbye, Dilan, you birdbrained infant you.

How am I being intellectually diehonest?

How?

Dilan Esper: This reasoning assumes the best and most efficient way to get habitual criminals off the streets is with a one-size-fits all solution that commits the state to $50,000 a year in imprisonment costs for every single one of them for 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 years, rather than approaches that might try to sort them by dangerousness.

You’d have to be pretty delusional to conclude that sorting people by repeat felonies isn’t at least as valid an approach as some vague “by dangerousness” (read: when the judge feels like it) standard.

You need to think harder about what the post hoc fallacy means.

Well I wouldn’t use a strong word like need, but it’s good for me. And in this spirit I thank you for your efforts along this line, trying to explain to you what the post hoc fallacy is in as simple language as I can is really refining my own understanding.

For all you know, the recoveries that you are pointing to were externally caused and would have been faster and stronger but for the spending cuts.

This is theoretically possible, which is why I did not say that the recoveries disproved Keynesian stimulus, but instead “a lack of correlation does indicate a lack of causation” and “it does create a lot of problems for any economists who believe that who believe that it is always a bad idea to cut government spending in the face of a recession.”

The reason it creates a lot of problems for economists who believe that it is always a bad idea to cut government spending in the face of a recession is that if they adopt your response of saying well the recovery “would have been faster and stronger but for the spending cuts” they are turning Keynesian stimulus into an idea that is non-disprovable and thus non-scientific.

I hope your knowledge of the post hoc fallacy benefits from this explanation even more than mine did from explaining to you.

But the reality is that Keynes’ theories are widely accepted in the economics profession, you haven’t disproven that…

I have however disproven your claims that:
1. “There’s no accepted economic theory that says it’s a good idea to slash government spending during a recession. Not even right wing economists believe that.”
2. “Actually, among economists who are not discredited cranks (i.e., not Austrians), Keynesian stimulus is basically universally accepted. “
And your implicit claim that:
3. “peer-reviewed, academic economists” never believe that it’s a good idea to slash government spending during a recession. (I say it’s implicit, because your response to my disproof of your first claim was to say that politicians are not peer-reviewed academic economists.)

I am glad that I have moved your views away from the false one that “peer-reviewed, academic economists” never believe that it’s a good idea to slash government spending during a recession to a more realistic idea that Keynes’ theories are widely accepted in the economic recession. Even if I can never get you to understand what a post hoc fallacy is, at least I feel that I have accomplished something in this discussion.

and your materials really fall under Upton Sinclair’s category of things people have a hard time not believing when it is in their interest to believe them

I admire your intellectual honesty, but I must confess to some curiosity. Why is it in your interest to believe that it’s always a bad idea to cut government spending in the face of a recession?

I answered your points above. And you came back and lied about what I argued. There’s no need to address you further and I won’t.

Tracy:

You need to think harder about what the post hoc fallacy means. For all you know, the recoveries that you are pointing to were externally caused and would have been faster and stronger but for the spending cuts.

In any event, look, I realize that conservatives are always going to claim that spending and taxes should be cut under every situation (except military spending and tough on crime laws, which apparently don’t count as part of the budget). But the reality is that Keynes’ theories are widely accepted in the economics profession, you haven’t disproven that, and your materials really fall under Upton Sinclair’s category of things people have a hard time not believing when it is in their interest to believe them.

By the way, what recessions are to conservative ideology, expansions are to liberal ideology. Liberals see all that tax money coming in and the last thing they want to do is save it, but that’s what Keynes said we needed to do.

Dilan Esper: Conservatives can try 1000 different variations on “starve the beast”, and it still won’t work. The way to cut taxes is to CUT SPENDING. Not to create automatic mechanisms or rely on court rulings or impose limitations on revenue or strip money away from local governments. CUT SPENDING. Spending decisions drive taxation decisions. If you can keep spending low by cutting specific programs, you can keep taxes low. If you can’t, no artificially imposed mechanism is going to substitute for the lack of fiscal discipline.

Good, we agree that California needs to cut spending, so lets start with getting rid of the useless agency CARB, and paycuts for all gov’t employees so they are more inline with other states. Get rid of the ridiculous 100K+/yr pensions (how about some partial iou’s for those people eh? pay them 60k and the rest in iou’s). Perhaps its time for California to follow the tax and spending policies of Texas. Do away with prop 13, AND state income tax. Enact a law dictating shorter legislative periods. The less the pols “work”, the less damage they can cause.

I disagree that starving the best does not work. It doesn’t work in California because the pols keep coming up with ways to spend more than what taxes bring in. Close those loop holes, and maybe we’ll finally see some spending cuts.

However, with the way the pols are in Calif., its doubtful any of these ideas will come to pass. Which is why its time for the people to put redistricting on the ballot again, and give the more center-right/left folks a chance.

Economists saying there are some arguments for cutting government spending in a recession, or in their terminology: “expansionary fiscal consolidation”.
See Antonio Afonso, European Central Bank: Expansionary Fiscal Consolidations in Europe: New Evidence, at http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp675.pdf
Gabriele Guiduice, Alessandro Turrini, and Jan Veld, Non-Keynesian Fiscal Adjustments? A Close Look at Expansionary Fiscal Consolidations in the EU , http://www.springerlink.com/content/3r54828624lt2785/

Now what logical fallacy will Dilan Epser use to respond to this one? Earlier I would have bet on another case of the No True Scotsman Fallacy, but his misapplication of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy shows some creativity.

1. So you’re redefining your argument again. First we had “There’s no accepted economic theory … not even right-wing economists believe that”. Then we had a redefinition to “among economists who are not discredited cranks..”, now we have “peer-reviewed, academic economists”. Notice that Dilan didn’t start off restricting his claim to economists, he said “there’s no accepted economic theory…” Only when I present evidence that Margaret Thatcher and Ruth Richardson did accept an economic theory does Dilan redefine his claim to “economists who are not discredited cranks”, and then again to “academic peer-reviewed economists…” Nor has Dilan attempted to show that Roger Kerr is not an economist.
Also notice that Dilan has not attempted to provide any evidence supporting his claim that economists, apart from discredited cranks, all believe with him.

2. Do you know what “post hoc ergo propter hoc” actually means? It means, in English, “after this, therefore because (on account) of this”. If I was claiming that the economic recovery in NZ and the UK happened in the relevant time periods because the governments cut spending then I would have been committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc. But I was not. Instead I was responding to the belief that government spending should never be cut in a recession is presumably based on the belief that slashing government spending during a recession will cause the recession to deepen. However the UK and NZ slashed government spending during a recession and the economies started to recover at that point. Now correlation does not prove causation, but a lack of correlation does indicate a lack of causation. If it was always a bad idea to cut government spending in face of a recession then we would expect to always see the economy worsening when that happened. But in at least two cases we saw the opposite. This does not prove that cutting government spending in the face of a recession is always a good idea, but it does create a lot of problems for any economists who believe that it is always a bad idea to cut government spending in the face of a recession.
This is why I question your understanding of the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” idea.

I know expecting coherence and fairness here is a long shot. I shouldn’t expect Dilan to honestly defend his claims.

“The bottom line is that NO government can function based on a system where there are strict limits on taxation and mandatory spending.”

… How is that intellectually dishonest?

There is one tax (property) that is strictly limited. The “mandatory spending” you claim is suspendable on the same two-thirds vote it takes to adopt a budget.

How am I being intellectually diehonest?

How?

Chris, you are arguing in bad faith. I don’t need to respond to intellectually dishonest people.

How about a mandate that the state budget CAN’T grow more than the rate of inflation if the current year is in deficit?

Conservatives can try 1000 different variations on “starve the beast”, and it still won’t work. The way to cut taxes is to CUT SPENDING. Not to create automatic mechanisms or rely on court rulings or impose limitations on revenue or strip money away from local governments. CUT SPENDING. Spending decisions drive taxation decisions. If you can keep spending low by cutting specific programs, you can keep taxes low. If you can’t, no artificially imposed mechanism is going to substitute for the lack of fiscal discipline.

Dilan Esper writes …

“The bottom line is that NO government can function based on a system where there are strict limits on taxation and mandatory spending.”

This is a crock. There is no “mandatory spending.” There is one “strict limit” on taxation — on property.

All other taxes can be raised on the same two-thirds vote required to adopt a state budget. All initiative-imposed spending mandates can be suspended by the same two-thirds vote required to adopt a state budget.

Dilan won’t address the fundamental fallacy of his premise. There is no “mandatory” spending. There is no across-the-board limit on tax increases.

He just goes on and on and on, however, ducking the fact that his basic premises are incorrect.

Mark N.: Texas

So if Texas gov’t can live with their property and sales taxes, but California can’t make ends meet with “reduced” property + sales + state income tax, whats the cure? More/higher taxes? A “free” loan from the people who have the privilege of working in California?

Companies are either straight up moving out, or moving various functions (=jobs) out to Tennessee, Texas, Florida, etc. There goes some of your tax base. Somehow, the state legislature can create incentives for tv/film production in the state, but not for other industries, whats wrong with the picture here?

How about a mandate that the state budget CAN’T grow more than the rate of inflation if the current year is in deficit? Not even cut, but just not grow more than inflation. I’m not so much about who caused the problem before, as what to do moving forward.

Redistricting California can also help in putting less extreme pols from both sides. That may have to be re-visited again if the state gov’t persists in antagonizing its employers.

Dilan Esper: I also dispute that it is an ad hominem fallacy to call the followers of Austrian Economics “cranks.” Just like calling alchemists “cranks,” the Austrian School is not considered part of mainstream economics by most economists, and so it is no different than calling Marxian economists “cranks.”But Marxist ECONOMISTS are cranks! Marx had plenty to contribute to political theory, social science, and all sorts of other disciplines. But Marxist economics doesn’t work, it is unscientific, it is not the basis of any valid, peer-reviewed work, it doesn’t explain the world, and the people who adhere to it do so for ideological reason (because they wish it was true). That’s Austrian economics to a T!There are rules in any scientific discipline as to what is “science” and “non-science.” You can argue that they are arbitrary, and I’m not even sure I’d dispute that with you, but the fact of the matter is that knowledge creation is not a perfect system, and people disagree on how to tell truth from falsity. So many people disagree with the Austrian school of economics that it is considered non-mainstream.It’s beyond that. There really isn’t any peer-review and research and testing and discarding or modification of hypotheses not supported by data in Austrian economics. It’s a theology, not a science.

I think you need to re-read my post again, because I was agreeing with you.

Actually, those aren’t, in general, 3 strikes inmates.

But further, what you are referring to is an emergency process whereby, because the 2/3rds budget requirement and the spending and taxation mandates prevent a rational budget from being passed, a court comes in and imposes some blunderbuss solution. And you say “you see, you don’t need to repeal spending and taxation mandates”.

With all respect, that’s just about the craziest and most idiotic argument about the budget process that I have ever heard. If your budget process is functional, you don’t need courts to come in and order the release thousands of potentially dangerous criminals. Seriously, that’s not only not a good outcome, but that’s not an outcome that any rational process could produce.

“Three strikes” on a practical level HAS JUST BEEN SUSPENDED!

How do you think the governor and Legislature are implementing their plan to release thousands of inmates to cut costs and comply with federal court orders?

You are simply uninformed about the nature of the initiative-created spending mandates.

1. Politicians =/ peer-reviewed, academic economists.

2. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, anyone?

But Marxist ECONOMISTS are cranks! Marx had plenty to contribute to political theory, social science, and all sorts of other disciplines. But Marxist economics doesn’t work, it is unscientific, it is not the basis of any valid, peer-reviewed work, it doesn’t explain the world, and the people who adhere to it do so for ideological reason (because they wish it was true). That’s Austrian economics to a T!

There are rules in any scientific discipline as to what is “science” and “non-science.” You can argue that they are arbitrary, and I’m not even sure I’d dispute that with you, but the fact of the matter is that knowledge creation is not a perfect system, and people disagree on how to tell truth from falsity. So many people disagree with the Austrian school of economics that it is considered non-mainstream.

It’s beyond that. There really isn’t any peer-review and research and testing and discarding or modification of hypotheses not supported by data in Austrian economics. It’s a theology, not a science.

The multiplier is a part of Keynes’ general theory, but it really isn’t integral to the concept of Keynesian stimulus. Keynes said that you can and should borrow money in recessions and repay it in good times. Supply siders want to do that through tax cuts; liberals want to do that through spending. But THAT aspect of Keynesianism is ONLY rejected by the Austrians, and the economics profession treats them the same way that biologists treat creationists– as ideologues, not scientists.

As for the multiplier itself, Cochrane cannot “show” that it is theoretically impossible, because it is theoretically possible. You are vastly overstating your claim, though I would certainly concede that some mainstream economists are skeptical about claims about the size of the multiplier.

Actually, among economists who are not discredited cranks (i.e., not Austrians), Keynesian stimulus is basically universally accepted.

Ah, the no true Scotsman fallacy. Dilan said that:

There’s no accepted economic theory that says it’s a good idea to slash government spending during a recession. Not even right wing economists believe that.

When I cited some evidence of some economic leaders who did indeed slash government spending during a recession, Dilan moves from his statement that “Not even right-wing economists believe that” to “among economists who are not discredited cranks…” Notice that Dilan doesn’t try to show that Ruth Richardson or Margaret Thatcher or Roger Kerr, author of the paper I cited, were discredited cranks. Nor does he address the economic recovery observed in those countries in response to the cuts, an argument which rather implies that the idea of cutting government spending in a recession is not necessarily a disastrous idea. This is the True Scotsman fallacy, Dilan has carefully insulated his belief in the universally-accepted nature of Keynesian stimulus by redefining anyone who provides differing evidence as a “discredited crank” he can ignore.
Economics may be a scientific discipline, but Dilan’s belief in the universal-acceptance of Keynesian stimulus ain’t scientific.

I never said it can’t be suspended in theory. I said it can’t be repealed, and that 2/3 majorities are so hard to come by that it isn’t an answer to say you can suspend with a 2/3 majority.

And this is ONLY proposition 98 that can be so suspended.

All the rest of the spending mandates– three strikes, one strike, the death penalty, etc.– CANNOT even be suspended by the legislature, not even with a UNANIMOUS vote.

The two-thirds’ threshold to suspend is the same as to adopt the budget. Duh!

Dilan Esper: cranks

Dilan Esper: You’re doing an admirable job defending your views (and I agree with much of what you have to say); however, it’s an ad hominem fallacy to call all Austrian economists “cranks” — and a particularly ill-advised strategy on a libertarian-leaning website such as this one.They aren’t a serious part of the economics profession, and it’s important to separate them from, for instance, mainstream conservative economists or even supply siders. For instance, the authors of the Reagan/Kemp/Roth tax cuts of the early 1980’s certainly did not reject Keynesian stimulus.

It depends on what you mean by “Keynesian stimulus.” The fact that GDP increases when government spending increases and that it contracts when government spending is cut (all else equal) is a matter of an accounting identity that nearly any 100-level macro student can rattle off. C+G+I+(X-M)=Y

The assertion that $1 increase in G will produce more than a $1 increase in Y is where “stimulus” becomes “Keynesian stimulus.” And to say that a multiplier greater than one is “generally accepted” or the norm is false. I can expand the identity out more and explain how the case is made for such a multiplier or I can show you the work of mainstream, modern economists like John Cochrane who can show that it is theoretically impossible. Either way, it is not outside of mainstream economics to suggest that $1 of G gives us $1 increase in Y. It is a fact to some economists and disputed to others.

I also dispute that it is an ad hominem fallacy to call the followers of Austrian Economics “cranks.” Just like calling alchemists “cranks,” the Austrian School is not considered part of mainstream economics by most economists, and so it is no different than calling Marxian economists “cranks.”

There are rules in any scientific discipline as to what is “science” and “non-science.” You can argue that they are arbitrary, and I’m not even sure I’d dispute that with you, but the fact of the matter is that knowledge creation is not a perfect system, and people disagree on how to tell truth from falsity. So many people disagree with the Austrian school of economics that it is considered non-mainstream.

BC:
Which demonstrates the political corruption of the discipline, not the empirical validity of Keynesian stimulus.But yes, it’s terribly inconvenient to the mainstream that these “discredited cranks” continue to, correctly, point out that the emperor has no clothes, and that acceptance of Keynesian stimulus is essentially faith-based given the negligible-to-nonexistent evidence that it actually works.

There’s no question that GDP increases with more govenrment spending. It is true as a matter of identity, which essentially means that if you deny it, you’re arguing a definition, not making an analytical argument.

Dilan Esper: Which demonstrates the political corruption of the discipline, not the empirical validity of Keynesian stimulus. But yes, it’s terribly inconvenient to the mainstream that these “discredited cranks” continue to, correctly, point out that the emperor has no clothes, and that acceptance of Keynesian stimulus is essentially faith-based given the negligible-to-nonexistent evidence that it actually works.I believe the best line about Austrians was what one Nobel winner said about them: “when I hear people talk about believing in the Austrian school of economics, I interpret this the same way I would a chemist professing belief in the alchemy theory of chemistry or a doctor believing in the humour theory of disease”.Economics is a scientific discipline, BC, and there aren’t any Austrians out there whose work is surviving peer review and there hasn’t been for a long time. And this isn’t an ideological thing– there are plenty of very good conservative economists.Austrian economics isn’t a scientific discipline– it’s a giant conspiracy theory. Unfortunately, it’s very ideologically convenient for libertarians and conservatives, so it still attracts followers despite its unseriousness.

Oops! I should have read that first…you made my points before I even bothered to type them out.

I will say that one point is incorrect, however. There are peer reviewed journals that will print Austrian stuff (as well as other obscure theoretical work).

Suspended, yes. Repealed, no. This means you have to get 2/3rds of the legislature to vote to suspend it every year. And as I said, you can’t get 2/3rds of the legislature to do anything in this state.

Further, that’s ONLY Prop. 98. You can’t suspend 3 strikes with 2/3rds of the legislature, or the death penalty, or one strike.

Face it Chris, you are basically saying that Alcatraz wasn’t totally escape proof because you might be able to tunnel your way out under San Francisco Bay.

Prop. 98 was suspended a few years back.

Duh!

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4RNTN_enUS341US351&q=prop+98+suspended

I believe the best line about Austrians was what one Nobel winner said about them: “when I hear people talk about believing in the Austrian school of economics, I interpret this the same way I would a chemist professing belief in the alchemy theory of chemistry or a doctor believing in the humour theory of disease”.

Economics is a scientific discipline, BC, and there aren’t any Austrians out there whose work is surviving peer review and there hasn’t been for a long time. And this isn’t an ideological thing– there are plenty of very good conservative economists.

Austrian economics isn’t a scientific discipline– it’s a giant conspiracy theory. Unfortunately, it’s very ideologically convenient for libertarians and conservatives, so it still attracts followers despite its unseriousness.

Chris:

The legislature cannot repeal Prop. 98, 3 strikes, 10-20-life, one strike, the death penalty, or any of the other spending mandates I mentioned. Only the voters can.

Further, I might add that saying that you can do something with 2/3rds of the legislature is the same as saying you can’t do it at all. We can barely pass a budget, usually late and often after government shutdowns. Saying that anything else “can” be done under that requirement other than what is already done only kicking and screaming is silly.