California's budget process is broken. Democrats use their majority to spend as much as they can. Republicans use their leverage under the two-thirds requirement for budget and taxation to block the taxes needed to pay for that spending. At budget times, this produces delay and last-minute compromises that merely serve to push problems into the future.

Word is that the folks at California Forward (and an increasing number of good government types) say they want to change this system - by eliminating the two-thirds requirement for budgets (to a majority) while preserving the 2/3 requirement for taxes. Among the various explanations I've heard for this, the one most oft-repeated is: budgets, which last only a year, should be easier to pass, but tax increases are open-ended (except when they're not, as in this year's temporary increases) and should be harder. There's also a political explanation. California Forward is trying to avoid opposition from Republicans.

The problem? This half-measure doesn't change the system. It preserves it. In fact, changing the vote requirement for the budget and not taxes would embed the current dysfunctional dynamic even deeper in our legislative politics.

With a majority vote budget, it'd be even easier for the majority Democrats to enact their spending priorities. And for minority Republicans, having lost their leverage on the budget, they would hold on even tighter to their 2/3 leverage on taxes and block the revenue increases needed to pay for Democratic spending priorities and balance the state books. It seems reasonable to assume that under California Forward's system, the state's persistent budget deficits would grow in size.

In other words, this system gives us the worst of both worlds - unchecked Democratic spending and more Republican intransigence on taxes.

The basic problem in our system is not delays. That's a symptom of the real problem, which is lack of accountability. The majority party doesn't own the budget - both parties are responsible, since it requires Republicans votes. It's a dodge to try to change the budget rules without the tax rules. Taxes are part of the budget-the two issues are indivisible. To restore accountability to budgeting, you have to give the legislative majority ownership of the budget that includes ownership of taxation. Any problems - too high spending, too high taxes - will be the fault of the party in power. And then voters can punish them.

This half-measure (changing the vote on budget not taxes), by preserving the current dynamic, would be worse than no change at all.

Heck, if the folks at California Forward are committed to half-measures, they should do the exact opposite of what they now propose. Switch to a majority vote for taxes, but keep the two-thirds vote for spending. This might produce a deficit hawk's paradise. The Republicans would have the two-thirds leverage to block spending (good for the health of the budget) while Democrats would find it easier to raise taxes (also good for the health of the budget).