Fear of Voter Backlash Stymies All Attempts at Reform : Taxes: Most legislators refuse to risk constituents’ wrath by tampering with Proposition 13. Experts say there is little for politicians to gain by promoting change in the interest of good policy.

If tax reform was considered overdue in California in 1965, and if the state tax system is even more archaic in many ways now, why hasn’t anything been done about it?

Tax experts and political leaders cite a combination of factors, but chief among them is fear of a voter backlash against anyone who suggests raising taxes or tampering with Proposition 13.

Provisions of Proposition 13, the 1978 voter revolt ballot initiative that slashed property taxes, make reform virtually impossible because a two-thirds vote of both houses of the state Legislature is required for any tax increase to pass.

Even if a tax reform plan was revenue-neutral--making no net increase or reduction in tax collections overall--it almost certainly would require increasing some taxes. Except in extraordinary cases, there are enough tax foes in the Legislature to block any such effort.

Because Proposition 13 is part of the state Constitution, it cannot be changed without amending the Constitution. That would take another initiative petition or a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature to place a measure on the state ballot. Then, voters would have to approve the measure by a majority vote.

Experts say there is little political capital to be gained--and plenty to risk--by promoting tax reform in the interest of good public policy. Any comprehensive reform plan is bound to anger a variety of special interests or political constituencies because it will either seek to end tax benefits or shift the tax burden in some other way.

The lesson of the Proposition 13 tax revolt was learned well by politicians who have gone to Sacramento since 1978. A crop of conservative anti-tax Republican legislators elected in 1978 are still known as “Proposition 13 babies.”

Assemblyman Johan Klehs of San Leandro, the Democratic chairman of the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee, said, “Politicians in the last 20 years have gotten elected on reducing taxes and being tough on crime.

“I’ve got one person (on the committee) who tells me they represent the anger of the voters and they can’t vote for any tax increase, and don’t want to vote for any budget cuts, and are worried about getting reelected.

“This is one of the new ‘reformers’ we’ve got,” Klehs said.

Klehs is particularly frustrated that it takes a two-thirds vote to end a particular tax break or loophole, but only a majority vote to spend state money to create a new tax benefit for someone. The pressure to create more breaks is particularly intense in difficult economic times.

Some conservative Republicans seem to be just as frustrated about the difficulty of reform, even though they and Democrats would differ markedly on the details.

Former Assemblyman Tom McClintock of Ventura County, now the director of the Center for the California Taxpayer, agrees with his liberal counterparts that the best revenue system is one in which taxes are levied across a broad array of economic activities with a minimum of exemptions or loopholes and the lowest possible rates.

“The problem with such reforms,” McClintock said, “is that they immediately attract the opposition of every interest group” that currently enjoys special benefits.

“Now they have developed an enormous stake in maintaining the system as it is. What’s necessary to change? Bring back Hiram Johnson, a crusading governor who will take his case to the people.”

Johnson hasn’t been governor since 1917, but McClintock’s point of view is shared by others.

“The problem in California right now is you don’t have one visionary leader who’s out there saying, ‘In the next 10 years, here are the problems you’re going to face and this is how much it’s going to cost to fix it,’ ” Klehs said.

One way of getting into tax reform could be through a bipartisan commission that might posture itself as being above politics--or at least the sort of political wrangling that has stymied timely action on the budget in recent years. A reform program from such a prestigious commission might be sold to voters if it had the support of leaders of both major political parties and the California business community, as did Proposition 111, the 1990 gas tax increase.

Gov. Pete Wilson this week signed into law a bill authored by Sen. Lucy Killea (I-San Diego) that creates a 23-member Constitution Revision Commission to study the state budget process. The commission can involve itself in tax reform and “the structure of state governance” as it relates to the budget process.

Wilson had vetoed similar bills the previous two years, arguing that the commission was not necessary. He supported the legislation this year after Killea amended it to give the governor 10 of the appointments and authority to select the chairman.

John Brennan, the director of the Los Angeles Times Poll, said politicians may be overreacting to the perceived voter anger over taxes.

Brennan said his review of California opinion polls on taxation since the passage of Proposition 13 does not support the conventional wisdom.

“Waste-conscious, recession-beaten Californians are clearly ornery and resistant to the idea of any increased taxation,” Brennan said. “But they are by no means hysterical over the subject, and evidence is lacking that they are any more anti-tax now than ever before.”