What’s good for the conservative goose is good for the liberal goose.

That’s the liberals anyway, as the state legislature grapples with the age-old question of taxes in the frenetic final days of this year’s legislative session.

And since the libs control the legislature, their opinion is likely to prevail. But it’s not easy. They deal with politically sensitive issues. Some moderate Dem

okrat

s might hesitate.

Here’s another way to simplify this very complex battle by using another old cliché: The Democrats are trying to give the Republicans a dose of their own medicine.

Lesson for Republicans: Be careful what you come up with.

Okay, what this entails is the latest battle in the eternal war between corporate interests and organized labor, represented by the Republicans and Democrats, over taxation.

Specifically, the question is how difficult or easy it should be to raise state and local taxes. The Republicans are trying to make it even more difficult. The Democrats essentially want to keep the current rules.

Business and anti-tax interests collected 1.4 million voter signatures and qualified initiative for November

,

Among other things, a state vote in 2024 would require a two-thirds vote of citizens to raise certain local taxes.

Currently, local general taxes that can be spent for any purpose can be increased by a simple majority vote of the citizens.

A local special tax earmarked for a specific purpose requires a two-thirds vote, at least until recent court rulings they all had.

Now it seems that special taxes proposed through the initiative process by local citizens such as a union can be passed by majority vote. Special taxes proposed by government agencies still require a two-thirds majority.

The corporate interest voting measure would revert the rules to what they were before the court rulings: All special taxes would require a two-thirds vote.

But the voting initiative does much more.

It would make raising state and local government fees much more difficult, potentially categorizing some fees as taxes.

And a biggie: Any tax increase passed by the legislature would have to be approved by California voters.

Now the legislature itself can raise state taxes. But that requires a two-thirds majority. That was dictated by Proposition 13, the pioneering 1978 property tax curtailment initiative.

Proposition 13 required two-thirds votes for taxes in the legislature and local communities, but itself was passed by just under two-thirds of voters.

Prior to Proposal 13, the legislature could raise taxes based on a simple majority vote. And occasionally it was raised or lowered to adapt to current economic and earnings conditions. It has lost the easy ability to update the tax code, which is now outdated.

But back to the goose and the goose.

The Democrats countered the harsh tax initiative with their own gotcha measure ahead of the March primary. It would require that any vote proposal to raise the voter threshold for tax increases also pass with the same voter threshold.

The Democratic measure, ACA 13, is about fairness, incoming Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) claimed in a statement when the proposed constitutional amendment was suddenly introduced last week by Assemblyman Christopher Ward (D-San Diego).

This important bill ends an unfair double standard and protects the majority of the vote.

Or as Assemblyman Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) said to ACA 13 opponents during a committee hearing: The majority vote is okay for things you support, but not okay for things you don’t support.

Under current law, the anti-tax initiative, primarily sponsored by the California Business Roundtable, could pass in November

,

2024 by a simple majority of state voters. But if the Democratic ballot measure passes first in March, the initiative will require a two-thirds supermajority which is likely too high a bar in presidential elections that will no doubt draw a high turnout of Democratic voters.

But first, ACA 13 must pass the legislature before it is postponed on September 14. And that requires a two-thirds majority from each house, a tall hurdle, even though the Democrats have a supermajority.

Anti-tax interests present their initiative as a protector of Proposition 13, although the connection is tenuous at best. Neither it nor ACA 13 has anything to do with property taxes.

Proposition 13 is still the third tier of California politics and people don’t want to argue with it, says Scott Kaufman, a lobbyist for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., named after Proposition 13’s main advocate.

The measure was approved by the first committee shortly after its introduction. It was approved on party line by a 5-2 vote. But one Democrat, Baldwin Park MP Blanca Rubio, abstained because she feared the proposal could undermine Proposition 13.

Talking about proposal 13, lawmakers quickly become very concerned, says industry roundtable

P

Chairman Rob Lapsley. This case is far from over.

But on the Democratic side, Rivas has raised the issue by intervening and pushing. That’s usually significant, but this rookie speaker hasn’t been tested yet.

Local governments are lobbying hard for ACA 13.

The powerful Service Employees International Union is also pushing. Many of its members are civil servants. Making it more difficult to raise taxes would reduce the revenue needed for their pay raises and benefits.

Personally, I think that taxes in California are too high and should certainly not be increased.

But I oppose the pre-tax supermajority voting requirements. They allow a minority of voters to block the will of the majority. That doesn’t seem democratic.