The Los Angeles Times praises a bizarre initiative, filed late last month, that would remove the entire legislature (and, in some cases, automatically remove the governor from office) if lawmakers don't pass a budget on time. In the event of a late budget, the governor and the lawmakers would not only be kicked out of office but they would be barred from returning to elected office for two years. There are all kinds of practical problems, but the Times seems to like the blast at the legislature. It's a symptom of the extreme frustration -- and powerlessness -- Californians are feeling as they watch their governor and legislature fiddle as the state runs out of cash.

It's a sign of the anger out there that this initiative is not the first time the notion of firing the whole legislature has come up. There's been persistent conversation among conservatives in California about coming up with some way to dissolve the legislature. But nothing's been filed, and my sources have been unwilling to go on the record.

California's governor initially indicated he would veto an $18 billion package of cuts and tax increases that had been passed last week by the Democratic legislature on majority vote. But yesterday, he said he had made progress in negotiations with Democrats on the package. Schwarzenegger simply wants a rollback of some laws that he thinks restrain economic growth.

This package, put together by legislative Democrats, is significant not merely as a response to the ongoing state buget crisis. It's a precedent setter because it involves passing a tax increase without the two-thirds vote required under the California constitution. Republicans are crying foul and threatening to challenge the package in court. If Schwarzenegger agrees to sign the legislation after these current talks, you can expect a lawsuit.

That litigation may prove crucial not only to preventing the state from running out of cash in two months. Depending on how the courts rule, it may open up a new era in California's budget politics, providing a crucial loophole around the two-thirds rule on taxes (which was part of Prop 13). The state constitution also requires a two-thirds vote for a budget; that law has been in place since the 1930s.

Joel Fox, writing at Fox & Hounds Daily, suggests a way to counter the California Democratic proposal to raise taxes without the usual two-thirds vote. The proposal is part of an effort to break a partisan logjam over how to respond to the state's budget crisis. Since some of the taxes are being classified as "fees," Fox suggests that opponents could put a referendum on the ballot. Under the state constitution, bills that raise taxes can't be subject to referendum. But there's nothing against qualifying a referendum on fees.