THE FISCAL MESS that brought on California's gubernatorial recall election was in part created by measures like Proposition 53, which is scheduled for a vote Oct. 7 if the recall election is not delayed. The proposed amendment to the state constitution would dedicate a mandatory stream of General Fund dollars to pay for infrastructure upgrades such as highway repairs. But it doesn't provide any new revenue for that spending.

So the measure would force state officials to take cash from other areas – housing, public health, or education, for example – to ensure there's enough money to build roads.

Sure, a lot of roads (and water systems and bridges and other parts of the state's infrastructure) are old and in need of repair. But this proposal, promoted by the California Chamber of Commerce and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, is exactly the wrong way to go about solving that problem. If the chamber wants better highways, it ought to support new taxes to pay for them.

Prop. 53 contains some language intended to protect the fund during tight economic times. But it's not clear those protections are good enough. The state Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that if the measure had been on the books during the 1990s, General Fund transfers would have been required even during years with huge deficits.