The choice facing California voters May 19 is, to put it mildly, unpleasant. The budget deal hammered out by the governor and legislative leaders — which these six ballot measures will confirm and implement — at least kept the state solvent and prevented a financial catastrophe. But the solution is just terrible, and will lock the state into a budgetary nightmare for years to come.
State Sen. Mark Leno, who supports the deal, makes no attempt to soft-peddle what went on here. It was, he told us, the result of "extortion." Because California has an arcane and counterproductive rule mandating that any state budget and any tax increases must be approved by two-thirds of both houses of the Legislature, and because Republicans control just enough votes to block any budget, and because those Republicans have all signed a written promise never to raise taxes under any circumstances, and because Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger can't get the GOP to go along with his compromises and is unwilling to accept Democratic proposals that might escape the onerous supermajority, budget stalemate in tough times is almost guaranteed.
And in this case, because the state was running out of cash and hundreds of thousands of people were about to be put out of work as state-funded projects shut down, the Democrats were forced to accept a compromise none of them like.
A small number of Republicans insisted on vast changes in the way California does business — and because the Democrats saw no other options, the GOP faction got much of what it wanted. The result: the Democratic Party leadership is campaigning for a series of measures that reflect, to a significant extent, a Republican view of how the state should be run.
The opposition to the package comes from the far right (which is upset because the budget deal includes some new taxes, albeit regressive ones) and, increasingly, progressives, who argue that the measures will make it harder for the state to meet the needs of a growing (and aging) population.
We've listened to both sides, researched the measures in depth, and concluded that the best choice for Californians is to reject Propositions 1A through 1F. The proposal may address (most of) this year's budget woes and keep the state running for a while, but it will create a fiscal straightjacket on the order of Proposition 13 that will damage California and undermine any progressive policy hopes for many, many years into the future. If the voters accept this deal today, they'll come to regret it.
Proposition 1A doesn't quite reach the Republican holy grail — a cap on annual government spending — but it goes a long way in that direction. The measure would require the state to make annual contributions to a budget reserve fund until the reserve reaches 12.5 percent of general fund revenue. The state would have to set aside reserve money every year, even in very bad years. If next year's budget deficit is as bad as this one, Prop. 1A would make it worse. It restricts the use of "unanticipated revenues" — meaning the state can't spend money it might have in very good years. There's a really complicated formula for when the state can dip into the reserve, and how it can be used, but the California Budget Project, the respected policy watchdog group, points out that the measure amounts to a cap in spending, one that won't keep pace with California's needs.
"Prop. ...
Prop 1 A is the opposite of President Obama's policies to deal with the Bush Recession. Where Obama is pumping money into the economy to get it moving, Prop 1A takes money out of the economy. It enacts an arbitrary spending cap that not only ties the hands of the legislature but will be disastrous for the eduction. For years, the Governor has been robbing education of funding -- the cap will prevent the state from returning education to the priority it once was.
And while President Obama proposes to cut taxes for the middle class and raise them for the rich, Proposition 1A adds a regressive sales tax that will affect the poor and middle class much more than the rich. This is exactly the wrong medicine in as state where more than one in ten are unemployed.
And, Proposition 1A throws Constitutional checks and balances out the window and gives the governor complete, unchallanged authority to make cuts to the budget. No hearings, no votes, no nothin'.
Finally, the nonpartisan California Budget Project says that Proposition 1A is incompatible with existing set-asides, and could result in "unintended consequences," including the defunding of programs that lack constitutional protection, including higher education, health, and human services.
City College's American Federation of Teachers Local 2121 has expressed serious concerns about what Proposition 1A means for the future of education in California. Hopefully, the Board of Trustees will see the danger Prop 1A poses for education.
John Rizzo
Trustee, San Francisco Community College District
(Read my resolution at [link])
Prop 1 A is the opposite of President Obama's policies to deal with the Bush Recession. Where Obama is pumping money into the economy to get it moving, Prop 1A takes money out of the economy. It enacts an arbitrary spending cap that not only ties the hands of the legislature but will be disastrous for the eduction. For years, the Governor has been robbing education of funding -- the cap will prevent the state from returning education to the priority it once was.
And while President Obama proposes to cut taxes for the middle class and raise them for the rich, Proposition 1A adds a regressive sales tax that will affect the poor and middle class much more than the rich. This is exactly the wrong medicine in as state where more than one in ten are unemployed.
And, Proposition 1A throws Constitutional checks and balances out the window and gives the governor complete, unchallanged authority to make cuts to the budget. No hearings, no votes, no nothin'.
Finally, the nonpartisan California Budget Project says that Proposition 1A is incompatible with existing set-asides, and could result in "unintended consequences," including the defunding of programs that lack constitutional protection, including higher education, health, and human services.
City College's American Federation of Teachers Local 2121 has expressed serious concerns about what Proposition 1A means for the future of education in California. Hopefully, the Board of Trustees will see the danger Prop 1A poses for education.
John Rizzo
Trustee, San Francisco Community College District
(Read my resolution at [link]
John Rizzo said
" Where Obama is pumping money into the economy to get it moving, Prop 1A takes money out of the economy. .... Governor has been robbing education of funding -- the cap will prevent the state from returning education to the priority it once was."
____________________
The federal budget for good or bad isn't required to balance. California's budget by law must balance. Unless you propose using bonds to finance current expenses, (like making mortgage payments on a credit card) as a solution to the shortfall I don't see where you find the money to continue State spending at historical levels. Taxes are money pumped into the public sector having been taken from individuals and certainly don't increase the total number of dollars available to spend, (pumping money into the ecconomy).
As for education being a priority, every graph I've seen shows education expenditures and per student expenditures in California increasing faster than the states economy. It also seems that we spend far more on education than other advanced countries whose students outperform ours. We seem to be getting less for more. It's possible that we can't afford to simply spend more without getting more for each dollar.
Comment on: Arnold's big hoax
In order to comment on an article, you must Log In.
