The New York Post recently noted the exact problem with California’s state budget — the rate of growth is higher than rate of inflation, for some years (1991 to 2009) even double the rate of inflation.
Since our elected officials in Sacramento have shown they can’t balance a budget and need some guidance, Proposition 31 gives it to them. Among other things, the measure prohibits creating expenditures of over $25 million unless offsetting revenue or spending cuts are identified, requires performance reviews of all state programs and requires the publication of bills at least three days prior to a vote. These are just three of the items that I believe make it worth a “Yes” vote. This proposition will provide some of the needed guidance to the Governor and legislature.
Sacramento politicians, for the most part, lack the ability to be fiscally responsible. Because of this, the people must step in and impose rules. Yet, politicians, if they don’t like voter approved measures, do their best to water them down. Just two examples:
- Remember Proposition 25 that voters passed in 2010? It was argues that would solve the budget problem because it gave the legislature a simple majority to pass a budget, but with the understanding that if they were late in doing so, their pay would be suspended. Well, our elected friends in Sacramento sued and had the salary suspension part ruled unconstitutional, meaning now they get to pass a budget on a simple majority, yet with no punishment if they are late. Don’t you love it when they thumb their noses at us and we allow them to get away with it?
- How about Proposition 4, the “Gann Limit” Initiative that voters passed in 1979? (Governor Brown actually supported this measure during his first stint as Governor.) Among its many rules, it restricted the rate of budget growth based upon cost of living and growth in population. But the legislature has since watered it down to the point that it no longer has any teeth.
Since politicians have failed to show adequate restraint when it comes to the size of government, reform is needed and it’s apparent it’s not going to come from Sacramento. It includes some costs, but isn’t it worth it if the measure mandates fiscal restraint on State legislators? While I would like more “teeth” in Prop 31, the prop is good enough to force our representatives in Sacramento to follow the dictate of the people and to control their spending (well, at least for a little while until our dear elected friends in Sacramento find a way to water it down like the others) . Since the Governor and legislature have shown they cannot balance a “real” budget, nor can they say no to increasing the size of programs, this measure is needed.
Special interest groups are not going to like Prop 31 because it controls growth, but how are we going to solve the continuous problems with the State budget unless we do control it?
On a side note, if I were writing a measure to address the budget, I would bring back the two propositions mentioned above, 4 and 25, and I would also require the budget be approved as balanced, without any gimmicks. BTW, here’s something I wrote way back in 2009; sadly, things haven’t changed.
So, ignore the pleas of special interests and help guide our elected officials in showing them how to actually attempt to balance a real budget. We need to try to solve the state’s continuous budget mess. We need to mold California back into the kind of state that businesses will want to be based, instead of leaving, thus raising tax revenue by the sheer number of businesses and employees. Sacramento politicians have shown that they have limited self-control, so let’s assist them. I urge you to help save the state and vote “Yes” on Proposition 31.
Comments 3
Roger,
This top layer of this Constitutional Amendment sounds pretty good, but have you taken any time to dissect the Community Strategic Action Plans portion of the prop? I find this prop to be very vaguely written.
It creates a new trust fund in the state treasury to fund this experimental community plan. The money will come from tax revenues that could be spent on education and other vital areas.
The Strategic Plans will add more paperwork and more bureaucracy and could end up in litigation between all levels of Government. It even adds to the possibility that cities can circumvent state law if that state law intervenes with the local communities Strategic Action Plan.
My other concerns are:
The language regarding the fiscal emergencies and holding a special session to address the emergency is quite vague and could be construed to allow the legislature to raise fees on a majority vote, rather than a 2/3.
It will also prevent the state from increasing funding for education unless it raises taxes or cuts other programs, even if we have available money.
It also prevents the state from cutting taxes unless it raises taxes elsewhere or cuts programs, even if we have a surplus.
These are just a few issues I have found while researching this large 22 page, 8,000 word Proposition that, if passed, will be a CA State Constitutional Amendment.
There will always be issues in a good proposition that some will dislike, but here’s the issue- California has a problem and this attempts to help with a solution. What I like, which you apparently don’t, is forcing our elected friends to either find new sources of revenue or cut existing programs to fund increased spending. That makes sense to me and hopefully our friends in Sacramento are smart enough not to cut from programs that the people feel should be fully funded.
I had to laugh when you mentioned surplus. You realize this is California? A surplus in a state that the majority is democrat and the majority party is democrat. I don’t see a surplus coming for a long time.
The other issues you bring up might be valid, but like other propositions I mentioned, this too will be watered down to the point of having no teeth.
I agree with Michael – Congressman Tom McClintock says the following:
“Prop 31: Rotting Mackerel by Moonlight – NO This one shines and stinks. On the shiny side, it moves us toward performance-based budgeting, restores certain powers to the governor to make mid-year spending reductions and requires new spending to be paid for. On the stinky side, it provides a two-year budget cycle that makes fiscal gimmickry all the easier and locks into the Constitution an incredibly anal process for local communities to adopt “Strategic Action Plans” serving such open-ended new age objectives as “community equity” and nudges them into establishing regional governments to push this agenda. The purpose of local governments is to provide basic services, not to pursue utopian four-year plans.”
In addition – the biggest donors to get this on the ballot are the same people/groups that gave us Prop.14 (and that is not working out very well).