At long last, we have a budget in California.  It's a mix of program cuts ($14.8 billion focused primarily on education programs, health and social services programs and local transportation funding) and tax increases ($12.5 billion spread across sales tax increase, vehicle license fees, income tax increase and a cut in the income tax credit for dependent children).

Governor Arnie added some flair of his own with $1.3 billion line item vetoes, cutting budgets of various state offices including (and perhaps punitively) the Lt. Governor's office.  According to the Sacramento Bee, Scwharzenegger said he did it "to ensure that sufficient resources are reserved for key programs within state government. In these tough times, we cannot continue to fund the Office of the Lieutenant Governor at the level provided in recent years."  I note that he did not find it necessary to "ensure sufficient resources" by cutting his own office's budget.

I do give him props for cutting $400 million from the Department of Corrections and (ahem) Rehabilitation.  (I say "ahem" because there IS no rehabilitation in the DOC in this woman's opinion.)

The budget also includes borrowing from the lottery fund, among other things, to the tune of $5 billion from the lottery fund alone.  There were also some tax breaks for businesses aiming to keep business in California and expediting some work permiting processes for a few highway projects.

Overall, the budget has the stitched together feel of a Frankenstein monster.  Part of the problem is our process for budgeting.  The 2/3 vote needed to pass the budget allows people to essentially hijack the process and get pet projects added.  As an example, Senator Abel Maldonado of Santa Maria (a tiny part of the Central Coast), made a deal to vote for the budget only if the legislature agreed to modify our election rules to allow for "open primaries" where anyone can vote for any candidate of any party. 

Sounds good on its face but the catch is that only the top two primary vote getters are on the general election ballot.  This effectively would eliminate third party candidates from general elections.  For more on why this is a bad idea, check out this LA Times commentary.

The other part of our problem, as I have preached long and hard, is ballot box budgeting wherein through the Proposition process, California voters have hamstrung the legislature by reducing what's truly discretionary spending to a minority piece of the budget pie.

As far as I'm concerned, the increase in taxes ($960 for a person making $75,000 per year) is relatively palatable.  (I realize that many people will disagree with that assessment, especially during tough economic times.) What's not palatable, indeed, not workable is being tied to funding programs that may or may not work because they sounded good during a Proposition campaign.

On the personal front, we passed a lovely day with Dick and Dotty...doing errands, having lunch at the club, and eating a light dinner a few moments ago.  The day was gorgeous and I went for a walk (which is tax-free at the moment) with my hubby.  Sacramento may be all honked up, but a good day is still a good day.

 


Comments




Leave a Reply