As anyone who's been reading my blog for a while knows, I am a social liberal and a fiscal semi-conservative.  For the most part, on fiscal policy at the State and Federal level, I support paying for infrastructure, education and medical care for all people.  I'm not so keen on bailouts but was persuaded to back them.  I'm not so keen on taxes either, but I understand quite well the need to pay for goods and services that are common to us all but that no one would pay for individually unless they were forced to: clean air, fire departments, police departments, medical care (including mental health services, etc.)

Which leads me to California's sorry state of financial affairs.  In a nutshell, we are some $40 billion short of meeting our financial obligations over the next two years.  As a result, our State legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger put together a gaggle of 6 propositions aimed (according to them) at solving both our current fiscal shortfall and also mending some budget issues for the long term.

By way of background for my recommended slate of up or down votes on these 6 propositions, I will provide a summary here of what I feel the two crucial issues are that would genuinely move us in the direction of sound fiscal policy.  Then I will list each proposition with my recommendation.  As opposed to my thorough dissection of most propositions, I'm going with a quick and dirty yea or nay.  I know by-mail voters already have their ballots, so I want to get the recommendations out quickly.  If you have questions, I can supply details in subsequent postings.

Two Crucial California Budget Issues: 

1.  Ballot Box Budgeting:  I know, I know..you've heard this from me before.  And you'll hear it again now.  One of the most unwieldy processes for building a budget is a semi-sacred cow here in California.  We have, for the past several decades; limited the ability of our legislature to increase property taxes resulting in underfunded education, voted in new taxes and earmarked the funds raised by those taxes for special programs outside the legislature's control and outside of the General Fund budget, and we have voted to reserve a HUGE portion of our general fund for K-14 education under proposition 98. (45% of the general budget if my sources got their math right.) 

These mandated expenditures take up a substantial portion of our tax dollars and then we sit back and blame the legislature for not properly budgeting when we've tied one hand behind their backs.

2.  Super-Majority Required for Tax Increases and Budget Passage:  California is the ONLY State in the union where a super-majority vote of the legislature is required to both pass a budget and to raise any state taxes.  The super-majority rule, intended to protect the taxpayer from rapacious State legislatures, has resulted in partisan stalemates over budgets and in the ability of the minority party to hold the majority party hostage.

I can possibly support a super-majority for tax increases...but for budgeting?  It's pure nonsense.

With those two points firmly in mind, here's my roundup for the May 19th ballot.

Proposition 1A:  Vote Yes.  Painful as it is, imperfect as it is, Proposition 1A is how we're going to pay the piper for our whimsy at the ballot box and our refusal to hold legislators truly accountable beyond partisan bickering.  We owe the money, we should pay the extra taxes (1% sales tax, restoring the Vehicle License Fees to pre-pandering Arnold levels and increasing personal income tax by .25 percent across the board).  I also think that the Rainy Day Fund (aka BSF) increase is a plus and that the ability of the governor to reduce operational expenses and withhold cost-of-living adjustments for programs will help rather than hurt us.

Proposition 1B: Vote No.  I have quite a few friends who are teachers or former teachers, so I know my opinion will not be popular with them...however, I fail to see how creating a $9.3 billion "supplemental education" obligation against a $1.4 billion current "debt" created by Prop 98 helps us balance the budget in the long term.  It smells to me like a way to buy the Teachers' Union support of 1A and 1B.

Proposition 1C: Vote No.  I have nothing against modernizing our lottery to enhance revenue to the State and provide more oversight.  But I do have a SIGNIFICANT objection to securitizing future lottery earnings, borrowing against projected earnings now and paying more for them (with interest) in the future.
Didn't we learn anything from Wall Street's implosion?

Proposition 1D:  Vote Yes.  This will temporarily take funds from existing surplus funds accumulated under Prop 10 (ballot box budgeting for children and family services) to pay for State programs targeted at the same constituents.  It may reduce some programs temporarily, but since the program has an uncommitted surplus equal to the fund diversion, I see this as common sense.

Proposition 1E:  Vote Yes.  See above.  Same argument, different ballot box budget diversion.

Proposition 1F:  Vote Yes.  This proposition is more about the message than the meat.  The dollars saved will be negligible, but telling our State legislators "no budget, no raise" makes sense to me.  Heck, I'd go a step further and say, "no surplus, no raise."  But that's me.

That wraps it up for this edition of the Laura Morefield Proposition Voter's Guide.  If you have questions, ask.

Here are a few handy websites to do more research on your own:

The California Budget Project

League of Women Voters (whom I disagree with a lot this time!)

Leave a Reply