Proposition 76
My take on CA Proposition 76 -
Yes
This is part of my ongoing series of posts on
each of the Propositions we'll be voting on. Here is the
original post, with my ground rules for evaluating propositions, my
scorecard and links to each of my
arguments.
Proposition 76 - Yes
Summary - This proposition places a cap on state spending, so that it cannot grow faster than the prior three years revenue growth, increases the Governor's power to unilaterally reduce spending in certain situations, removes some of the minimum funding requirements for schools, and cleans up some of the states practices (like continuing last year's budget if the new one is late, and certain rules around special funds).
Commentary - This is on gets a Yes vote from me because it is a necessary proposition. First, let me state the case against it. The only good argument against it came from Steve, my partner at JourneyToTheCenterOf.com, in our first discussion of the ballot measures (check back later tonight for our second episode on the ballot props). Steve said he is mostly in favor of this one, but voting no simply because he thinks it gives too much power to a governor and disrupts the system of checks and balances. This is a serious argument that must be considered. Ultimately, I think that the emergency conditions are properly fenced - i.e. they shouldn't occur unless things have gone very wrong - and the voters still have powerful control over the governor. For instance, let's say Governor X gets into office and he is bent on cutting funding for police. He declares an emergency, is unreasonable with the legislature as they try to fix it, and proceeds to remove all funding for police. The people of CA simply would not stand for this, and the governor would either feel it very quickly at the ballot box in the next election, or simply be tossed out of office by a recall (ask Grey Davis if you have any questions on how that works). The other reason I'm not too scared by this is that I think the vast majority of what our state spends money on is superfluous unnecessary spending. So the chances that a governor would cut something that I think is vital is pretty slim, and he'd pay dearly for doing so.
Moving on to the reasons for this prop, the biggest one is that it would cap our spending. Our legislature spent like drunken sailors during the boom dot-com years of our state and we are in one monster of a hangover right now. Bringing a little fiscal discipline to this state is undoubtedly a good thing. Why shouldn't the state be forced to tighten its belt when revenues are down? Families have to, corporations have to, and the state needs to live within its means. This measure would make us stick to a more reasonable rate of growth, and store up some of the excess for the years where the state falls on leaner revenues.
Another part of this prop that would facilitate more balanced budgets is its removal of some of the minimum funding requirements. Voters pass propositions sometimes that have silly funding requirements, unaware that what they are doing is setting a floor for some programs - such as education. This means that if that government program actually does it's job well by running more efficiently and saving money, we don't reap any benefits because we have to spend a minimum amount. This always incentivizes the agency to spend every last penny, and ask for more next year, only adding to the spiraling, out of control budgets. We can't run the state effectively if we can't even determine how much we should spend on different programs.
Lastly, this bill gets rid of some of the political tricks available to the legislature for playing around with the budget. One of those tricks is to overstate revenues. If a legislator wants to spend more on his pet project this year than last year, but we have the requirement for a balanced budget, the usual trick to get around that is to simply overstate revenues. In other words, if you want to pay more and still have it balance, just say you're going to make more. This prop would average out the last 3 years of revenue growth in order to arrive at a more realistic number. It would also remove a few other dirty tricks like not passing a budget on time or other political shell games.
All in all, it is a good proposition that addresses some of the problems that got the state into its current bewildered fiscal state. We need some serious reform and this prop is one of the ways to get that ball rolling. Fiscal responsibility is one of the first steps to a well working state - if we don't have the money to fund kickbacks for lobbyists and partisan hacks, then their influence will wane.
Proposition 76 - Yes
Summary - This proposition places a cap on state spending, so that it cannot grow faster than the prior three years revenue growth, increases the Governor's power to unilaterally reduce spending in certain situations, removes some of the minimum funding requirements for schools, and cleans up some of the states practices (like continuing last year's budget if the new one is late, and certain rules around special funds).
Commentary - This is on gets a Yes vote from me because it is a necessary proposition. First, let me state the case against it. The only good argument against it came from Steve, my partner at JourneyToTheCenterOf.com, in our first discussion of the ballot measures (check back later tonight for our second episode on the ballot props). Steve said he is mostly in favor of this one, but voting no simply because he thinks it gives too much power to a governor and disrupts the system of checks and balances. This is a serious argument that must be considered. Ultimately, I think that the emergency conditions are properly fenced - i.e. they shouldn't occur unless things have gone very wrong - and the voters still have powerful control over the governor. For instance, let's say Governor X gets into office and he is bent on cutting funding for police. He declares an emergency, is unreasonable with the legislature as they try to fix it, and proceeds to remove all funding for police. The people of CA simply would not stand for this, and the governor would either feel it very quickly at the ballot box in the next election, or simply be tossed out of office by a recall (ask Grey Davis if you have any questions on how that works). The other reason I'm not too scared by this is that I think the vast majority of what our state spends money on is superfluous unnecessary spending. So the chances that a governor would cut something that I think is vital is pretty slim, and he'd pay dearly for doing so.
Moving on to the reasons for this prop, the biggest one is that it would cap our spending. Our legislature spent like drunken sailors during the boom dot-com years of our state and we are in one monster of a hangover right now. Bringing a little fiscal discipline to this state is undoubtedly a good thing. Why shouldn't the state be forced to tighten its belt when revenues are down? Families have to, corporations have to, and the state needs to live within its means. This measure would make us stick to a more reasonable rate of growth, and store up some of the excess for the years where the state falls on leaner revenues.
Another part of this prop that would facilitate more balanced budgets is its removal of some of the minimum funding requirements. Voters pass propositions sometimes that have silly funding requirements, unaware that what they are doing is setting a floor for some programs - such as education. This means that if that government program actually does it's job well by running more efficiently and saving money, we don't reap any benefits because we have to spend a minimum amount. This always incentivizes the agency to spend every last penny, and ask for more next year, only adding to the spiraling, out of control budgets. We can't run the state effectively if we can't even determine how much we should spend on different programs.
Lastly, this bill gets rid of some of the political tricks available to the legislature for playing around with the budget. One of those tricks is to overstate revenues. If a legislator wants to spend more on his pet project this year than last year, but we have the requirement for a balanced budget, the usual trick to get around that is to simply overstate revenues. In other words, if you want to pay more and still have it balance, just say you're going to make more. This prop would average out the last 3 years of revenue growth in order to arrive at a more realistic number. It would also remove a few other dirty tricks like not passing a budget on time or other political shell games.
All in all, it is a good proposition that addresses some of the problems that got the state into its current bewildered fiscal state. We need some serious reform and this prop is one of the ways to get that ball rolling. Fiscal responsibility is one of the first steps to a well working state - if we don't have the money to fund kickbacks for lobbyists and partisan hacks, then their influence will wane.
Posted: Sun - November 6, 2005 at 02:08 PM | | | | | | |
Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Highlighted posts
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Nov 06, 2005 02:52 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Nov 06, 2005 02:52 PM
Search
The Tip Jar
Counter provided by
Brought to you by
