Putting together the annual state budget is a complicated
business. The results reflect the competing interests and concerns
of people all over California. It is, fundamentally, a legislative
act, not an executive one.
Putting together the annual state budget is a complicated business. The results reflect the competing interests and concerns of people all over California. It is, fundamentally, a legislative act, not an executive one.
That is why we recommend a no vote on Proposition 76.
This initiative, part of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s package of reform proposals, is a complicated law whose main features would alter the way money is currently allocated for schools and give the state executive more power to unilaterally reduce spending. The governor says this is necessary because state spending is out of control.
That may be true, but his request for more power over spending does not follow. The proper remedy to fixing a faulty budget process is to get rid of irresponsible legislators – or replace a governor with the wrong priorities.
Proposition 76 has a laudable goal of evening out spending, so that boom and bust revenue cycles are minimized. That too is good. But one of the most important ways it accomplishes this is by putting too much power in the hand of one person, the governor.
We think that is a bad idea. Rather than promoting bipartisan cooperation, as its supporters contend, it could just as easily undermine incentives for the governor to negotiate in good faith with legislators over spending priorities.
Another consequence of Proposition 76 would be eliminating current minimum school funding levels, which may result in the cutting of education funding in California. For a state still working its way out of the cellar in terms of per-pupil spending, this is no time for California to be taking steps that could reduce the state’s commitment to better schools.
Proposition 76 would guarantee that money allocated for roads and highways could not be spent on other budget priorities. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but sometimes that money should be shifted to mass transit and other transportation priorities, which Proposition 76 would prohibit. Maintaining budget flexibility in transportation is not a bad thing.
Proposition 76 is a controversial solution to an admittedly poor budget system. Its promoters are banking on the assumption that citizens believe such a system can be run with a minimum of political shenanigans. Not only is that unlikely, it is probably not even desirable.
In a state as big as California, setting spending priorities will never be easy. Our take is that Proposition 76 would likely make it even more difficult.
