Yes on Prop 76

Since the SF Chronicle said, IF THERE is one thing as reckless as ballot-box budgeting, it's ballot-box energy policy, the next proposition I read was Prop 76 which further regulates the state budget. The "analysis of the legislative analyst" runs from p. 22 to 29. Complex, eh?

My instant reaction is to vote NO. Why should the public have to determine budget priorities and limits? That is what the elected officials are for.

However, Tom McClintock, one of the more sensible and straight-shooting politicians in California on budget matters, has come out in support for Prop 76. My guess is that he believes Prop 76 is better than the status quo.

One of the criticism of Prop 76 is the power it gives to the Governor, the SF Chronicle complains:
Schwarzenegger is right in saying that legislators are not making the tough decisions to balance the budget. But the solution is not to put the state budget on a new course of autopilot while shifting power to the governor's office. It's to elect legislators -- and a governor -- who have the fortitude to set priorities and to find a way to fund them.
The governor is constrained by elections and recall. If she or he misuses the powers granted by Prop 76 then the voters could apply for a recall or vote her or him out in the next election cycle.

Is Prop 76 the final answer to California's budget woes?

No.

But in this case, we can't allow the quest for the best solution hinder our willingness to support a flawed measure that is better than the status quo. I was originally leaning NO on Prop 76 but I now recommend a YES vote on Prop 76.

UPDATE: I finally plowed through more carefully the 8-page summary of the measure to see under what circumstances would the governor be handed "extra powers" over the budget. If I'm reading it right, the circumstances are quite constrained. (1) If the budget is late, then the Governor is to set spending levels at the previous year's levels until a new budget is passed. (2) If the governor declares a "fiscal emergency."

The "fiscal emergency" can't be declared on the governor's whim but only under two circumstances: (1) general fund revenues fall 1.5% below estimates or (2) the state reserve would be reduced by half.

Once the emergency is declared, the legislature and the governor have 30 (late budget) or 45 (on-time budget) days to come up with a plan to address the shortfalls. Only after that fails would the governor have powers to reduce spending.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Prop 76 and other measures like it seem like a good idea - but they can seriously, and adversely effect our states economy. Take a look at what's happened in colorado following TABOR there. Their schools, roads, and other infrastructure are failing, and restrictions similar to prop 76 prevent them from restoring them.

Prop 13 already severely limits one of the primary sources of income for our schools and services. Prop 76 will only make the crunch worse.

There's no doubt that there is careless spending in Sacramento - but the problem won't be fixed by Prop 76 - and a cure that makes the problem worse is no cure at all.

Anonymous said...

Prop 76 is far more important than all the other propositions combined. We have foolishly voted ourselves into the position of forcing ourselves into bankruptcy and not being able to adjust our budget to save ourselves. We must vote ourselves out of this condition. Vote YES on 76.

Aging Parents - Random things from this season of life, part I

A handful of years ago, I entered the phase of life of helping out in looking after aging parents.  At this moment in 2024, my dad passed on...