1A would require the state to make annual contributions to a budget reserve until the reserve reaches 12.5 percent of general fund revenues. It would set aside annual reserves even in “bad budget” years and restrict the state’s spending of “unanticipated” revenues. It also would give the governor unilateral authority to cut spending midyear without consulting the Legislature and extend by a year or two the temporary tax increases that are in effect for the next two years, anyway.
Supporters tout the measure as the way to force savings and restrict spending, thus bringing stability to the state budget process.
No doubt about it, we need to address the problem of the state’s budget deficit and ongoing imbalance between state revenues and expenses.
But this isn’t it.
This hastily drafted measure won’t work.
Why? Proposition 1A has such rigid provisions, it would lock in a reduced level of public services without taking into account California’s changing demographics, population growth and future policies. It would also give the future governors new power without legislative oversight.
1A isn’t even a short-term patch on a long-term problem. Most of this measure’s provisions wouldn’t take effect for two years. In that time, we could repeal the two-thirds legislative vote requirement for budgets and tax increases — and we could work on real budget reform, without the permanent changes that 1A would make to the state’s Constitution.
As for Proposition 1B, a deal the governor cut with the California Teachers Association, it requires the state to make $9.3 billion in supplement payments to education to make up for recent cuts. While we support funding of public education, the Legislature already has the power to restore this funding, and in a more straightforward way than this.
Besides that, 1B would take effect only if voters also approve Proposition 1A.
So NO to both.
• For sample ballots, voter information guide and polling places: San Joaquin County Registrar of Voters, www.sjcrov.org.
Post a Comment