 California finally passed a budget. Didn't I write that several months ago?
Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, in an early morning news conference, touted that the state has closed a $41 billion deficit, averted the layoff of 20,000 state employees and avoided derailing 276 transportation projects that would have cost the state $400 million. The budget deal also makes the state eligible to receive funds from the federal economic stimulus bill signed by President Barack Obama.
Before we start celebrating, has anything changed that would prohibit California from a repeat performance? California may not have been electrocuted this time, but its wet fiscal hand remains dangerously close to the third rail.
What has been done to change the structural problems of California where it spends more than it takes in? What addresses the tyranny of the minority that allows one-third of the Legislature to hold the remaining two-third hostage? What will prohibit the constitutionally mandated date for a state budget to pass as it has for 22 consecutive years without a balanced budget?
When the budget was finally agreed to last year, albeit 77 days late, everyone involved knew at the time California was headed for a deficit next year. They just didn't know the amount.
Much has been made of the horse-trading in order to get the requisite number of Republicans to go against their "no new tax" pledge and go along with the budget that does indeed raise revenues.
Of the three dozen bills needed to get the budget deal done in the marathon sessions, at least three bills had nothing to do with the budget; they were the price required by State Sen. Abel Maldonado, R-Santa Maria, to go against his party and vote for the budget.
The cost for Maldonado's vote varied from the interesting to the petty — two ballot measures along with a score to settle with the incumbent state Controller John Chiang.
The open primary proposal, which will appear on the June 2010 primary ballot for voter approval, would make California's political primaries nonpartisan — similar to what was recently enacted in Washington state.
An open primary would weaken the influence of the two major political parties. It could also increase the number of moderates elected from both parties. It is no coincidence that last time an open primary initiative appeared on the California ballot it was opposed by state Democratic and Republican parties.
The other initiative for voter approval would cancel any salary increase for the Legislature when a deficit is projected.
I like the open primary proposal. It could be a step toward much needed reform. The freeze on salary increases for the Legislature when a budget deficit is projected is more symbolic than substantive, and cutting the funds out of the state controller's budget was personal.
More important, as a reader opined to me last week, I wish I could be optimistic that this latest budget nightmare would result in some changes in how our government operates, but I don't see that happening.
With the economy being what it is, the Legislature will not know until April whether the state's taxes revenues will once again place California in a deficit. We already know that public schools, social services and higher education will take another hit.
The budget deal agreed on does not change the reality that California's political system is fundamentally flawed. We do not need any more data to conclude that ballot-box legislating does not work. Moreover, it is unrealistic to believe the changes that California needs will come from the Legislature.
It is easy to forget that ultimately we are the government and how the government behaves is reflective of our collective values.
I will be very interested in the California Constitutional Convention, hosted by the Bay Area Council, in Sacramento next week. Will the coalition of organizations sponsoring this effort begin the uncomfortable process of the type of reform California so badly needs and that this latest budget could not address?
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Post a Comment. 
