 If the California budget battles were a prizefight, the past several weeks was dominated by the pre fight hype. This week begins the main event as each side puts forth their budget recommendations.
The Democratic-led Legislature will battle against Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger negotiating in a political climate that offers disincentives for compromise. The main event allows for the Republican minority to have its brief moment to strut their stuff across the stage and to be heard from no more. Republicans in the Legislature are relevant only because the state requires a 2/3-majority vote for any budget agreement or tax increases. Moreover, the fiscal problems that the state is facing falls in line with their “starve the beast” mentality toward government. Perhaps calling this a prizefight is generous; maybe it is more akin to professional wrestling—choreographed and scripted to the point that if one has been paying attention they may not know the exact outcome but they have a general idea. Both sides will be predictably more protective of its own base and more liberal with the pain that can be endured by the other side’s constituents. But it’s hard to imagine the majority of Californians managing to escape some measure of pain regardless of what is agreed. A number of counties, already out of cash, are suspending their DNA testing for certain crimes. A state legislative budget committee recently recommended that funding for he California Department of Justice laboratories be slashed by $20 million in the next fiscal year. If the budget committee’s proposal were approved, 47 of the state’s 53 county governments would cease to offer free DNA testing. This week, Alameda County proposed cutting $40 million from its public protection departments, which could result in layoffs in the sheriff's, district attorney's, public defender and probation offices.
These proposed cuts may represent the clearest indicator as to the seriousness of the budget problems.
What bad choices will the Legislature and the governor agree to get a budget deal? Will a one-time unexpected windfall once again bail out the state? Not likely. There are compelling reasons to not cut deeper into the social safety net, raise revenues, cutback or discontinue vital services. But for every line in the sand the governor and members of the Legislature vow not to cross is another day that will lead to stalemate. Spreading the pain across the board using a combination of tax increases and spending cuts makes the most sense. However, California’s 2/3-majority requirement for tax increases makes this possibility practically nil before any vote is taken. Assuming a deal is done by the July 1 deadline, it should also include a ballot proposition calling for a two-year moratorium on any propositions or initiatives that will impact the general fund. It doesn’t matter if it were something passed by the Legislature and placed on the ballot or based on the hard work of signature gatherers standing in strip malls and supermarket parking lots with their clipboards and simplistic explanations. If it represents additional dedicated spending for the state, it is suspended for 24 months. If the pain is to be spread equally it must also include those who wish to subvert the state’s checks and balances system by locking in spending that cannot account for the unintended consequences. Liberal and conservative causes alike have contributed to the current budget debacle with the approval of ballot propositions that authorizes constitutionally mandated funding. You have to admit it would make for an interesting social science experiment. Would the voters be willing to self-regulate with a similar draconian measure that they’ve placed on the Legislature for decades? Assuming the voters pass a moratorium on themselves, the Legislature should be also charged during that two-year period to examine direct democracy in its current form and make recommendations going forward.
This is a crisis moment for the state. No one should be immune from self-examination. If California has institutionalized its deficits, as many suggest, through its spending and low taxes, then it would stand to reason that every aspect of that problem be held up to the light of scrutiny, which would include the electorate itself.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Post a Comment. 
