Like many Californians, we are deeply dissatisfied with the Legislature's mismanagement of this state's finances. Years of dysfunction, discord and partisan polarization have led to perpetual deficits that have been an embarrassment to the state and an impediment to economic growth for most of this decade.
Members of the Legislature have demonstrated that they cannot restrain themselves when economic times are good, and they cannot manage the fallout when times are bad. That's why we are supporting Proposition 1A.
Once the state digs itself out of this mess – and someday it will – the long-term spending reform in this measure will help prevent California from descending into such an abyss again.
Proposition 1A was written by Republicans and forced on the Democrats who control the Legislature, the price Republicans demanded in exchange for their support for temporary tax increases. The measure would extend those taxes for a maximum of four years and then put the voters' stamp on the expiration date. And it would place a new spending limit in the state constitution, where only the voters, not the Legislature or the governor, could tinker with it.
This new provision would limit spending in good times, when California's economy typically generates huge spikes in tax revenue. Any money beyond the average growth rate would go into a rainy-day reserve. The Legislature could spend that money only when the economy slows and revenue slumps.
We also support Propositions 1C, 1D and 1E to provide short-term relief in the budget while lawmakers and the governor work on solving the longer-term imbalance between the state's revenues and its projected spending. We oppose 1B because it would require increased spending on the schools at a time when the state needs to set priorities that match the treasury's ability to pay for them.
Lawmakers in February passed a budget that cut spending from $103 billion last year to $94 billion this year and put the state on a path to spend $92 billion next year. That is less than the state spent 10 years ago, after adjusting for population growth and inflation.
That budget reduced grants to welfare recipients, cut stipends to the disabled and elderly, and slashed education spending by several hundred dollars per student. Lawmakers reduced subsidies for public transit and cut university budgets, forcing families to pay higher fees and tuition.
But these cuts only scratched the surface of what must be done. Even if the ballot measures pass, the state is facing another $15 billion shortfall next year, and more once the tax increases expire.
Given how unpleasant most of the package is, some voters may want to vote "no" to send a message telling lawmakers and the governor to try again. But the more likely result would be a return to the partisan gridlock that led to this problem in the first place.
The nation is in the worst economic downturn since the Depression. The days ahead are going to be tough enough without a renewal of ideological warfare inside the Capitol.
A "yes" vote on 1A, 1C, 1D, 1E and 1F will reward pragmatism and encourage lawmakers to work together as they begin the next phase of what can best be described as fiscal triage.
About Comments
Reader comments on Sacbee.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Sacramento Bee. If you see an objectionable comment, click the "report abuse" button below it. We will delete comments containing inappropriate links, obscenities, hate speech, and personal attacks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. See more about comments here.