Posted on 07/19/2007 11:20:21 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
As an elected official one of my top priorities has been passing a balanced budget that does not include tax increases.
Because the deficit was so huge when I arrived in 2002 (in the neighborhood of $24 billion for the 2003-04 budget cycle), I knew that balancing the budget would be a multi-year process. When Governor Schwarzenegger was swept into office during the special election in 2003, he also made balancing the budget his top priority, but cautioned citizens that to achieve this goal it would take a multi-year and multi-faceted approached that would include:
-Not raising taxes.
-Creating a strong economy that would allow revenues to grow.
-Asking the voters to approve a recovery bond package that would help balance the budget in the short term.
-Controlling state finances by not spending more than the state takes in.
As we now enter final negotiations for the governor’s fourth budget, I’m pleased to report that we have not raised taxes; voters did approve a $15 billion economic recovery bond to help cover the deficit created by the previous administration; and, revenues to the state have grown some $25 billion since the 2003-04 budget.
The problem is we continue to spend more than we take in and it’s now clear to me that unless we force ourselves to live within our means, this state will continue to be plagued by chronic budget deficits. This year, for example, while California revenues are projected to top $101.2 billion, spending is projected to come in at $104.3 billion.
During the recently completed Joint Budget Conference Committee (composed of three members of the Senate and three members of the Assembly), a member of that committee, Assemblyman Mark Leno, said that when he talks to school groups about the budget he admits that the document is complicated but at its core the process is really nothing more than fourth grade math - you have to match what you take in (revenues) with what you put out (expenditures).
I couldn’t agree more with Mr. Leno that this is nothing more than fourth grade math. However, if you had to grade the California Legislature on our fourth grade math test, we’d have to be given an F. We’ve had more than enough time to begin to live within our means and we’ve failed miserably year after year after year.
We must change our constitution to ensure this legislature and future legislatures live within our means.
We need constitutional amendment that would put back the provisions of the Gann Initiative (Proposition 4) that was passed by nearly 75 percent of the voters in 1979. The Gann Initiative limited state spending to the prior year’s levels with increases allowed for population growth and cost of living.
Unfortunately, a series of propositions passed over the years weakened the Gann Initiative to the point where California has endured chronic budget deficits year after year after year.
I realize that a constitutional amendment won’t do much to help balance the 2007-08 budget. But it can and should be a key part of the negotiations.
I’m confident voters will overwhelmingly approve this constitutional amendment, as they did with the Gann Initiative in 1979 because they can clearly see that California has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
The constitutional amendment must include a provision that requires the governor to make mid-year budget reductions should revenues not meet projections. The governor has that authority now, but also has the option of not making any cuts when revenues fail to meet projections.
It’s time to tie the hands of the legislature when it comes to balancing the budget. We’ve failed as a group for far too long to give the people of this state what they expect and deserve - a truly balanced budget. Given the opportunity to make this a constitutional amendment, I’m more than confident the voters will agree, as they did in 1979, and annually require the California Legislature to pass our fourth grade math exam.
The Governator already got shot down in flames for supporting such a proposition before the voters. The California electorate wants a free-lunch something-for-nothing system of borrow and spend deficits. That is what they want. I agree we need this, but this was rejected by the idiot California voters 2 or 3 years ago. Good luck!
“We must change our constitution to ensure this legislature and future legislatures live within our means.”
Our state Constitution already demands you complete a balanced budget and any spending must be accounted for with revenues. It also states you are to have this completed no later then June 1 each year.
We don’t need a new law or constitutional amendment, we need the legislature to do its job.
How about a penalty for failure to comply. Say, a day in jail for each day the budget is late and a $10 million dollar/day transfer from the maximum budget to go to debt service for redeeming State bonds.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
The way is is suppose to work and did for one year only was all staffers and politicians stopped getting paid and offices closed until a budget was done.
Happened once, then they figured out how much they hated that and now just pass spending bills to pay themselves/staff while they don’t do their jobs.
Never let it be said that what citizens want, politicians will figure a way to get around it and not get it done and, blame the citizens.
Are you talking about the current governor of California? If the reference is to the Austrian, to which proposition are you refereeing?
Many casual observers believed that Prop 76, offered for voter approval in November 2005, had similar features. But, those "scratch the surface observers" were not acquainted with the breadth of the proposed legislation (76), which had little in common with either Prop 4 or the ideas that Senator Dutton proposes. Prop 76 was offered to indemnify Prop 58 lenders, lengthen the repayment period for Prop 58 borrowing and give California's governor extra constitution authority with regard to state spending. Prop 76 was opposed by all segments of the political spectrum and soundly defeated, lead by conservative opposition.
Yes, I was referring to Proposition 76.
Arnold's "Spending" initiative was nothing like the GANN Amendment. It did nothing to limit spending for years and actually authorized more debt and borrowing. In a word, it was a sham.
15% state sales tax - eliminate state corporate and personal income taxes. That way the illegals and the gangbangers are paying into the system, and more jobs will be created. Problem solved.
Why do Republicans still perpetuate this myth? When they start out with lies like this, it's hard to believe anything they say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.