Posted on 06/14/2005 10:03:34 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
With Gov. Schwarzenegger's announcement last night that California will have a special election this fall on several high-profile initiatives, we can expect his controversial proposals on redistricting and changing teacher tenure to continue to get more attention than his fiscal reform plan. This is unfortunate. For while his "Live Within Our Means Act" is a well-intentioned effort to minimize the severity of the next budgetary shortfall, it fails to place effective curbs on spending necessary for long-term fiscal solvency.
After his November 2003 inauguration, Schwarzenegger considered promoting a constitutional expenditure limit to reduce the $38 billion in debt his predecessor, Gray Davis, left behind. However, the governor instead compromised with Democratic legislators to support a measure that would tighten California's balanced budget amendment. Since then, he has kept a tight lid on spending and earned the top grade in a Cato Institute report card on the 50 governors earlier this year.
Still, because California remains over $8 billion in debt, Schwarzenegger embraced an initiative designed to minimize the next budgetary shortfall. Under this proposal, spending increases would be limited to average revenue growth for the previous three years. --snip-- Then, when the economy slows, money from the reserve fund could be used to maintain expenditures.
This proposal would limit how much government could expand during times of prosperity. However, the sizeable reserve would provide legislators with very little incentive to economize or downsize during recessions. Furthermore, legislators might be even less likely to cut taxes since any revenue declines would directly result in immediate budgetary cuts.
So while this proposal may reduce the size of the next budget shortfall, it fails to remedy the high spending, high taxes and sluggish economic growth that currently plague the Golden State.
--snip--
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
Michael J. New, a Cato Institute adjunct scholar, is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama.
Good article....
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
The underlying premise is that the legislature can not be trusted to be fiscally prudent. That is why the initiative is even out there. It is a sorry state of affairs that only the blunt instrument of a ballot initiative is available to the taxpayers of the state of California.
It would be best for everyone if sanity prevailed.. before a looming disaster strikes..
We can't afford to keep paying for the wanton mistakes of the leftist wrecking crew in Sac'to. They needed to be reined in..
Naw, I'd rather ride 'em hard... put 'em away wet... then whatch 'em catch Pneumonia with much labored gasping, wheezing and "death rattles!!!"
Hain't this been purdy much whut yew been saying, calcowgurl??? I thank it is, by Golly!!! Shazzam!!!
"Under this proposal, spending increases would be limited to average revenue growth for the previous three years."
What a pile of BS, what is needed is a reduction in the size of government and elimination of useless "services" and the personel that man them.
What ever happened to the word "Shrink"?????????
Is that what Ahhnuld is doing? He shore ain't reigning them in! :o)
Arnold's little collection of initiatives is "reform lite". They are simply too timid.
From the first version I read, I've been saying that it is flawed in many ways. Cato mentions many of the problems. Additionally, it includes almost $10 Billion in new debt (more bonds), although Cato never seems to bother with that little fact (hence they previously gave Arnold a 'A' grade for balancing the budget while completely ignoring that he borrowed $15 billion in bonds authorized by Prop 57 to accomplish it).
By issuing the Prop 57 bonds, Arnold enabled higher spending for two years, which increased the prior year budget base from which this new measure will ADD more spending. The combination of the two are guaranteeing continued growth in government, not the CUT, CUT, CUT that voters thought they were getting.
Arnold had two choices of initiatives to back: 1) this flawed, do-nothing measure (with new debt) and 2) a real Gann-type spending that was submitted by John Campbell et. al. He chose the former, which says he has no real interest in truly reigning in spending.
The authors of the initiative (Zaremberg, et al) are already using language like "balanced budget" to try to sell this non-initiative. The Constitution already required a balanced budget before Arnold took office, yet his cronies sold us "The Balanced Budget Act" in Proposition 58, and are trying to sell us this initiative as another "balanced budget" initiative. The campaign language is blatantly dishonest.
Hain't this been purdy much whut yew been saying, calcowgurl??? I thank it is, by Golly!!! Shazzam!!!
---
It sure caught my eye and made a bell or two ring? :-)
Kudos to calcowgirl, you're great at dissecting & disseminating this stuff here! Thanks!!
Looks like the long hot dusty road race to reform is on.. Buckle up! :)
The one that's got me hyped is the "Paycheck Protection!" The one the Governor SHOULD NOT have flinched from supporting openly! What a gurley man!!! Phhhhht!!!
Maybe now he needs some Viagara to offset all the damage of years on steroids!!! He's still tryin ta be as slick as when he'd oil that muscle-bound body of his up for a pose-down! Heck, he's still posin down!!! Just look at him!!! He thinks nobody's payin any attention!!!
>>Kudos to calcowgirl, you're great at dissecting & disseminating this stuff here! Thanks!!
Thanks NR, and you're welcome! Drafting and dissecting laws and regs used to be part of my profession. I guess I can't help from looking critically at the words and determining the potential results, which are often different than the intent.
I'm beginning to wonder if the teacher tenure measure might actually be the demise of the conservative teacher, instead of ousting the leftists as desired.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
The equation is not one dimensional (A vs. B). Just because a group you don't like opposes Arnold does not mean that what he is proposing is a good thing. Bad law is bad law, no matter who proposes it. I'm convinced the spending reform measure is bad law and will not make things substantively better, and in fact make them worse. I'm undecided on the other two measures (tenure and redistricting), although I'm not positively impressed.
I can do it, but I usually get so angry at all the blatant flouting of the Constitution that I have to take several cracks at it. You've saved me a lot of time.
>>I can do it, but I usually get so angry at all the blatant flouting . . .
Me too. I usually can't do it in one sitting, LOL.
Tsunami watch cancelled; I was worried it would take out El Tarasco, lol.
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.