Join Us…Your One Thread To All The California Recall News Threads! 
Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin
Posted on 09/28/2003 3:54:33 AM PDT by calcowgirl
SPEND SOME, LOSE SOME
In California, the Propositions Keep Rolling Along
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — It was the last question of a long and raucous debate here, almost an afterthought, and for many television viewers it probably sounded like a lot of bureaucratic mumbo jumbo after the evening's theatrics.
But perhaps more than any of the other questions posed to Arnold Schwarzenegger and the candidates seeking Gov. Gray Davis's job, the one asking whether they supported Proposition 53 struck at the heart of the chronic budget and taxation problems in California that have fueled the recall campaign and will undoubtedly haunt any new governor.
Proposition 53, which will appear on the Oct. 7 ballot with the recall vote, would set aside up to 3 percent of the state's general fund for things like new roads, sewer improvements and public building renovations. It has attracted virtually no attention in an election dominated by the recall itself, and to a lesser extent, a second proposition on the ballot that would ban the collection of certain racial data by government agencies.
But the measure is a quintessential example of California's propensity for "ballot box budgeting," a trend that when matched with the state's formidable obstacles to raising taxes, has tied Mr. Davis's hands in keeping the state fiscally afloat. Over the summer, confronted with a $38.2 billion deficit and a Republican legislative caucus refusing tax increases, Mr. Davis was forced to make unpopular cuts in spending while also papering over much of the crisis until next year.
"Most initiatives lose, but most of these initiatives to lock up money have passed," said Edward L. Lascher, a professor of public policy at California State University at Sacramento. "The problem is that there is no mechanism forcing people to equilibrate one thing with another, no mechanism that says given a choice, which do you want to protect, this or that."
Already, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan California Budget Project, about 90 percent of the state budget is spoken for each year, in large part because of huge voter-mandated set-asides for things like public education and transportation. The trend seems unstoppable.
Proposition 53 was killed last year by the State Legislature, but was revived and placed on the ballot at the insistence of Republicans as part of a last-minute budget deal. Also last year, Mr. Schwarzenegger, the leading Republican candidate to replace Mr. Davis, led a successful campaign that would require state spending for after-school programs.
"It is great, because you tell the voters you get something for nothing," said Jean Ross, executive director of the California Budget Project. "Then the voters get frustrated when the Legislature and governor can't figure out where to cut spending. And you wonder why we have paralysis."
There is a certain paradox, Ms. Ross said, that while Mr. Davis's chief critics campaign against his handling of the budget morass, they have also lined up behind Proposition 53.
Mr. Schwarzenegger and his chief Republican rival, State Senator Tom McClintock, both of whom have made fiscal conservatism and tax restraint pillars of their campaigns, openly embraced the measure during the debate. "I think it's a good beginning," Mr. Schwarzenegger said. "The fact of the matter is that we need a lot of infrastructure in California."
Mr. McClintock spoke of the halcyon days of Gov. Pat Brown in the early 60's, when the state spent as much as 20 percent of the general fund on roads, bridges, colleges and water projects.
"It seems to me that the importance of our infrastructure has been completely overlooked," Mr. McClintock said, adding that during the earlier era, "we were building highways faster than Detroit was building cars."
Professor Lascher said most people would agree that the state's infrastructure has been neglected and that a strong case could be made for Proposition 53. Ms. Ross said the ballot measure, unlike many others in the past, was written with language that would prevent the siphoning of money during tough economic times.
But the merits of the proposition become almost incidental when the state's fiscal woes are considered. Good or bad for California, Proposition 53 would amount to another spending obligation without any new way to pay for it, a fact that inevitably brings up the question of new taxes.
"Let's not romanticize the days of Pat Brown and Ronald Reagan," said the only Democrat at the debate, Lt. Gov. Cruz M. Bustamante, of the projects the measure would support. "Back then, they raised taxes to pay for it."
Nevertheless, he supports the proposition. Should he become governor in October, Mr. Bustamante would be counting on another ballot measure to help Democrats solve the problem. In March, voters will be asked whether to change the state Constitution so that legislators could raise taxes with 55 percent of the vote. Currently, raising taxes requires the approval of two-thirds of the legislature, effectively giving veto power over taxes to the Republican minority.
If Mr. Schwarzenegger should win, there could be another outcome. He has complained that Californians are overtaxed but has not ruled out new taxes. If Mr. Schwarzenegger were elected with a broad base of support that extended beyond Republicans, he might be able to persuade enough Democrats and Republicans in the Legislature that a tax increase was the only way out.
Mr. Schwarzenegger's aides don't like to talk about that possibility. But there would be ample historical precedent. As governor, both Pete Wilson, who is a chairman of Mr. Schwarzenegger's campaign, and Mr. Reagan, who is one of Mr. Schwarzenegger's political idols, presided over some of the biggest tax increases in California history.
I didn't hear McClintock actually say whether or not he supported Prop 53 in the debate. He was sort of "cut off" because of time constraints.
Mr. McClintock spoke of the halcyon days of Gov. Pat Brown in the early 60's, when the state spent as much as 20 percent of the general fund on roads, bridges, colleges and water projects.
"It seems to me that the importance of our infrastructure has been completely overlooked," Mr. McClintock said, adding that during the earlier era, "we were building highways faster than Detroit was building cars.
He said these things, but it seems to indicate the state government was simply being incompetent in overlooking infrastructure spending, probably preferring to spend money on social programs with immediate effects that will help the legislators' and governor's reelection campaigns. After all, the government in the 1960's didn't need a constitutional requirement to spend at least 3% on infrastructure.
3% on infrastructure in general is nice, but there's no guarantee any more money will go toward building highways, which we really need. The legislature decides how to spend the money, and the proposition includes a provision to lend the money back to the state's general fund.
Full TranscriptHere is section from Transcript:
CITIZEN QUESTION: Under governors Pat Brown and Ronald Reagan, California spent up to 20 percent of its general fund on infrastructures such as roads, bridges, colleges, hospitals and water systems. Now we spend closer to 1 percent. Prop. 53 on the ballot raises that figure to 3 percent. What are your positions on Prop. 53 and what will you do to invest more in California's aging infrastructure?
McCLINTOCK: Well, it seems to me that the importance of our infrastructure has been completely overlooked since 1974. If you go back to the last year of the Pat Brown administration, a period when we were building highways faster than Detroit was building cars, we were bringing down the state water project to provide for that generation's water needs. We had the finest university system in the country. We were providing a free university education to every Californian who wanted one. We had one of the finest public school systems in the country. Our hydroelectric dams were producing power.
MODERATOR: Senator, may I interrupt? We have slightly less than 3 minutes to wrap this entire subject up. So please.
McCLINTOCK: Proposition 53 is a very important start, but we've got to go a lot further. My vision involves a new era of highway construction, dedicating our highway taxes once again for our highways. Water construction, electrical plants, hydroelectric dams that were being produced during the Pat Brown administration are producing electricity at half a cent a kilowatt hour. That's $30 a year for an average family. We have got to restore that dedication to our public works.
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.