2008 Woodie Awards
It's Déjà Vu All Over Again
Haven't we seen Prop. 76 somewhere before?
Brian Dean
Issue date: 10/26/05 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
Proposition 76 is a prime example of a solution without a problem.
The Alliance for a Better California calls the special election a waste. This assessment can scarcely be more accurate than with respect to Prop. 76.
Many may not remember as far back as, March 2004, voters passed Proposition 58, the "California Balanced Budget Act." As the title implies, it requires the actual operating budget enacted by the governor and the Legislature to be balanced.
Set to go into effect next year, Prop. 58 also establishes specific requirements for creating a budget reserve, and allows the governor to proclaim a fiscal emergency in certain situations.
Yet Gov. Schwarzenegger, in his fervent support for Prop. 76, seems to be one of those who have forgotten all about Prop. 58. He says Prop. 76 "will control spending to end state deficits, and balance the state budget without raising taxes." He calls it the "Live Within Our Means Act," and blames the system of automatic spending growth for the train-wreck budget situation.
But it sounds extraordinarily similar to Prop. 58; hence, the phrase "balanced budget" in its title. The state must eliminate its debt before it can create the reserves mandated by Prop. 58, and all spending growth will be constrained by the state's income.
So, what's the real purpose of Prop. 76?
Power.
The Republican governor wants to prove that he knows better than the majority Democratic Legislature. Prop. 58's provision for declaring a fiscal emergency requires the governor to submit budget proposals to the Legislature.
However, Prop. 76 allows the governor to act unilaterally to reduce spending if an agreement can't be reached. If so inclined, Schwarzenegger could concoct a budget emergency and ensure that no proposal from the Legislature would adequately resolve the situation. Then, any spending program deemed undesirable could be at risk. One only needs to point to the $2 billion "borrowed" from schools as proof that direct budget cuts can be circumvented.
Prop. 58 passed with 71 percent of the vote because Californians were fed up with the irresponsible spending habits of the Legislature. But Prop. 76 is just a power grab disguised as more of the reform launched in 2004. It should be exposed as such and rejected.
The Alliance for a Better California calls the special election a waste. This assessment can scarcely be more accurate than with respect to Prop. 76.
Many may not remember as far back as, March 2004, voters passed Proposition 58, the "California Balanced Budget Act." As the title implies, it requires the actual operating budget enacted by the governor and the Legislature to be balanced.
Set to go into effect next year, Prop. 58 also establishes specific requirements for creating a budget reserve, and allows the governor to proclaim a fiscal emergency in certain situations.
Yet Gov. Schwarzenegger, in his fervent support for Prop. 76, seems to be one of those who have forgotten all about Prop. 58. He says Prop. 76 "will control spending to end state deficits, and balance the state budget without raising taxes." He calls it the "Live Within Our Means Act," and blames the system of automatic spending growth for the train-wreck budget situation.
But it sounds extraordinarily similar to Prop. 58; hence, the phrase "balanced budget" in its title. The state must eliminate its debt before it can create the reserves mandated by Prop. 58, and all spending growth will be constrained by the state's income.
So, what's the real purpose of Prop. 76?
Power.
The Republican governor wants to prove that he knows better than the majority Democratic Legislature. Prop. 58's provision for declaring a fiscal emergency requires the governor to submit budget proposals to the Legislature.
However, Prop. 76 allows the governor to act unilaterally to reduce spending if an agreement can't be reached. If so inclined, Schwarzenegger could concoct a budget emergency and ensure that no proposal from the Legislature would adequately resolve the situation. Then, any spending program deemed undesirable could be at risk. One only needs to point to the $2 billion "borrowed" from schools as proof that direct budget cuts can be circumvented.
Prop. 58 passed with 71 percent of the vote because Californians were fed up with the irresponsible spending habits of the Legislature. But Prop. 76 is just a power grab disguised as more of the reform launched in 2004. It should be exposed as such and rejected.
