Proposition 76
This State Spending and School Funding Limits Initiative, if passed, would make major changes to the California Constitution. In addition to placing a second limit on state expenditures, this measure grants substantial new powers to the Governor, to make unilateral decisions on state spending, under certain circumstances. Prop. 76 also changes the minimum funding requirements for K-12 schools and community colleges.
Proponents see this as a fiscally responsible law designed to pull California out of debt. Opponents believe this measure gives too much power to the Governor and will lead to cuts in much needed social programs in order to balance the state budget. Some are also concerned because the measure contains no guarantees that budget cuts will not be accompanied by tax increases.
It's a bit of a catch-22. If Prop. 76 passes (with Schwarzenegger as Governor) liberals worry that he will cut social services to meet the new, stiffer, budget requirements. However, if Prop. 76 is in place and a liberal Governor replaces Schwarzenegger, conservatives are concerned that tax increases will be implemented to cover state revenue shortfalls.
The history of this initiative should also be considered. The framers point to California's historic inability to pass balanced budgets, saying "The Legislature is chronically late in passing budgets and seems institutionally incapable of passing balanced budgets." Yet, according to legislative analysts, California has been making progress, despite the shortfalls that occurred in 2001, as a result of the stock market plunge and the subsequent economic downturn. Unfortunately, the same analysts predict another shortfall in 2006-07, hence the desire to create legislation to address the budget deficit.
While few would debate the need to balance the state budget, this initiative is really about how it's done. The two main issues appear to be : 1) Using reductions in minimum funding requirements for schools to achieve a balanced budget, and 2) Allowing unilateral budget decisions to be made by the Governor, without consent of the Legislature, in order to balance the budget.
Personally, I'm disinclined to vote to change the State Constitution, unless it is done to protect individual rights. Granting greater powers to a particular individual does not seem to me to be an appropriate reason for altering the Constitution. What's more, if the framers of this initiative are correct, and the Legislature is "institutionally incapable of passing a balanced budget" then making it a legal requirement to do so will only ensure that the ultimate decision-making power rests with a single person: the Governor. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.
--Laurie
Proponents see this as a fiscally responsible law designed to pull California out of debt. Opponents believe this measure gives too much power to the Governor and will lead to cuts in much needed social programs in order to balance the state budget. Some are also concerned because the measure contains no guarantees that budget cuts will not be accompanied by tax increases.
It's a bit of a catch-22. If Prop. 76 passes (with Schwarzenegger as Governor) liberals worry that he will cut social services to meet the new, stiffer, budget requirements. However, if Prop. 76 is in place and a liberal Governor replaces Schwarzenegger, conservatives are concerned that tax increases will be implemented to cover state revenue shortfalls.
The history of this initiative should also be considered. The framers point to California's historic inability to pass balanced budgets, saying "The Legislature is chronically late in passing budgets and seems institutionally incapable of passing balanced budgets." Yet, according to legislative analysts, California has been making progress, despite the shortfalls that occurred in 2001, as a result of the stock market plunge and the subsequent economic downturn. Unfortunately, the same analysts predict another shortfall in 2006-07, hence the desire to create legislation to address the budget deficit.
While few would debate the need to balance the state budget, this initiative is really about how it's done. The two main issues appear to be : 1) Using reductions in minimum funding requirements for schools to achieve a balanced budget, and 2) Allowing unilateral budget decisions to be made by the Governor, without consent of the Legislature, in order to balance the budget.
Personally, I'm disinclined to vote to change the State Constitution, unless it is done to protect individual rights. Granting greater powers to a particular individual does not seem to me to be an appropriate reason for altering the Constitution. What's more, if the framers of this initiative are correct, and the Legislature is "institutionally incapable of passing a balanced budget" then making it a legal requirement to do so will only ensure that the ultimate decision-making power rests with a single person: the Governor. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.
--Laurie
posted by LA Fosner at 4:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home