Posted on 12/06/2004 6:30:45 AM PST by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO -- Frustrated by years of overspending and late budgets, Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, plans to introduce a major reform package today when the Legislature reconvenes designed to force lawmakers to pass a budget on time and limit spending.
McClintock, considered one of the most fiscally conservative legislators, wants to force the Legislature to pass an on-time budget by June 15, or face the consequence of the governor's budget winning approval without legislative changes. But he would also lower the threshold to pass a budget to a simple majority, down from the current two-thirds requirement.
"It's a comprehensive budget-reform measure," McClintock said. "It's designed to produce on-time budgets, restore the legislative budget process, guarantee balanced budgets in the future and limit both spending growth and borrowing."
A tax increase would still require a two-thirds vote, as it does currently. The same two-thirds threshold would also apply to fee increases, which currently only need a simple majority.
He would also tie growth in state spending to population growth and inflation and restore the governor's ability to make midyear spending cuts.
The state Legislature has passed a budget late eight times in the past 10 years, including earlier this year when it was about a month late.
Political analysts say McClintock will have a tough time convincing other lawmakers to agree to place his proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot. Republicans will not like giving up the two-thirds vote for budgets, one of the rare times when the minority party has significant leverage in the Capitol. Democrats may not like making it harder to increase fees and giving up the power to change the budget if they fail to act in time.
"It has something for everybody, but something that everybody's going to hate as well," said Barbara O'Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and the Media at California State University, Sacramento.
The plan, she said, seems to tie lawmakers' hands so much it almost makes them irrelevant in the budget process.
But at the same time, she added, it could be popular with voters who have recently demonstrated frustration with politics as usual and late budgets, and who still give the Legislature low approval ratings.
Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Los Angeles, a member of the Senate budget committee, said the package sounds "flawed" because it limits the Legislature's flexibility to shape a budget and upsets the balance of power between lawmakers and the governor.
Sometimes late budgets are necessary, she said, for lawmakers to hammer out a good agreement with the governor.
"Even though people seem to be very concerned about a budget passing on time, sometimes it's better for us to hold out -- as we did this year for a restoration, for instance, of funds to higher education," Kuehl said. "Twenty-five thousand students got to go to the UC campuses because we wouldn't agree until that was back in the budget."
There will be at least one other spending measure competing with McClintock's in coming months.
Senator-elect John Campbell, R-Irvine, is pushing a ballot measure that would also tie spending growth to inflation and population, as well as limit new debt, though allowing more debt than McClintock's plan. His measure, co-sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the California Taxpayers Association, would also create a 5 percent reserve fund.
During boom times, the state would have to dedicate surplus revenue to the reserve, paying down old debt or building infrastructure rather than use it for ongoing expenses that increase the deficit in lean years.
Campbell, who hopes to get his measure on the next statewide ballot, said it would not be competing against McClintock's because they have some differences, such as the simple majority vote for a budget.
"The makeup of the last Legislature was not conducive to proposals that involved fiscal responsibility," Campbell said. "This (new) Legislature hasn't changed much, so I think he's going to have a difficult time, but I will support him, and I wish him well."
The California Legislature is oPen for business today.
If Ahnold had just stayed out of the race...
...Davis would still be governor. ;)
We gotta stop electing liberals. There won't be any relief or reform until that happens. I will not be holding my breath.
Yep. The Democrats won't pass a hard spending limit which will be all the excuse necessary to qualify it for a 2005 special election.
I would have preferred that. There is no way California would have been able to borrow so much money under Davis. Meanwhile, facing a REAL crisis, we would now be preparing for a conservative landslide.
Arnold's measure was too soft for my liking. That's why I voted against it. It was half a step at best in the right direction. But we need a much tougher cap in the State Constitution to prevent a train wreck down the road. And the only way it looks like we will get one is the voters putting one in that caps both state and local government spending.
Better for Davis to still be governor than RINOLD.
What we need to do is eliminate gerrymandering. Until that happens will wind up with more of the same.
It was a step in the WRONG direction. The Gann spending limits it replaced were tougher.
But we need a much tougher cap in the State Constitution to prevent a train wreck down the road.
A train wreck would be preferable to where we are going now.
And the only way it looks like we will get one is the voters putting one in that caps both state and local government spending.
That's how we got Gann, which worked pretty well until the legislature cut a few loopholes and Wilson looked the other way. RINOs, again.
Correct. It scares the hell out of me that Arnold is pushing his own effort while ignoring Ted Costa's proposal. Why would he do that unless he had a hidden agenda? Arnold is no friend to transparency in government.
Gann was gutted by the teachers' unions actually. They sold the taxpayers a bill of goods and said it was all for the chilrun. Fast forward a decade later and its hard to see how all the extra money made the public schools any better. And we're staring at the fiscal abyss.
You are referring to Proposition 98, dedicating a fixed percentage of the total budget to education. Did that contain provisions that blew out the Gann limits? If so, I never heard about it. Wilson was invisible on the issue during that election.
The only way to guarantee half of the general fund for education spending was to loosen the Gann caps. After that was eviscerated spending increased as though no limit existed. If you never heard about it, welcome to the club. It behooves voters to read the fine print in proposals that sound too good to be true or we'll be back down this road again.
Now we're getting somewhere. WHO allowed that "loosening" to happen? Who signed that budget?
Thirty seconds, good luck.
That's true, although the way to address that properly would have been to repeal 98.
Better for Davis to still be governor than RINOLD.
I don't think you know what you are talking about.
CA's taxes would've already been raised the VLF tripled, property taxes raised, Illegals given drivers licenses, to name a few. Arnold has done some good.
The entire CA gov't needs to been dismantled and started fresh. The State Unions and the illegals have bankrupted this state.
Truly, if it doesn't get fixed soon, you can count on a mass exodus of business and people who can afford to get out. And the downwardward spiral will hit warp speed. Once a proud golden state contributing to the national economy being flipped on his back for a 3rd world screwing.. what happens in CA spreads to the rest of the country. So.. we must vote democrats out of office, close the borders and deport illegals if we are ever to have a chance to stand this state and this country back on the road facing forward.
When illegals start voting in CA AZ NM TX FL OK PA WA OR... what chance will there be to turn that around?
Illegals aren't here just work, there here to suck and destroy.
Right ---- Gray Davis my butt.. you don't know what THAT would've looked like at all. IMO
Good luck taking on the education lobby.
A cost/benefit analysis seems in order.
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.