CA: State's budget problem real, but would Prop. 76 really fix it?

Sac Bee ^ | 10/16/05 | Dan Walters

[NormsRevenge]

Everyone agrees that California has a chronic fiscal problem - five straight years of deficit budgets being graphic proof.

The state, which had experienced serious budget problems in the early 1990s, thanks to a severe recession, was recovering nicely until 2000, when then-Gov. Gray Davis and the Legislature blew most of a one-time tax windfall on billions of dollars in tax cuts and new spending.

--snip--

The budget crisis eventually cost Democrat Davis his job and propelled Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger into the governorship on his promise to clean up the mess in Sacramento. But while Schwarzenegger has made some incremental progress on the deficit, he has been unable to close the gap - and, in fact, exacerbated the problem himself by reinstating a $4 billion-a-year cut in car taxes that the state could not, and cannot, afford. The state has a projected deficit of $6 billion-plus in 2006-07.

--snip--

Given the history, one must wonder what effect Proposition 76 really would have. There's no shortage of advice on the subject. Schwarzenegger says it would "make the state live within its means and create stability in education funding," while opponents say it would lead to schools' losing billions of dollars in aid that they would otherwise receive - but both are relying on projections that are nothing more than guesses.

The legislative budget office's declaration that Proposition 76 "is a complex measure that would have far-reaching effects on the state budget" may be accurate, but even its experienced budgeters cannot precisely forecast those effects and offer, instead, a series of potential scenarios.

[dalereed]

"while opponents say it would lead to schools' losing billions of dollars in aid that they would otherwise receive"

That's probably the best part of it!

The government education industry is so corrupt and dumbed down by teachers teaching teachers for the last 40+ years that the only salvation is total destruction of public education.

[Reagan Man]

>>>> while Schwarzenegger has made some incremental progress on the deficit, he has been unable to close the gap

People have to learn. There is little, if any difference between a liberal Republican and a liberal Democrat. In the long run, marginal results amount to nothing.

[claudiustg]

---But while Schwarzenegger has made some incremental progress on the deficit, he has been unable to close the gap - and, in fact, exacerbated the problem himself by reinstating a $4 billion-a-year cut in car taxes that the state could not, and cannot, afford.---

The car tax was the biggest source of fuel for the rebellion aganst Davis. Arnold couldn't not cut the car tax.

The schools are an absolute black hole for spending and the center of lefty power in California politics. In terms of influence the schools fill the same role as churches used to.

[Digger]

NObody mentions the ILLEGAL factor in the school problem or in the deficit itself. Solve that problem first & the rest will work itself out.

[calcowgirl]

The exact dimensions of its impact, however, are difficult to gauge because Proposition 76 exemplifies the most vexatious aspect of California politics, what one might term the law of unintended consequences.

Voters and lawmakers alike make decisions based on their beliefs about what the effects will be. Almost always, however, major decrees either fail to deliver the promised benefits or have negative ancillary consequences.

Hence I will be voting NO. See:

Proposition 76 - A Conservative Argument for Voting "NO"

[Amerigomag]

Prop 76 is deceptive. Ask yourself why a big spender like Schwarzenegger would seek power to cut spending. The obvious answer is he wouldn't. Then why seek the legislation? Because the initiative authorizes billions more in borrowing which allows Schwarzenegger to continue to increase spending without the necessary tax revenue.

Prop 76 is bad legislation being deceptively marketed. Vote NO on 76. Force Schwarzenegger to bring spending in line with revenues. Do not allow Schwarzenegger to continue spending borrowed money. Force Schwarzenegger to proposed balanced budgets and/or veto legislatively approved budgets when they aren't. It's already the law ... or didn't you know?

[FairOpinion]

The same old argument, wanting to maintain the untenable status quo of the mandated funding for schools, as a result of Prop. 98. Then how come that the Republicans are FOR it, including Tom McClintock, and the Democrats and the Unions are AGAINST it? I recommend people go to the links below and read it for themselves, who is for and against what.

=====

McClintock's recommendations for CA Propositions
Summary of Recommendations on the CA Propositions by various organizations and parties

[Amerigomag]

Then how come that the Republicans are FOR it

For conservatives the fact that Republicans are FOR it is an automatic red flag. Any time Republicans are FOR it there is good reason for conservatives to be wary, especially if those Republicans are the CAGOP, a group that has and would sell their soul to be in Sacramento,

[calcowgirl]

maintain the untenable status quo of the mandated funding for schools...

The changes in Proposition 98 will ensure that funding can NEVER go DOWN. Quoting from the Legislative Analysts Office - Proposition 76: Key Issues and Fiscal Effects, September 30, 2005:

In 1990, voters approved Proposition 111. Among other things, this measure added an alternative, less generous, formula (referred to as “Test 3”) to Proposition 98. The alternative formula allows school funding to grow more slowly when state revenues are weak.

...

[Proposition 76] ... would eliminate the Test 3 and maintenance factor provisions of Proposition 98. Thus, school funding would no longer automatically fall during bad times and rise back up to the main guarantee level in good times.

So, when revenues fall, the State will be required to give even MORE funds to education than they do under existing law. I am not FOR status quo. I am AGAINST the untenable provisions of Proposition 76!

[See: Proposition 76 - A Conservative Argument for Voting "NO"]

[FairOpinion]

So if the Republicans AND Conservatives are FOR it, the Democrats and the Unions are against it,you automatically deduce that you should vote against it. That's what you just said.

Please explain why voting WITH the Democrats against the Republicans and conservative is a "conservative" way of voting.

[Amerigomag]

Please explain why voting WITH the Democrats against the Republicans and conservative is a "conservative" way of voting.

It's simple. I'm suggesting a NO on Prop 76 because it allows Schwarzenegger to borrow more money allowing California to continue to spend more than it takes in through its already confiscatory tax structure.

As to the implications that I agree with the Democrat Party in their opposition to Prop 76 I offer this observation. The Democrat Party is not opposed to the borrowing. They'd prefer to raise taxes to match revenues to spending but they aren't opposed to the borrowing if that's all they can get. I'm not in agreement with the Democrats on Prop 76.

As to the implication that I'm opposed to the CAGOP policy on this matter; I most certainly am opposed. In fact, as the CAGOP drifts further left, I'm opposed to an increasing number of their policies, from increasing the size of government, to extending the public safety net to alien squatters without qualification, to supporting social/fiscal liberals for elected office. From my perspective the CAGOP has so abandoned its principals that their support of any measure automatically raises a red flag for me that warns: BEWARE: MODERATION.

As far as opposing conservatives I'm not aware of any conservatives, including McClintock, who support the borrowing. Their opposition to more borrowing is clear and part of the public record. Their public pronouncements regarding Prop 76, required to fend off the type of vicious Republican attacks seen in the recall election, are understandable from my perspective. That's politics.

[FairOpinion]

"I'm not in agreement with the Democrats on Prop 76."

====

Let's examine the FACTS: you recommend NO on Prop. 76.
The Democrats recommend NO on Prop. 76.

This surely looks like you are in perfect synch with the Democrats.

Here is an excerpt from an article by Deborah Saunders

"I understand that voters aren't thrilled about the special election. But they should ask themselves what kind of Sacramento they want. If Schwarzenegger loses big, Big Government Labor and other special interests will be emboldened. Democratic lawmakers will snap more ferociously at the governor's heels. There will be more money in politics, more negative ads and more government spending. "

=====

McClintock's recommendations for CA Propositions
Summary of Recommendations on the CA Propositions by various organizations and parties

[FairOpinion]

And let me quote McClintock on Prop. 76:

"Proposition 76: State Spending. Should government live within its means? YES. This measure restores the authority that the governor of California had between 1939 and 1983 to make mid-year spending cuts whenever spending outpaces revenue without having to return to the legislature."

=====

McClintock's recommendations for CA Propositions
Summary of Recommendations on the CA Propositions by various organizations and parties

[b9]

abandoned its principals

There you go again.

It's princiPLE, pal

You know, that pesky little thing that keeps McClintock focused, no matter how you spin his solid support of Prop 76.

[Amerigomag]

Thanks again