Let's get state's financial house in order
When they cast their ballots on May 19, voters can either help keep basic government services functioning or contribute to further chaos. Voters can keep cops on the street, teachers in the classroom, rangers in state parks, road crews patching potholes, or they can send many of those workers -- along with hundreds of thousands of other key service providers -- to the unemployment line.
The Californian recommends we avoid the chaos scenario. Are we happy to endorse a two-year extension of the emergency, 1-cent sales tax? No, we are not. But given the alternative -- and the protections against future deficits that voters would simultaneously put in place -- we see no other way.
The Californian endorsed the passage of the six budget-stabilizing propositions, 1A through 1F, last month. We've only been more convinced over the past few weeks as the likely ramifications of those propositions' failure have become increasingly clear: The County of Kern is projecting a $20 million-plus shortfall, the City of Bakersfield a $5 million hit, and the Kern High School District an additional $40 million in new cuts, to name three recent revelations.
The most important of the six initiatives is Proposition 1A, which would establish spending limits and a "rainy day" fund. It would give the governor power to make mid-year cuts when revenues fall short and extend for an additional two years the tax increases -- sales and personal income tax, and vehicle license fees -- approved in February by the Legislature and governor.
Anti-tax crusaders oppose extending these tax increases. They also join other critics in contending the proposed spending cap and rainy-day fund are flawed. Opponents note that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger promised similar reform in 2004, when he convinced voters to pass Proposition 58. Fool us once, but not again, they say.
But the "rainy day" fund established in 2004 that required the state to set aside money in boom years to cover deficits in bust years had so many leaks that savings were never realized. Prop. 1A limits raids on the fund.
And that seems to be the main objection of special interest groups that contend the measure removes the Legislature's and the governor's "flexibility" to respond to state government spending needs. (Translated: If voters handcuff elected officials by passing spending limits and locking up money in a rainy-day fund, special interests will be unable to convince them to keep spending.)
Rather than taking away "flexibility," voters should elect visionary, fiscally responsible leaders, they say. It's nice to dream. Let us know when those leaders are elected. Meanwhile, pass a measure that mandates some level of fiscal stewardship.
With varying degrees of enthusiasm, we also endorse Proposition 1B, which would guarantee $9.3 billion in new state funding to replace recent cuts to the education budget. It can take effect only if 1A passes.
Also, Proposition 1C, which would authorize the state to expand the lottery and borrow $5 billion from future proceeds; Propositions 1D and 1E, which would redirect First 5 and mental-health money, respectively, to the general fund; and Proposition 1F, which would limit elected officials' pay raises.
There's something for every Californian to dislike in these six propositions, from a continuation of temporary tax increases to an unfortunate new reliance on the state lottery to the redirection of funding that now goes to important and worthy programs. But California must get its house in order. Squaring the books and safeguarding future budgets makes the pain worthwhile.
