Make Legislature fix it: No on Props. 25, 26
Propositions 25 and 26 are not quite what one would call competing initiatives, but they most definitely tug voters in opposite directions. Generally, that kind of juxtaposition draws a "yes on one, no on the other" response, depending on one's perspective.
Not in this case. Both propositions have partisan origins, lack pragmatic balance and fail to provide assurances against potential abuse. We suggest voters reject both measures -- but demand that the Legislature take steps to rectify the very real problems they seek to address, albeit heavy-handedly.
Prop. 25 would amend the California Constitution to allow passage of budgets with a simple majority, rather than the two-thirds majority required now. The governor would retain the power to reject an entire budget and to make single-item cuts.
The days of rounding up a two-thirds majority in the Democratic-controlled Legislature without excessive pain and drama are long gone, making the budget's July 1 due date more a punch line than a deadline. California is still at impasse on the 2010-11 spending plan at this writing.
There's value in the idea of dropping the threshold to a simple majority -- most other states do it that way and few of them have anything resembling California's annual mess. But most other states have other important protections in place. Prop. 25 provides for few additional safeguards against runaway spending or unnecessarily drastic cuts.
Prop. 25 is bankrolled almost exclusively by public employee unions that would like to further empower their patrons in the Legislature: Democrats who wouldn't break a sweat coming up with a 51 percent majority. That's not reform -- that's making sure the fix is in, and it threatens to pile on even more of the special-interest spending that has crippled Sacramento.
The measure's detractors have claimed, incorrectly, that Prop. 25 would make it too easy for lawmakers to enact higher taxes. Truth is, the 3rd District Court of Appeal has made it clear that taxes absolutely may not be raised if the two-thirds standard is not met. But that is only partial comfort.
We could enthusiastically support a majority-vote budget if it were part of a package that included multiyear budget planning, tough limits on the use of one-time revenue, pay-as-you go restrictions requiring that the source of funding for new programs or tax cuts be identified, and rigorous, regular, transparent performance reviews of all major expenditures. But a complicated, nuanced framework like that needs to be put in place by the Legislature, not voters who are justifiably disgusted with the gridlock in Sacramento but ill-equipped to fix it from their voting booths.
Prop. 26 is the brain child of pro-business and anti-tax groups, and its supporters include the Kern County Taxpayers Association. In all but a relatively few cases, Prop. 26 would require a two-thirds vote, rather than the current simple majority standard, for any municipal or legislative body to impose new fees. But Prop. 26 is really all about definition: Much of what was previously considered a "fee" would be reclassified as a "tax" -- things like surcharges for waste disposal, code compliance, air quality -- even, in many cases, charges that yield a broad benefit to the public.
Supporters say they need protection from authorities who keep bumping up businesses' operating costs with impunity. We acknowledge their frustration -- and we've seen some of the more outlandish bills.
But the prospect of requiring a two-thirds vote to approve even the most routine and reasonable fees -- quite possibly in an endless parade of special elections -- is burdensome and stifling. Prop. 26 would set off a bureaucratic nightmare and bring local governments to their knees.
Prop. 26 would hurt Main Street, too. Many agencies rely solely on fees to operate. Examples include the California Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Fish and Game. Handcuffing organizations that render such vital services makes no sense.
Government's fee policies could do with more transparency and honesty, but Prop. 26 is an attempt to throw out the baby with the bath water. Reform in this arena can't be achieved in one massive blow, and it shouldn't be "fixed" by the inititative process.
As with Prop. 25, the Legislature needs to do its job. In this case, put protections in place to safeguard business from excessive fees and surcharges: Fees should not exceed a specific percentage increase over the previous year; they should be associated with a clearly identified benefit or service that the fee payer is legitimately associated with; and fee payers should have access to a reasonable appeals process. But turning the system upside down by way of Prop. 26 would create some dire circumstances, foreseen and unforeseen.
We urge voters to kick these two initiatives to the curb.
