Can you imagine the founding fathers writing constitutional amendments to manage the United States budget? That’s the kind of thing that happens in California.
Tomorrow, Californians will once again be asked to vote on a fleet of ballot measures only a tiny minority can claim any competence in, and like previous special election ballot measures championed by Gov. Schwarzenegger that have failed miserably, almost every proposition on tomorrow’s ballot is also predicted to fail. There are 6 of them (the easy-to-remember Propositions 1A-1F) and the only one polling with majority support is Proposition 1F, designed to limit the ability of lawmakers to give themselves pay raises in any deficit year. Actually, it makes sense that 1F leads when you look at approval ratings for Gov. Schwarzenegger (in the 30s) and for the California legislature (languishing miserably between the teens and twenties).
Beyond that, some commentators have even predicted a record low turn-out for the special election, so it doesn’t look good for California politics. It looks especially bad for the California budget, which will be directly impacted by the ballot measures’ success or failure. According to the San Diego Union-Tribune,
Three [of the] measures have an immediate effect on next year’s budget: Proposition 1C, which is intended to raise $5 billion by borrowing against future lottery revenue, and propositions 1D and 1E. The last two transfer money from mental health and child development programs previously approved by voters.
If voters reject those three measures, the state deficit will grow to $21.3 billion from $15.4 billion in the fiscal year that starts July 1.
Still, the fact that there’s going to be a least a $15.4 billion deficit if the measures pass ($23 billion if they don’t) is discouraging to voters. As has been reported, the governor has already laid-off 5,000 state workers, in addition to threatening to shorten the school-year by a week and cut healthcare coverage for children. These steps don’t really reassure anyone that these ballot measures will be a step toward fixing the problem.
In fact, ballot measures might be part of the problem.
California’s ballot initiative system comes in part from a deep distrust of lawmakers. Previous ballot initiatives have cut real estate taxes and granted mandatory funding to programs in education and healthcare. In each case this mandatory funding has been instituted under a suspicion that politicians will always short these programs in the future and whenever it’s politically viable to do so. In contrast, proper budgeting, whether for a household or a state, requires flexibility and this is something mandatory spending does not allow for. Can you imagine the founding fathers writing constitutional amendments to manage the United States budget? That’s the kind of thing that happens in California. Prior ballot initiatives have put hard numbers to a fluctuating economy, unnecessarily binding the state in lean times to idealistic funding minimums for the programs voters have approved.
Furthermore, California is one of the few states in the United States to employ a full-time legislature, but we also have the strictest term limits of any state in the country, allowing state assembly members only six years and state senators eight before they’re forced to retire from these positions. This translates into a legislature that is constantly learning every decade how to write a budget. It’s paradoxical, actually, that we would pay a full-time legislature and allow them such a short leash, hamstringing them in a variety of ways that make budget discussions difficult at best.
California’s conflicted relationship with its legislators is one reason the state finds itself in budget difficulties every year. The state famously requires a “supermajority” (two-thirds of the vote) to even pass a budget, something that only Arkansas and Rhode Island require. This may work for smaller states, but it seems somewhat crazy for the world’s eighth largest economy to bind itself in knots every year trying to pass a budget.
The supermajority rule is undoubtedly another effect of the short leash California legislatures are held to. If they have to agree with each other, the reasoning goes, their destructive power will be reduced. This doesn’t work out so well in practice, as a minority can band together and obstinately make demands. In addition, with California’s starkly gerrymandered districts, the legislators who do get elected come out of rabidly political districts (drawn to protect the party seat), so these people are wholly assured of permanently disagreeing with anyone on the other side of the spectrum.
In sum, it really doesn’t look good for California, which might need a whole new constitution to fix its problems, so says a recent article in the Economist. They write:
California’s current constitution rivals India’s and Alabama’s for being the longest and most convoluted in the world, and is several times longer than America’s. It has been amended or revised more than 500 times and now, with the cumulative dross of past voter initiatives incorporated, is a document that assures chaos.
California is “the ungovernable state,” according to the Economist, chiming in with a perspective that seems more accurate every year. We hate and distrust our legislators, but when they try to involve us in the difficult decisions of fixing our deficit, we hate and distrust them for passing the buck onto us.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
2 Comments
The initiative process is one the main culprits here. It is just way too easy for citizens (or, more correctly, special interest groups and uber-wealthy individuals) to fill the ballot with proposed laws and constitutional amendments.
Upon the failure of every budget initiatives except for Prop. 1F, there’s some interesting analysis in the LA Times today:
“Despite a big advantage in cash and manpower, the campaign failed to gain traction from the start. Polls throughout the race showed all the ballot measures — except Proposition 1F — losing badly, as voters expressed equal parts confusion over the package and disdain for the Sacramento politicians who crafted it.
Californians seemed upset partly by Sacramento’s call for more money at a time when employment was sagging, retirement accounts were plunging and the average resident was struggling. Others expressed irritationat being called back to the polls just months after a presidential election.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-props20-2009may20,0,5134709.story