Proposition 1A - Not Nearly Enough

As part of the recent budget compromise, the state legislature agreed to put a number of provisions on an upcoming May ballot. Among those is Proposition 1A, which would extend the recently enacted tax hikes to four years in exchange for a spending cap and mandatory "rainy day fund".

Flashreport, a terrific website and source for state and local news items, ran an editorial today by CA Secretary of State Bill Jones, found here. In the piece, Jones supports the proposition, arguing that if it had been in effect since the 1998-'99 budget year we would be facing a deficit of $5.4billion, as opposed to the $32billion he lists as the current budget deficit.

I certainly agree that a spending cap would have kept politicians from throwing around money during peaks of prosperity that could not possibly be sustained. As a framework, I think a spending cap is a good thing. Increased revenues should not automatically lead to increased programs, which will still need to be funded when the revenues come back to earth.

However, as has been stated here many times before, simple across the board budget cuts will not move our state forward. Until we enact a zero based budgeting system, where every program and state service must justify it's existence and funding levels, we will continue to endorse failure.

For example, California spends enormous sums to fight drug and alcohol abuse, with over $700million slated in the '09-'10 budget. Yet, as documented here, drug abuse remains astonishingly and dangerously high among teenagers. Narconon reports that 2006 saw 2.4million Californians use cocaine.

We could slash the state's Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (ADP) budget by 10%, 20%, 50%, or increase it by any percentage. Neither move would address the fact that the department's efforts are clearly not working. Blindly continuing to fund the department, regardless of the funding amount, without demanding results or accountability is unfair to the taxpayers and unfair to the constituents who are in need of a well-functioning ADP. In this particular example, we are faced with a problem that is a double hit to California's growing deficit: the cost of the Department, and the cost of addiction to the state. Certainly, funding is necessary, but so are results.

State politicians believe they can continue to waste taxpayers' money by dangling proposition 1A in front of us. We are supposed to be comforted by the fact that they merely won't be able to waste quite as much money on a yearly basis. Not much comfort there.

To stop the madness, we must cut off the pipeline. Can the Lottery! Keep your hard earned dollars out of the politicians' hands. Bring back fiscal responsibility and accountability.