 "Photo: N/A")
 "Photo: N/A")
I like my California constitutional amendments like I like my women: short, sweet and easy to understand. Proposition 1A, which will be on the ballot May 19, is the exact opposite.
Instead of being a piece of legislation that normal voters can wrap their minds around in 15 minutes or less, it is a complicated, hideous mess that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Kind of like the curry dish I tried to make last night.
It’s no wonder students concerned about California State University budget cuts paraded around campus handing out hotdogs, screaming obscenities and blasting rhetoric through a megaphone in a bizarre, grassroots rally against Prop 1A.
I distrust interest groups, so I wanted to find some reason to disagree with the hotdog-pedaling protestors. But, after investigating Prop 1A, I had no choice but to join hands with the raucous protestors in opposition.
California has a serious budgeting problem and Prop 1A is being offered up as a solution. The state is broke because it spends more money than it earns. To balance the budget we can spend less, tax more or do both; which is kind of what Prop 1A is trying to do.
Boiled down, Prop 1A has four main points: it raises taxes for another one to two years; increases the “rainy day” fund from 5 percent of the general fund to 12.5 percent of the fund; gives the governor authority to reduce certain kinds of spending during the fiscal year without legislative approval; and it would put a spending limit on the state budget.
It is politically unpopular to raise taxes or cut spending. So, instead of taking the responsibility of making difficult and potentially unpopular legislation —the job politicians are paid to do — our state assembly and senate are pawning their duties off on to voters.
“It is too much stuff for one simple yes or no vote,” said professor Charles Turner, chair of the political science department. “They are taking too complex of an issue and sending it to the voter.”
The problem with an inflexible rainy day fund is economies are cyclical, said Craig Ericson, a senior economics major. The government should tax high during good times and tax low during bad times. But, during the good times most people want the government to give tax cuts or spend more on cool programs.
A rainy day fund to soften the blows of future economic downturns is a good idea in principle, but it is often taken advantage of.
“California already has a rainy day fund, but it has a lot of loopholes,” Turner said. “Create another rainy day fund and it is likely to be looted by another interest group.”
This is even more likely to happen because Prop 1A takes decision-making power away from the elected legislature and puts greater control in the hands of non-elected officials and the governor. The state’s money can be taken or given away by someone you didn’t vote for.
The spending cap is a well-intentioned means of preventing unnecessary spending and balancing the budget. But economies and populations are elastic.
“(Prop) 1A is just one more rule, one more constraint that hurts our economy,” said economics professor Frederica Shockley.
We don’t need more rules that further complicate an already incomprehensible system. We need to sew up specific holes in the state’s pocket. California pays $45,000 a year to keep a person imprisoned and about $8,000 a year to put a student through state college, Shockley said.
But policies that lock up drug offenders and third-time felons continue to ensure that 158,000 people remain behind bars.
I want to get California’s spending under control, but Prop 1A is a weak solution created by weak politicians.
Let our cowardly law makers know we’re not going to do their job for them and vote no on Prop 1A.
Kevin Hagedorn can be reached at
khagedorn@theorion.com
1 comments