The Libertarian Party of California has taken a position I think is misguided on the May 19th ballot measures. They have opposed props 1D and 1E, but these are probably a good compromise to improve California's budget situation.
What 1D and 1E do is to move funding from two specially financed programs into the general fund. 1D would take tobacco tax money currently used for anti-tobacco initiatives (i.e. patronizing tv ads) and redirect it to the general fund to pay for what are presumably more useful programs. 1E would do the same with special mental health funds currently paid by a tax on the wealthiest Californians.
The only argument given against these is that it doesn't cut overall government spending. Is this the only measure of a law? We don't have the option on the ballot to cut taxes. It's not one of the questions being asked. Our options in this election are to spend the money on anti-smoking ads and expanded government provided mental health services, or use it to pay for other more useful services through the general fund.
For these reasons, I will be voting yes on prop 1D and 1E, and encourage you to do the same.
On the other measures, it's important to spread the message that while 1A is a tax increase, it also includes changes to how budgeting is done, which could reduce the hysteria in the future. Prop 1B on the other hand, is a complete gutting of the only beneficial effects of prop 1A. A reasonable person could conclude that prop 1A, though it is a tax increase, is a better option than what may come out of Sacramento if we force them to go back to the drawing board without approving it. I am undecided how I will vote on 1A at this time.
1C is a foolish borrowing against future lottery proceeds, and authorizes the state to increase marketing so that the poor and foolish can help pay off this enormous loan.
Prop 1F is a minor symbolic gesture, but definitely one to vote for. It would prevent law makers from raising their pay while running a deficit.
I welcome your comments.
What 1D and 1E do is to move funding from two specially financed programs into the general fund. 1D would take tobacco tax money currently used for anti-tobacco initiatives (i.e. patronizing tv ads) and redirect it to the general fund to pay for what are presumably more useful programs. 1E would do the same with special mental health funds currently paid by a tax on the wealthiest Californians.
The only argument given against these is that it doesn't cut overall government spending. Is this the only measure of a law? We don't have the option on the ballot to cut taxes. It's not one of the questions being asked. Our options in this election are to spend the money on anti-smoking ads and expanded government provided mental health services, or use it to pay for other more useful services through the general fund.
For these reasons, I will be voting yes on prop 1D and 1E, and encourage you to do the same.
On the other measures, it's important to spread the message that while 1A is a tax increase, it also includes changes to how budgeting is done, which could reduce the hysteria in the future. Prop 1B on the other hand, is a complete gutting of the only beneficial effects of prop 1A. A reasonable person could conclude that prop 1A, though it is a tax increase, is a better option than what may come out of Sacramento if we force them to go back to the drawing board without approving it. I am undecided how I will vote on 1A at this time.
1C is a foolish borrowing against future lottery proceeds, and authorizes the state to increase marketing so that the poor and foolish can help pay off this enormous loan.
Prop 1F is a minor symbolic gesture, but definitely one to vote for. It would prevent law makers from raising their pay while running a deficit.
I welcome your comments.
Edit: here's an interesting piece on prop 1A with a comment from Richard Rider also worth reading.
I agree that there is nothing sacred about the programs being raided by 1D and 1E.
But there is nothing sacred about the bloat in the rest of the budget that justifies the shenanigans proposed here, either.
And bloat it is. Please scroll down to Chart B showing California spending since 1976 here:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/budgeting/budget_faqs/information/
Between 1997 and 2007 state General Fund and Special Fund spending grew from $67 billion to $129 billion. If the state had honored the Gann Limit formula just for those last 10 years (growing no faster than the product of population and inflation), the state's budget would have been $95 billion instead of $129 billion in FY 2007-2008. (Or $97 billion, if we use CPI instead of the GDP deflator for inflation. I'm not sure which the Gann Limit called for.) The point is, we saw excess spending growth of $34-36 billion in just those 10 years alone.
Revenue growth also outpaced the Gann Limit, but spending grew even faster.
How do we cure that? Do we give the big spenders more money? Another binge before they have to go back on their diet? (They actually cut total spending last year.)
I say 'no'. If we let them "solve problems" with borrowing, they'll keep on doing that. If we let them "solve problems" by raising taxes, they'll keep on doing that. If we let them "solve problems" with shell games and gimmicks like 1D and 1E, they'll keep on doing that.
If we want them to solve California's budget problems by cutting (or freezing) spending, we have to give them no other choices.
I'm not voting for 1F either. It's just another gimmick, and it would actually reward politicians for raising taxes (by tying their pay to a balanced budget).
I'd rank my preferences thus:
1. Balance budget by cutting spending across the board.
2. Balance budget by borrowing from programs we wouldn't miss and will probably not end up paying back.
3. Balance budget by general borrowing from future revenue that will actually need to be paid back.
4. Balance budget by raising taxes.
I just think option 1 doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of happening in California, so I prefer option 2 to the others.
You cite 4 options beginning with the words "Balance budget by..." but 1D and 1E don't improve the budget process at all. They are ad hoc funding gimmicks that should not be encouraged.
It would be more accurate to begin each clause with "Increase spending by..." as I will do in the following discussion.
Note that the planned budget for 2009-2010 represents a spending increase of $4 billion from this year. (The fake "budget cutting" gimmick they employed was a $2 billion "cut" in General Fund spending to distract from a $6 billion increase in special fund spending.)
The state already plans to exercise your options 3 and 4 to the extent feasible ("Increase spending by general borrowing." and "Increase spending by raising taxes.")
Measures 1D and 1E (implicitly) ask the question "Should the state FURTHER increase (state) spending by taking revenue from (county) programs we wouldn't miss."
I say 'no' because increasing spending further is not a good idea. It would only increase the baseline for the 2010-2011 budget.
(BTW, I would happily support 1D if its effect would be to avert borrowing or tax increases. But that's not how our legislators roll. I'll compare that likelihood to the snowball's chance in hell!)