|
LOS ANGELES, California: Tax burden from expensive ballot propositions got you down? According to the Center for Governmental Studies (CGS), you should blame the California State Legislature, not the state's ballot initiative process.[1]
"Most of the ballot-box budgeting has come from you." That's what Robert Stern, president of CGS, told the Senate and Assembly Select Committees on Improving State Government in a November hearing in Oakland.
According to a CGS study, of the 68 ballot measures approved between 1988 and 2009 that had a price tag attached to them, 51 were legislatively-referred constitutional amendments or legislatively-referred state statutes. That's 75%.
The legislatively-referred measures cost $9.8 billion versus $2.05 billion for citizen-initiated measures.
SACRAMENTO, California: The California Legislative Analyst's Office has released a document, "The 2010-11 Budget: California's Fiscal Outlook". The report says "...the state must address a General Fund budget problem of $20.7 billion between now and the time the Legislature enacts a 2010–11 state budget plan." The report also says "The vast majority" of the current year problem can be attributed to the state's inability to implement several major solutions recommended in the July 2009 budget plan."[2]
The hard-hitting report was written by LAO Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor and other LAO staff.
John Myers, Sacramento Bureau Chief for KQED's "The California Report", said that Taylor is "quickly gaining a reputation for telling the ugly truth to power."[3]
Myers says of the November LAO report that it "makes it clear that the current problem really lies at the feet of 120 legislators and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger."[3]
The November LAO analysis says that because of the way California Proposition 98 (1988) is worded, California's declining revenues translate into an extra $1 billion for the state's public schools, even as revenues available for other programs shrink. According to Myers, "In a nutshell: Prop 98 ties school funding, in part, to year-to-year changes in state revenue. But the year-to-year changes projected by this year's budget deal ended up being wrong, making it seem as though revenues are growing faster than projected, thus guaranteeing schools more money. Remember, this is contrary to reality, where revenues are actually declining. Nonetheless, you can expect education advocates to demand that $1 billion ASAP, given the budget reductions to schools over the past two years."[3]
| 
