The Special Election - Vote No on Prop 1F
3-3-2009 6:56 am
This coming May, California voters will be asked to vote on a half-dozen different ballot measures placed before them by the state legislature.
Over the coming weeks, I will be taking a look at each of those measures - analyzing them and giving FR readers my take on them.
The first one that I am going to tackle is the last of the six on the ballot - Proposition 1F.
1F is a pretty straight forward measure to describe - if California has a deficit in a given year, then the independent commission that reviews the salary of the Governor and State Legislators is directed to not give any raises to these politicians for that year.
On a first-pass, it sounds pretty reasonable. But the policy objective behind this measure, upon closer examination, is quite troubling...
Let me start by getting a few basic things out on the table.
I truly believe that California should have a part-time legislature -- like they have in many states, our legislators can convene for a few months of the year (in some states they meet every other year), and can work on a budget, and a review of state laws. I can make the case that in a very real sense, the state legislature has become a "bill mill" producing thousands of pieces of legislation each year, much of it, frankly, a waste of time and expense.
So whenever I read about a proposal that would cut or limit legislative salaries - I have a gut-level positive response. After all, if we pay them less, perhaps we can then make the case that they should work less! (Only in government do you wish that you could pay someone less in the hopes that it means they would do less).
There is also no doubt that the way that our legislators and Governors have been handling our state's finances for many, many years now has been tragic. The virtually unchecked growth in the size and scope of state government is tragic, and now taxpayers have seen the ultimate payback - not only have they been hit with the largest state-level tax increase in the history of the United States - not only are they being asked to approve as much as $20 billion more in taxes on this May special election ballot in Proposition 1A, but the ongoing tragedy is that despite all of these higher taxes, the spending priorities of the legislature have not changed, and basic issues remain unfunded (such as water storage and conveyance) while liberal redistributive wealth programs have flourished.
While some blame for these overspending budgets certainly can be placed at the feet of some Republican legislators - the bulk of the responsibility belongs with Capitol Democrats, and our last couple of Governors. Those who watch the budget-sausage-factory process know that legislative Democrats pretty much move their budget bill forward in a hurried, last minute process that forces GOP legislators to try and "hold out" for a few reforms here or there, but largely the package that moves forward closely resembles the original product. Our bloated budgets are a creation of Democrats who are a combination of liberal ideologues and union tools.
So with a budget system like this, again, my visceral reaction is to get mad and take punitive action against the legislature and the Governor - look at the fine mess into which they have placed us all!
I am quite certain it is these arguments above that were the reason that longtime taxpayer and FR friend Lew Uhler supports 1F - he even signed the ballot statement in support of the measure. I can understand where he is coming from.
But let's take a few paragraphs to look at the "other side" of this picture - and some reasons why conservatives might want to pause before checking "yes" on 1F.
The first reason to be skeptical, which is important, is understanding the context in which this measure even appears on the special election ballot. This measure was part of the "political blackmail" by scoundrel State Senator Abel Maldonado, who rather infamously pledged his deciding vote on passing massive tax increases in returns for some "demands" of his own - one of which was the placement of this ballot measure before the voters. So 1F is already on the ballot for reasons other than 2/3rd of the legislature deciding it was good public policy.
The main reason to be concerned about this measure is that it seems to be part of an idea that all legislators are created equal - which is to say that it presupposes that every legislator is part of the problem, and it actually punishes some members of the legislature for doing the right thing.
This measure, cutting off raises for all legislators and the governor during a budget deficit, is very similar in concept to proposals I have seen to stop paying these officials when a budget is not passed on time.
Here is my question - why or how is it fair to fiscally conservative, responsible legislators, to punish them for doing the right thing? You will notice that this measure does not suspect salary adjustments for legislators who voted in favor of the irresponsible spending plans that result in the deficit? No, this measure goes after every legislator, and for that reason, I am very concerned that we are taking a "shotgun" approach to this issue - and creating a "friendly fire" situation.
It's similar to my concerns and objections to the notion of not paying the legislators when the budget is late. That policy presupposes that a budget, any budget, is actually better than a late budget, and it could put unfair pressure on a fiscally conservative legislator to vote for a budget with a tax increase, knowing that if the budget is late, the paycheck on which they rely to pay their mortgage or rent, and feed their family, may not be coming.
In the end, Proposition 1F is a "feel good" measure that really doesn't amount to much public policy. Heck, if this measure caused legislators and the governor to, say, not get a $10,000 raise - well that would amount, fiscally, to less than $1.5 million in savings in a state that spends well over $100 billion annually.
I will be voting against Proposition 1F, and am hopeful that what will see on the ballot sometime in the future is a measure to create a part-time legislature, with a part-time salary. In the meantime, I am really not interesting in supporting a measure that punishes conservative legislators for deficit spending for which they do not vote.
Care to read comments, or make your own about today's Daily Commentary?
Just click here to go to the FR Weblog, where this Commentary has its own blog post, and where you can read and make comments.
Comments (5)
