Not wanting to be contrarian to all the recent voices for the Governor to call a fiscal emergency special session to deal with California’s critical budget crisis – but if he does – nothing will happen.
Sure – a "Fiscal Emergency Special Session" sounds great, and it would be great if Prop 58 (which created this authority) had any teeth in it. But Prop 58 was written as window dressing for Prop 57 (the $15 Billion Deficit Bond) that the governor and the Democrats really, really wanted to bail us out of the Gray Davis deficit crisis. (update: please see Steve Maviglio’s comment below – I had orginally misnumbered the Props and he was kind enough to point that out – in his heartfelt way)
Prop 57’s basic concept was for California to go into more long-term debt to pay off its short-term deficit – which without Prop 58 to make it look like "real reform" would never ever have made it past the voters. (consumer warning: don’t attempt this at home – you will go bankrupt)
Prop 58 is rife with loopholes. It sounds awesome – it mandates nothing. Click here to read it. But read it with a critical eye. The first change is my favorite – read it, and I’ll explain it’s twist just below.
Section 10 of Article IV was amended to read:
(f) (1) If, following the enactment of the budget bill for the 2004—05 fiscal year or any subsequent fiscal year, the Governor determines that, for that fiscal year, General Fund revenues will decline substantially below the estimate of General Fund revenues upon which the budget bill for that fiscal year, as enacted, was based, or General Fund expenditures will increase substantially above that estimate of General Fund revenues, or both, the Governor may issue a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency and shall thereupon cause the Legislature to assemble in special session for this purpose. The proclamation shall identify the nature of the fiscal emergency and shall be submitted by the Governor to the Legislature, accompanied by proposed legislation to address the fiscal emergency.
(2) If the Legislature fails to pass and send to the Governor a bill or bills to address the fiscal emergency by the 45th day following the issuance of the proclamation, the Legislature may not act on any other bill, nor may the Legislature adjourn for a joint recess, until that bill or those bills have been passed and sent to the Governor.
(3) A bill addressing the fiscal emergency declared pursuant to this section shall contain a statement to that effect.
Wow – how tough. It sounds like after the Governor declares a fiscal emergency the legislature must solve this problem – or we can’t act on any bill or even adjourn. Righteous.
But what it really says is that the legislature can’t do anything until the legislature passes a bill (any bill) it decides (no matter what that is – or what it actually does) solves the problem – which, I guarantee will be by a straight party line vote. Then, even if it doesn’t do anything (but the legislature says it does), all we have to do is send it to the Governor.
It doesn’t say the Governor has to sign it – just that we have to send it to him. He might hate it. It might make the problem worse. But if the Democrat majority says "this will do it" and passes a bill – then the requirement has been met, and the Democrats can go on their merry way as if there wasn’t ever a problem.
Believe me – it was written that way on purpose.
When the bill was debated on the floor, I pointed all of this out. I said "this is a feel good bill. It feels good – but does nothing". I voted for it, and I said I was because "even though it did nothing – it did no harm". And that I hoped everyone felt warm and fuzzy about it.
BTW – I did not vote for the other little gem. The bill that put Prop 57 (the $15 Billion Deficit Bond) on the ballot. That one most certainly did harm by allowing us to ignore making real and necessary cuts that year and during the last few.
Here’s another great sounding part of Prop 58 "mandating" a balanced budget (again, I’ll point out the wiggle room below it):
Section 12 of Article IV was amended to read:
(f) For the 2004—05 fiscal year, or any subsequent fiscal year, the Legislature may not send to the Governor for consideration, nor may the Governor sign into law, a budget bill that would appropriate from the General Fund, for that fiscal year, a total amount that, when combined with all appropriations from the General Fund for that fiscal year made as of the date of the budget bill’s passage, and the amount of any General Fund moneys transferred to the Budget Stabilization Account for that fiscal year pursuant to Section 20 of Article XVI, exceeds General Fund revenues for that fiscal year estimated as of the date of the budget bill’s passage. That estimate of General Fund revenues shall be set forth in the budget bill passed by the Legislature.
A balanced budget? Nope. Why? Because the section above says that the Legislature gets to certify the budget is balanced — and everytime – EVERYTIME – the Democrat budget writers do just that.
So, the $10 Billion deficit this year came from a balanced budget last year. Sure – the budget certified that. (I know, it gives me a headache too).
What to do then? How do we get out of this mess?
First off, we must understand that we must cut the growth of government spending – and then we must do it. For real this time. Let’s ferret out waste. Let’s sell off surplus property. Let’s make the ever-growing state agencies prove their programs are needed and cost-effective – and cut the rest. Let’s blow up some boxes!
The Democrats must work with Republicans from the beginning. The time of Democrats ignoring Republican concerns all year long and then calling us "terrorists" and "whackos" when we won’t agree to what they wrote without our input must end. That tactic really hasn’t worked out that great so far (i.e., our current mess).
Tax increases? Forgot them. We don’t have a revenue problem – we pay plenty enough in taxes. The California legislature has a spending addiction – time for rehab.
I cannot imagine any scenario where there are enough Republican votes in either the Senate or Assembly for a tax increase – or "revenue enhancement" (which is a pretty way of saying the same thing).
Every Republican that has succumbed to the siren song of tax increases has paid the ultimate price. Their constituents toss them out – as they should. So, my Democrat friends, don’t waste a ton of time chasing that fantasy. Tax increases are out. (Remember when Jim Brulte laid down the law? We still feel that way)
Next year is going to be tough. It’s time to get to work now. But let’s not rely on Prop 58 – there’s just no there there.
*Care to comment on this post? You can do so on it’s mirror-entry on the FR Blog*