Charting a way out of the mess in the Capitol
The reform group California Forward has proposed a plan to change state and local governments that has something for everyone, except perhaps for the extreme right and left.
The group California Forward has offered a sensible plan to change state and local government with something for nearly everyone. (Wally Skalij/Los Angeles Times)
The bipartisan reform group California Forward has proposed a modest, reasonable and doable set of significant changes in how state and local governments operate.
There's no denying the problems: gridlock, perpetually late budgets, chronic deficits, IOUs, Sacramento raids on local coffers. . . .
The solutions are a bit more controversial. But these are some steps recommended unanimously by the California Forward's Leadership Council after 18 months of mulling:
* Lower the Herculean hurdle for legislative passage of a state budget from a two-thirds majority to a simple majority. But retain the two-thirds requirement for tax increases.
Passing an on-time budget would "stop the drumbeat that no one in Sacramento knows what they're doing," says the reform group's co-chairman, Bob Hertzberg, a former Democratic Assembly speaker. The annual summer stalemate over spending is "one of the reasons people hate Sacramento so much."
Many liberals argue that the majority party -- virtually always the Democrats -- still would be handicapped if it couldn't raise taxes occasionally to finance the budget. But the counter is that at least Democrats could set the state's spending priorities, subject to gubernatorial veto.
"Those spending decisions should belong to the majority, as they do in 47 other states," says Democrat Fred Keeley, the Santa Cruz County treasurer-tax collector, a member of the group's leadership council and ex-assemblyman. Budgets get deadlocked and distorted, he asserts, while "a minority of a minority hold their breath until they turn purple."
Anyway, says council member Bruce McPherson, a former GOP legislator and secretary of state: "Let's face it, the two-thirds process hasn't worked very well. It's not an example of how to do good budgeting."
Do it with a majority vote and let the Democrats be held accountable.
* For fiscal conservatives and anyone with common sense, require that unexpected spikes in tax revenue be spent only for one-time purposes, not to enhance programs in perpetuity.
Require the sponsor of any new spending proposal, whether in the Legislature or at the ballot box, to identify the funding source. No more free-lunch proposals, such as then-actor Arnold Schwarzenegger's 2002 after-school initiative that became a $550-million annual hit on the bleeding budget.
Budget for two years, rather than one, and regularly monitor the spending plan to watch for red ink.
Set clear goals for each program. If they're not met, change or chuck the program.
Prohibit the Legislature from raising taxes on a majority vote and calling them "fees." Democrats tried that last December. The tactic is legally suspect, but worried Republicans insist that it be made unequivocally illegal.
California Forward hopes the required budgeting prudence, along with thwarting the tax-fee shenanigans, will be regarded by both political camps as a fair trade-off for eliminating the two-thirds budget vote.
* Provide local governments with more control over their own fates by barring the state from raiding property taxes and other revenue.
Permit cities, counties and school districts to unite in some common endeavor, such as gang suppression, and pay for it with a tax increase passed by a simple majority of voters. Now it would require a two-thirds vote.