This Election Day, Long Beach voters will be asked to consider two statewide ballot measures, Proposition 1 (“Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014”) and Proposition 2 (“State Reserve Policy”).
For our readers’ convenience, I’ve linked the specifics of each proposition as published by the State non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO).
As its title makes plain, Proposition 1 claims to try deal with California’s on-going fresh water challenges. This is an important topic for California and a challenge that has long pre-dated 1960, when California residents approved an Act (oddly enough, also “Proposition 1” for that year) that created the State Water Project to, among other things, move fresh water from the northern and central parts of the state, to the more populace southern areas.
Back to present day. The current Proposition 1 is fairly typical of measures that come out of Sacramento these days, regardless of the actual title of the measure. Proposition 1 is, at its core, another request from the Democrat-controlled state legislature to drive the state further into debt.
According to the LAO, Prop. 1 would authorize $7.1 billion in “new borrowing”, which would cost state taxpayers about $360M per year for the next 40 years. In other words, to raise $7.1B which it doesn’t currently have, the legislature wants Californian taxpayers to further indebt themselves by $14.4B. Read that again, please: $14.4B worth of public debt for $7.1B in revenues to be allegedly earmarked for improving water quality, supply, and infrastructure.
According to usdebtclock.org, California is currently $423.1B in debt and growing rapidly and this measure, all by itself, would increase this debt by $14.4B over the next 40 years. Ah well, what’s a few billion in public debt here of there, right?
Regardless of the hard mathematical facts presented here, I fully anticipate that Prop. 1 will pass. California voters have demonstrated time and time again that they have rarely met a bond (debt) measure that they did not like. Meanwhile I also anticipate that despite this measure’s passage, in 10 years or so the legislature will be proposing still more bond (debt) measures for still more noble causes, which will likewise not solve the state’s various challenges. At some point it is hoped that California’s voters may finally start to require its legislatures and governors to live within their means, rather than continue to dig California’s debt crater ever and ever deeper.
Proposition 2, by contrast, seems to be at least a nod toward more fiscal sanity in Sacramento, albeit a nod with a carefully concealed wink or two.
The LAO says if the voters approve this measure: “Long-term state savings from faster payment of existing debts. Different levels of state budget reserves, depending on economy and decisions by elected officials. Smaller local reserves for some school districts.
In essence, Prop. 2 mandates an increase in the state’s “rainy day fund” maximum from 5% to 10% of current General Fund revenues. Sounds good so far. If some savings are good, more are generally better, yes? Well, yes, however…
“However”, this state-level savings increase could well come at the expense of local school and community college districts throughout the state. Here’s how: Local school and community college districts typically maintain their own rainy day funds and there is no maximum amount these districts can deposit. Prop. 2 creates a new state-level rainy day fund for schools and presumes to set a maximum amount local districts can deposit in their own accounts going forward. The new limit would be 3%-10% of their budgets. According to the LAO: “…most school districts have kept reserve levels much higher than these (proposed) maximum levels.
In essence, through Prop. 2, the democrat-controlled state legislature is telling local school and community college districts that it knows better than they how much they should save, what they should use those funds for, and when. How very magnanimous of them. I anticipate that voters will pass this measure as well, despite the presumption from most Sacramento legislators that they know best how to control the rainy day funds of local school districts.
Thus, with these two propositions, most California legislators are sending a very mixed fiscal message. On the one hand they are encouraging more state-level savings but, on the other, asking voters to allow them to borrow still more money and further increase California’s already monstrous public debt by $14.4B over the next 40 years.
OP-ED: California’s Mixed Ballot Messages
This Election Day, Long Beach voters will be asked to consider two statewide ballot measures, Proposition 1 (“Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014”) and Proposition 2 (“State Reserve Policy”).
For our readers’ convenience, I’ve linked the specifics of each proposition as published by the State non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO).
As its title makes plain, Proposition 1 claims to try deal with California’s on-going fresh water challenges. This is an important topic for California and a challenge that has long pre-dated 1960, when California residents approved an Act (oddly enough, also “Proposition 1” for that year) that created the State Water Project to, among other things, move fresh water from the northern and central parts of the state, to the more populace southern areas.
Back to present day. The current Proposition 1 is fairly typical of measures that come out of Sacramento these days, regardless of the actual title of the measure. Proposition 1 is, at its core, another request from the Democrat-controlled state legislature to drive the state further into debt.
According to the LAO, Prop. 1 would authorize $7.1 billion in “new borrowing”, which would cost state taxpayers about $360M per year for the next 40 years. In other words, to raise $7.1B which it doesn’t currently have, the legislature wants Californian taxpayers to further indebt themselves by $14.4B. Read that again, please: $14.4B worth of public debt for $7.1B in revenues to be allegedly earmarked for improving water quality, supply, and infrastructure.
According to usdebtclock.org, California is currently $423.1B in debt and growing rapidly and this measure, all by itself, would increase this debt by $14.4B over the next 40 years. Ah well, what’s a few billion in public debt here of there, right?
Regardless of the hard mathematical facts presented here, I fully anticipate that Prop. 1 will pass. California voters have demonstrated time and time again that they have rarely met a bond (debt) measure that they did not like. Meanwhile I also anticipate that despite this measure’s passage, in 10 years or so the legislature will be proposing still more bond (debt) measures for still more noble causes, which will likewise not solve the state’s various challenges. At some point it is hoped that California’s voters may finally start to require its legislatures and governors to live within their means, rather than continue to dig California’s debt crater ever and ever deeper.
Proposition 2, by contrast, seems to be at least a nod toward more fiscal sanity in Sacramento, albeit a nod with a carefully concealed wink or two.
The LAO says if the voters approve this measure: “Long-term state savings from faster payment of existing debts. Different levels of state budget reserves, depending on economy and decisions by elected officials. Smaller local reserves for some school districts.
In essence, Prop. 2 mandates an increase in the state’s “rainy day fund” maximum from 5% to 10% of current General Fund revenues. Sounds good so far. If some savings are good, more are generally better, yes? Well, yes, however…
“However”, this state-level savings increase could well come at the expense of local school and community college districts throughout the state. Here’s how: Local school and community college districts typically maintain their own rainy day funds and there is no maximum amount these districts can deposit. Prop. 2 creates a new state-level rainy day fund for schools and presumes to set a maximum amount local districts can deposit in their own accounts going forward. The new limit would be 3%-10% of their budgets. According to the LAO: “…most school districts have kept reserve levels much higher than these (proposed) maximum levels.
In essence, through Prop. 2, the democrat-controlled state legislature is telling local school and community college districts that it knows better than they how much they should save, what they should use those funds for, and when. How very magnanimous of them. I anticipate that voters will pass this measure as well, despite the presumption from most Sacramento legislators that they know best how to control the rainy day funds of local school districts.
Thus, with these two propositions, most California legislators are sending a very mixed fiscal message. On the one hand they are encouraging more state-level savings but, on the other, asking voters to allow them to borrow still more money and further increase California’s already monstrous public debt by $14.4B over the next 40 years.