A great deal of mischief has overtaken our state in the years since propositions have become wide-spread. Even if voters could understand these measures, rampant lying by promoters with vested interests makes prudent decisions virtually impossible. Aside from dubious policy matters, voters often approve spending measures which require a certain level of spending for a pet interest. In too many cases, these interests conflict, making budgeting unwieldy, even wildly unwieldy! But legislators’ hands are tied by conflicting statutes.
Propositions fall into two general categories: legislative initiatives, and budget proposals, usually financed by bonds. We’ll look at them separately.
Legislative initiatives.
Keep in mind that we hire, or elect, legislators to run the government. When we are presented with a legislative initiative, it’s generally a sign that our legislature is not doing its job. There may be matters that they are not qualified to negotiate, such as the sticky issue of gay rights. Admittedly this is a cause best worked out by public opinion---or really, by the courts. (Our freedom is not supposed to be contingent upon the fickle caprice of public opinion.) Nonetheless, this is a sticky matter for lawmakers.
Most legislative initiatives are complicated measures of law, unfit for our consideration. By the time these measures arrive on our ballots they are convoluted beyond the rational scrutiny of unsophisticates, much less semi-literate underclass.
An additional complication is presented by the driving force behind them. In simpler days, when a matter was thrown before the public, it was usually backed by public opinion. You might find young people at a table soliciting signatures to qualify the measure. These people were usually passionate regarding their cause, and eager to discuss the issue.
That has changed. Propositions are now big business. The groups that put these measures together, “Citizens for …blah…blah…blah…”, are front groups. The moneyed interests behind them are not interested in policy or public welfare; they’re just cooking up ways to make money. People manning the signature stations are being paid to collect signatures---usually a dollar or a dollar and a half per signature.
Even if the measure seems like a good one, we recommend close scrutiny. So many “good causes” either end up violating the constitution, clogging the courts, or imposing intractable confusion onto our budgeting process. Often the result becomes exactly the opposite of its intended (stated) position.
Our legislators have a vested interest in propositions in that they limit our legislators’ exposure to controversy. Generally, these people make big bucks by being in office---they must be, considering how much it costs to run for public office. For them to take a stand on a controversial issue threatens the security of their elected post. Sadly, most are in office for power and profit, not to make good public policy.
Robbinsense recommends careful consideration of any legislative matter that you may be inclined to support. Try to decide if this is a matter that’s being presented clearly enough for normal people to decide. Keep in mind that the side of the prop that gets the most financial backing is the one that will line the pockets of the special interests supporting it. If in doubt, vote the side that gets the least advertising. There’s probably a 95% chance that this matter should be decided by the legislature, not us. Unless you feel confident that you’re on top of the issue and the wording is clear, vote NO. Force our legislature to do its job.
Budget matters.
When the government decides to increase spending on something outside the existing budget, it has four choices: 1) If there’s no available money in the budget, it can raise taxes; 2) it can divert funds from other causes; 3) fund it without means (deficit spending); or 4) It can “borrow” money with a bond measure. Unfortunately, no legislator today is going to say, “OK we need a $600 Billion water project. Let’s raise taxes to put the funds together, then start work!” But floating a $600 Billion bond for a water project gets the job done, and it doesn’t sound like our taxes are being raised.
This matter is no different than you or I going out to buy a new TV. If we don’t have the money in the bank, we may buy it with a credit card, knowing that by borrowing the money, we’ll end up paying much more than the purchase price. In our new financial reality, more and more people are realizing the folly of living on credit. The prudent consumer saves money to buy consumer products with cash rather than using credit, or deficit spending. (See Reflections on the Credit Culture.)
But what about prudent government? It’s clear that many public services need sponsorship. Which do we pay for, and which should we ignore? Which are so important that we should borrow to achieve them immediately in the face of a legislature that will not [go out and get a job to increase its income] (this is another way of saying "generate the funds by prioritization or increasing taxes".)
At this time, California has $83.5 Billion in bond debt, of which $64 billion is in general obligation bonds. These are financed by tax-payers through our deficit-ridden budget. We also have an additional $47.5 billion in un-sold bonds already approved by the tax-payers.Bond indebtedness has increased by 143% in the last ten years, a measure of our legislature not doing its job. 6.9% of our budget goes to servicing these bonds, and it's projected to go to 11% in the next three years.
Robbinsense proposes the following check list to scrutinize bond measures.
1) Is this funding going to line some special interest pockets?
2) Is this an on-going expenditure? How often do we see school bonds on the ballot? Why is the government not supporting our schools from the general fund? What surprises have occurred to catch our legislature off guard, that they didn't plan for these expenditures ten years ago?
3) Is this a ploy by the legislature to accomplish something for which they don’t have the courage to raise taxes to support? Look on the ballot to see the cost of the measure…We’re going to pay for that directly through taxes, or later through taxes to pay off the debt, plus the interest. Or we’ll add it to our standing debt, trying to pass it on to our children, as the federal government does. If the answer to any of these questions is “yes”, vote no.
Item 2 is the crucial one. Regardless of how obvious the need appears, we suggest that your final consideration should rest with this: should the legislature be raising money to support this matter, or is it proper to borrow the money and pay later? Remember, you’re going to pay for this either way; with a bond, you’ll pay twice as much, but it’ll look as though the legislature hasn’t raised taxes.
The greatest mischief has been created by our own folly. 100 years ago we were granted the "right" of ballot initiative---and we've been making a mess ever since. We pass initiatives with no method of funding; we stymie our budgeting process with mandatory 2/3 approval, then ask the legislature to make it work; we make it easy to cut taxes, and near-impossible to raise them, giving a small minority the ability to control the budget; we killed the predominant means for funding schools with Prop 13, then demand the impoverished state take over; we jealously protect "our" programs and declare "theirs" to be pork; we are short-sighted, and demand instant gratification. We are incapable of the wisdom and nuance of government; yet we deny ourselves the right to keep competent legislators, and guard our prerogative to go on making bad policy that cannot be undone by any legislature, much less the slackers we put in office.
The bottom line on all of these matters is that the state is in a mess. The Constitution is huge; we already have some 500 Constitutional Amendments mucking it up---nothing can get done. Force our legislature to act; passing propositions is not the way to do it. (Refer to On the State Budget.) Vote NO.
