I am a civilian employee with the California Highway Patrol. Because I’ve said that, I am required to say...
THIS PAGE CONTAINS PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND OPINIONS OF THE AUTHOR. IT DOES NOT REFLECT THE VIEWS, NOR REPRESENT AN OFFICIAL POSITION, OF THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL. FURTHER, THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL DOES NOT ENDORSE OR APPROVE THE CONTENT OF, NOR IS IT IN ANY MANNER AFFILIATED WITH OR RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENT OF THIS WEB SITE.
I have to quote that verbatim, uppercase and all, including the poor use of the word "nor" (personal bug of mine). It’s also supposed to be in 12-point font, so please adjust your browsers accordingly.
I state where I work not because I want to discuss the CHP but rather, California politics and especially the budget. On July 31, 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger cut my pay to the Federal minimum wage of $6.55 an hour. It’s been a long time since I’ve worked for minimum wage, and at that time I had a wife, house, two cars, two kids, and two cats to take care of.
In terms of its internal politics, California is the most entertaining state in the union. We have the initiative process, by which we the people can enact legislation. Tax increases require a two-thirds vote of the state legislature. And cuts in mandated programs require a two-thirds vote of the state legislature.
Each of these – looked at separately – is perfectly justifiable. The initiative process allows for direct democracy. If our elected fooles refuse to act, we can force their hand by collecting sufficient signatures to put a measure on the ballot. It then goes up for a general vote. If it passes, voila, a new law enacted by the citizens of the state. It’s an excellent process, by and large, one available in – if memory serves – 23 other states. Needless to say, “progressives” and state government officials hate it, but bummer for them.
The tax increase restriction is a by-product of Proposition 13, which in turn was a citizen’s initiative that shut down what was, at the time, a confiscatory property tax scheme. In order to protect the change from being over-turned by the legislature, the two-thirds vote requirement was put into place. So if the state decides it needs to increase its revenues somehow (i.e., raise taxes) is has to have a super-majority vote to do so.
And last, there’s the same super-majority requirement to cancel mandated programs, or entitlements. This, too, is – at least in part – to prevent the legislature from tossing out citizen-enacted laws. But it also protects programs enacted by previous legislatures.
Here’s where all this comes together. California has a budget that is “structurally defective”, rendering us functionally bankrupt. Something like 85% of any year’s budget is spent even before the budget is enacted. That is, the money is already committed. For example, in 2002 we passed a measure to fund additional pre-school programs. For 2008, those programs require $500 million. Because it was passed via the initiative process, it would take a two-thirds vote of the legislature to remove this program. Failing that, there’s half a billion dollars of the budget already “spent”.
The California state budget is riddled with similar programs and spending requirements. A previous initiative mandated that 50% of the state’s budget go toward education. Due to a number of little factors, the actual percentage is more like 45%, but the point remains. Almost half the budget is committed to education, all other considerations are suspended.
Then there’s the two-thirds vote requirement to increase taxes. Just so we're clear, taxes are the only way any government “makes” money. To increase revenues (taxes), you need a two-thirds vote.
Only it won’t happen. Democrats control some 60% of the legislature, but to enact their tax increases requires 67%. Thus, once a year they must condescend to deal with Republicans. This is the time of year, therefore, that Republicans attempt to get some of their proposals enacted because this is the only time of year they stand a chance.
And so we are at impasse. To cut programs takes a two-thirds vote, and the Democrats don’t want to cut anything. To raise taxes takes a two-thirds vote, and the Republicans don’t want to raise taxes. The Sacramento area bird-crap rag, the Sacramento Bee, reports this in a most unusual way. They complain that the Republicans don’t offer any specifics on what programs they want to cut. In the same breath they say the Democrats offer tax increases and program cuts...without specifying what their cuts are. Seems both sides are lacking specifics, but since the Bee is in the Democrat’s back pocket they won’t point out anything so obvious.
All of which leads me back to the governor cutting my pay to the Federal minimum wage. Everyone is screaming he’s doing an evil thing, but everyone’s ignoring that it’s the state legislature’s job to pass a balanced budget before July 1 of each year. They never do. Under state law, the state isn’t supposed to spend any money if there’s no budget. Now Federal law mandates some spending (e.g., wages, hence why I'm getting minimum wage rather than no wage) but the point remains that California can’t spend money without a budget and the budget is primarily the responsibility of the legislature.
Which sits on its hands, collecting its zero interest “loan” paychecks and per diem (because they can't get paid, either). And they scream at the governor while bragging that just the other day they worked a whole four hours on the budget. Four hours. Four. “Hypocrite” just doesn’t say enough.
At some point in the next month or so, the legislature will rouse itself from its sense of self-importance and forward a budget for the governor’s signature. I guarantee you that he’ll reject the first one because it will lack budget process reforms that he’s demanding. People will scream, fingers will be pointed, revisions will be made. Someone will blink and the budget will be enacted. All this will be swallowed by the memory hole.
Until next year, when the same dance with the same tune will begin again.
Comments