Too much power

ON PAGE 22 OF THE BALLOT PAMPHLET sent to every registered voter can be found the fatal flaw in Proposition 76, one of the measures most dear to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. There voters will find the declaration of the Legislature’s nonpartisan fiscal advisor that the proposition “grants the governor substantial new power to unilaterally reduce state spending.” That’s reason enough for voters to reject Proposition 76 in the special election on Nov. 8.

California already has one of the strongest governorships in the nation, primarily because the state’s executive can veto or reduce almost any spending item -- including the state budget -- sent to him by the Legislature. This extraordinary power is subject, as it should be, to an override by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.

But the ballot initiative, which the governor calls the “Live Within Our Means Act” and which was drafted by anti-tax and pro-business political interests, goes much further. In a fiscal emergency, such as the one California suffered after the dot-com bust, it would allow the governor to cut virtually any spending he wanted if the Legislature failed to agree on ways to address revenue shortfalls. The measure does not provide any check or balance on this action.

California, unlike most states, requires a two-thirds vote to pass any spending measure, a fact that also enhances the executive’s power. The governor is a key negotiator in fashioning a budget that can attract the required two-thirds vote, whether his own party is in power in the Legislature or not.

When they drafted the Constitution, the nation’s founders warned against the tyranny of the majority. But California also has been held hostage repeatedly by the tyranny of the minority, as legislators withhold votes for the budget in exchange for pork-barrel projects in their districts. That’s why it’s important to avoid empowering the minority further. Proposition 76 would effectively give the governor and one-third of the Legislature final say over spending decisions.

There are other reasons to defeat Proposition 76. It would write five pages of tiny type (Pages 60-64 in the ballot pamphlet) into the state Constitution with even more dictates on how the state allocates public resources during periods of declining revenue. Based on past efforts, the odds are it will not work the way the authors intend. Proposition 76 is likely to lead to even more deadlock and partisanship.

California already has one spending limit in the Constitution. And voters approved Proposition 58 at the behest of the governor in the 2004 election with the avowed purpose of ending, once and for all, deficit spending. Under that measure, if the budget is out of balance, the governor can call the Legislature into special session to deal with a fiscal crisis. If lawmakers do not agree on a solution within 45 days, they are barred from acting on any other issue, thus providing an incentive to fix the problem. (Such an emergency has not occurred since it was passed, so the effectiveness of Proposition 58 has not been tested.)

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, Proposition 76 is not likely to have any effect on state budgeting in the next fiscal year because revenues are running ahead of forecasts. So California will still go into the next budget year with a projected budget deficit of up to $10 billion. No ballot gimmicks can fix that problem. What it will take is some political will on the part of both the Legislature and, primarily, the governor. He already has all the power he needs to make California live within its means.