Editors Perspective
California’s Fiscal Crisis – Now What?
In the weeks leading up to the May 19th California special election there was much speculation and pontification about just how badly the propositions 1A-1E would fail. Most predicted that proposition 1F would pass without question. That measure prevents elected Members of the Legislature and statewide constitutional officers, including the Governor, from receiving pay raises in years when the state is running a deficit. The remaining initiatives, though, were designed to generate new sources of revenue or modify existing systems to help close the ever-growing state deficit.
The voters of California delivered a strong message to both the Governor and the Legislature – “this is not how we want to fix the mess you’ve gotten us into.” The measures failed miserably, with the average between the five being 64.9% voting “no” to the 35.1% voting “yes.” Many voters commented to local, state and national media that their reason for turning the measures down was simple. The legislators had been elected to lead this state, so lead it; solve this massive multi-billion dollar problem together and quit coming to the people to make the touch decisions.
Many legislators argued in vain that they had been attempting to come together of this highly complex, intricate and nearly mind-boggling problem. Some of the solutions they generated constitutionally required a vote of the people, thus the need for the special election. While they may be correct in the nuts-and-bolts of it all, their pleas for understanding fell on deaf ears. From the outside looking in, the Legislature and the Governor are failing to play well in the sandbox. And Californians are sick of it.
The current question plaguing the state is “now what?” In early May, exactly two weeks before the fateful Election Day, I participated in the California Women for Agriculture Annual Legislative Day. My chapter had the opportunity to visit eleven Assemblymembers and Senators, sharing our position on various pieces of legislation currently facing both houses. It became obvious very quickly, though, that discussing any bill was a moot point. All eyes, ears and attention spans were focused on the failure looming May 19th. And what would come on May 20th.
Our team shifted gears early on and focused our time with each member on his or her perspective regarding how the state would solve this crisis. I’m sure you’re not shocked to learn that none had a tangible solution. All talked about how they’re parties were working together to develop a sound strategy. That being said, Democrats still insisted on new revenue sources and Republicans noted that program cuts with no new taxes would be the only possible solution. In reality, their answers reflected nothing but business as usual.
One member did mention the possibility of a constitutional convention. The never-in-our-lifetime, politically archaic event would force government to come together and make fundamental changes in how the executive and legislative branches operate. High on the list of priorities to be addressed at a constitutional convention would be changing the voting requirements for the state budget from two-thirds to some lesser percentage. This member felt that a 60% vote of the legislature would be sufficient and shows strength beyond a simple majority.
While the idea of a constitutional convention intrigues me and I inherently believe our system needs a major overhaul, I am in no way holding my breath for it to happen anytime soon. And it doesn’t address the bigger issue at hand – California has a $20 billion (or more, depending on whose numbers you use) deficit.
Based on what I heard in the Capitol in early May, no one with the power to make a decision has any idea what to do. And the political rhetoric and grandstanding that now plagues our state is certainly out in full force. The bottom line – and one that has been advocated by the non-partisan, legislatively-appointed Legislative Analyst – is that the only way to fix this mess is major change.
Deep cuts will need to be made across the board. And I mean painful, more people will lose their jobs, real services will be eliminated, programs will disappear-type cuts. I also think – and there are many who strongly disagree – that changes to our sources of income will be necessary too. At the end of the day, the entire system needs to be evaluated and revamped. Bottom line, it should all be open for discussion and on the table.
As part of this issue focused on National Dairy month, I’ve spoken to dairymen across the Western United States about how they’ve been surviving over the past year. Many have made changes to their feed rations, others have laid of herdsmen and some have cut back on non-essential services. Bottom line, though, each and every one of them has said “you can’t spend what you don’t have.”
It’s time the state of California take a page out of a dairyman’s play book – if the money’s not there, we shouldn’t be spending it. If we’ve legally required the money to be spent, then we need to do what it takes to modify those laws and re-evaluate our priorities. At the end of the day, California needs to start being run like a business and then we might see some real progress being made.
Go back to the articles page
