Living within our means. Seriously this time.


In 2004, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Controller Steve Westly co-wrote and co-sponsored Propositions 57 and 58, measures touted to "make sure we would never face another deficit crisis." Arnold said, "Under Proposition 58, California would have to live within its means."

Now, the Governor (sans fairweather friend Westly) is pushing the Live Within Our Means Act, slated to appear on a ballot in fall of 2005 or the primary in 2006.

Critics are starting to point out that Schwarzenegger's last deficit cure-all (which included a $15 billion bond) didn't do the trick.

Flawed previous budget measures a problem for Schwarzenegger
(Knoxville News-Sentinel) This year, as California again faces a multibillion-dollar deficit, the governor has proposed asking voters to approve another new measure - one titled the "Live Within Our Means Act."

He and his fiscal team say last year's measures only started to fix a problem that took years to build.

But with well-financed groups including teachers unions already opposing the new spending control effort, political experts say Schwarzenegger must walk a careful line in explaining to voters that he meant what he said last year - and he means it again now.

"He's going to have to develop a message that says this really is the most important and here's why, and explain why last year didn't do it," said Barbara O'Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and Media at California State University, Sacramento. ...

Garry South, a Democratic political consultant who worked for former Gov. Gray Davis, said he thinks voters believed that they were solving the state's budget problems last year.

"How many times can you go to the voters and say, 'This is a once-and-for-all budget reform act that will cure deficit spending?' " South asked. "He has a credibility problem on this."


Deficits are complex problems and take a while to fix, and it's reasonable to expect that solutions take time.

But the Governor sold his last budget-balancing propositions as one-time cure-alls, and is campaigning on Live Within Our Means in the same way, i.e., by contending that this one measure will solve California's budget ills for all time. And I think it's clear that he's said the same thing before.

Getting down into the bones of Live Within Our Means, one finds a great deal of spending put on "autopilot" and a scary amount of power concentrated in the hands of (you guessed it!) the Governor, removing a web of checks and balances and eliminating the constitutional protection of categories like school spending.

The worst-case scenario is that Live Within Our Means will impact the deficit in the same way as Props 57 and 58 (i.e., leave the situation qualitatively unchanged) while giving the Governor an effective line-item veto on spending legislation and gutting social programs and schools.

Is the worst case also the likeliest case?

Posted: Mon - May 2, 2005 at 11:18 AM   | Category:     |   |   | |



©
eXTReMe Tracker