The Growing Opposition to Prop 31
Printer-friendly version
Send by email
By Anthony Wright
At Health Access California, we were pleased to see the Sacramento Bee editorialize in opposition to Proposition 31 recently. Health Access California regretfully opposes Prop 31. We know better than most that our budget process and governance structure needs reform, but Prop 31 would in fact make the problems worse.
We've posted on our website our one-pager on why Prop 31 is bad for California's health, and our reasons are similar to the Bee's list:
Prop 31 allows the Governor to make unilateral cuts to any program not in the California Constitution or federal law. This could be without legislative oversight, or even hearings - to hear about the potential impacts and unintended consequences of a Governor's cuts. Voters appropriately rejected this in Proposition 75 in 2005.
Prop 31 also institutes onerous "pay go" rules that would make it significantly harder for the legislature to create new programs to meet the emerging needs of California. Yet the same rules have large exemptions that distort the budget process (exempting existing programs, exempting bonds, exempting programs created by ballot measure) and make it more complicated and confusing for the average Californian. So, in short, the provisions would not achieve the goal of fiscal prudence, but would still make it harder for California to invest in the future.
Additionally, Prop 31 allows local governments to preempt state laws by setting up "Community Strategic Action Plans" that could avoid state standards - whether on health, environment, labor or human services - by showing "substantial compliance" in other ways. Whatever the merits of those alternatives, this would making it much harder for California to achieve key state or national goals.
Finally, Prop 31 would enshrine all of its 8,000+ words (longer than the U.S. Constitution) into the California Constitution - unable to be changed without another vote of the people. Even the unobjectionable parts of Prop 31 (a two year budget cycle, for example) shouldn't be in the Constitution, written in stone for a generation or more.
Health Access has a long and proud history of supporting reforms to the budget process. But we believe Prop 31 would take us in the wrong direction.
Anthony Wright is Executive Director of Health Access California, a statewide health care consumer advocacy coalition of over 200 groups.
- callen's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send by email
If I understand correctly, the governor's cuts can be vetoed by a 2/3 vote of the legislature...far from unilateral authority. And the governor's cut authority would only exist if the legislature fails to pass the budget. Therefore, this holds the legislature accountable without giving unilateral power to the governor.
To echo Bob's comment, under prop 31 the governor would only have authority to cut the budget in a fiscal emergency AND if the Legislature has not acted. In a true fiscal emergency, voters probably want someone to be able/required to act -- this says that in a fiscal emergency only, if and only if the Legislature does not do so within 45 days, the Governor may act. That is a very far cry from "unilateral authority".
With regard to PayGo-- Currently, when the state has no new money coming in, when popular new programs are enacted without any way to fund them, popular old programs get gutted after the fact to pay for the new ones, without any public oversight. This is a documented fact. PayGo would require that lawmakers have a way to pay for popular new programs that doesn't simply rely on raiding old ones behind closed doors. The exemptions were in response to abundant feedback (during the development of this policy proposal, which included public discussion all over the state of what was needed, reviews of best practices, etc.) that PayGo should not apply to the restoration of critical funds that have been cut in the last few years only because of CA's dire fiscal condition. So it doesn't. Last, it doesn't address "ballot box budgeting" because no one has get figured out how to craft a measure that would actually work to curb that problem; experts agreed when this measure was being drafted that a PayGO approach is not likely to work with initiatives.
Finally, Prop 31 absolutely would not allow locals “to preempt state laws” or “avoid state standards”. This is patently false. I know it’s long, sorry about that, but it would be great if more journalists/bloggers would actually read the measure - maybe? Prop 31 would not allow any govt to eliminate a state law. Note that in August, the A.G. even changed its summary of 31 in the Voter Guide to clarify that local govts would be able to alter how a state law is applied but cannot alter the law itself. The provisions in question were drafted in response to local officials frustrated at their inability to adequately serve at-risk populations in our communities, because they have virtually no flexibility in how they can spend state funds on state-mandated programs. 31 would allow them to integrate service delivery in ways that better address local needs, and require that they do so in a transparent, accountable way. They also must be able to show up front how they will deliver results, and are held to these goals, publicly. The Oakland Trib recently joined numerous other papers to endorse 31: http://www.insidebayarea.com/opinion/ci_21311168/
Thanks very much,
Zabrae Valentine, former executive director, CA Fwd Action Fund
PS - (I'm replying to myself...) I didn't mean to be snarky in the above post; It doesn't help and apologize -- this absolutely is a complicated measure. I simply want voters to have access to factually accurate description of what 31 would do as they prepare to vote in Nov. Thanks again -- zv