No on 31: Poorly Worked-Out Budget Reform

Dang, here's another poorly written attempt to reform California's budget process -- another proof of the proverb that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Prop 31 has some good ideas that might make sense if California didn't have the 2/3 requirement for raising new revenues and if we didn't have such a wacky initiative process. There are some just-plain good ideas: two-year budget, publishing bills in print before voting on them. Then there's those 'road to hell' ideas: 'pay as you go' makes sense if the rest of the budget rules are balanced, but our system isn't. Raising revenues requires a 2/3 vote while cutting spending doesn't. Even worse, Prop 31 does nothing to reform the state's out-of-control initiative process (in fact, it encourages more and more ballot-box budgeting), which keeps tying the budget more and more in knots.

This is too bad; the state needs good budget reform. The people originally behind Prop 31 are good people, California Forward. But the law is written poorly, it ignores too much about what is already wrong with California, and it would make the budget battles come out even worse for education, the environment, and for low-income families. It is a constitutional amendment, so the only way to fix it would be another initiative. Let's send the policy folks back to the drawing board to write a better reform.

That's why it has widespread opposition from the League of Women Voters, Democratic Party, teachers, environmental groups, and many more. Check out the 'No on 31' campaign for more info.