The District Office had a
pleasant surprise this afternoon, when Bess Meisler, of ‘My Big Fat Greek
Wedding’ and ‘Daddy Daycare,’ and her daughter, stopped by to say hello and
thank me for fighting to secure California’s financial future.
Showing posts with label California Budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label California Budget. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Monday, January 7, 2013
The martial art of subduing special interests
Passing a major reform in Sacramento has the same odds as a novice knocking out the champ at a martial-arts competition. This is particularly true when it comes to reforming ballot-box budgeting. I’ve introduced eight measures on this topic over the past 2 1/2 years, and people often ask me why I bother. Changes to the status quo are long shots that require heavy lifting. Complex constitutional amendments are not easily explained in sound bites. And many of these bills don’t exactly ingratiate a legislator with special interests. I always respond that I am lucky enough to have been made to see the big picture, and that the big picture imparts in me a sense of martial duty.
When I first ran for state Assembly, I sought the endorsement of former Speaker Robert Hertzberg, whose encyclopedic knowledge of our government and involvement in various reform groups made him a prime candidate to teach this karate kid a thing or two. In true Mr. Miyagi fashion, he wanted some wax-on, wax-off. “You can’t have my endorsement until I know you’re prepared for the monumental task before you. And you cannot be prepared until you’ve studied the roots of California’s problems.”
Undaunted, I humbly left his office and began my quest. I read everything I could, whether he’d suggested it or not: California histories, Legislative Analyst Office reports, think-tank studies and more. After months of study, I was ready to spar. At our next meeting, I was able to thoroughly discuss the big picture with Hertzberg. The good news? I received his endorsement and won my race. The bad news? I’ve remained acutely aware of the need for reform, and troubled by the general inaction to achieve it.
Buried in the documents I studied were disturbing facts about the scope and harmful effects of ballot-box budgeting. Unfunded program spending from ballot initiatives costs California at least $8.6 billion each year, and special funds created by ballot initiatives soak up an additional $2 billion taxpayer dollars each year. This is nuts.
I believe those funds should be spent on the core functions of government: Paving roads, improving our education system, keeping courts open so lawsuits don’t drag on for years, and making sure someone promptly responds when you dial 9-1-1. Ballot-box budgeting for special interests’ pet projects siphons resources away from these core functions. And when government cannot perform its core functions adequately, people lose faith. That is why I have tried mightily to reform our system.
Will this year be the one where the karate kids
finally defeat the special-interest champs? I will continue pushing for
these important reforms this session. If you think reforming ballot-box
budgeting is important, I encourage you to write your state representatives and
tell them to do something about it.
I believe those funds should be spent on the core functions of government: Paving roads, improving our education system, keeping courts open so lawsuits don’t drag on for years, and making sure someone promptly responds when you dial 9-1-1. Ballot-box budgeting for special interests’ pet projects siphons resources away from these core functions. And when government cannot perform its core functions adequately, people lose faith. That is why I have tried mightily to reform our system.
In 2011, I introduced ACA 6, a simple measure that said an
initiative could not create a new program without first identifying how it
would pay for it. Special interests shouldn’t be allowed to enshrine a
new spending program without telling the voters exactly how they will find the
money to fund it. I introduced AB 65, which would print the top five
financial supporters of an initiative in our ballot pamphlets. Following
the money is the easiest way to know who will benefit from a measure. And
I introduced ACA 10, which would make it harder to add junk to our constitution
but ensure that reformers can still remove junk. The federal constitution
has been amended just 27 times in 225 years. California’s has been
amended 521 times in less than half that period, a major cause of the state’s
dysfunction.
I am heartened to see so many newcomers echoing the calls
for reform, now that Democrats have a two-thirds majority in the
legislature. Although my proposals and others are far from partisan, I,
too, hope that party unity gives reformers a better chance of winning hearts
and votes, even if the clear need for reform previously did not. I also
believe that Republican leaders would be wise to join reform efforts, instead
of blocking them because the author happens to be a Democrat. After all,
fiscal responsibility used to be what Republicans campaigned on, and protecting
our state constitution from special interests should appeal to all patriots.
# # #
This opinion-editorial first appeared in the Glendale News-Press on December 22, 2012 - You can read this OpEd and more at the Glendale News-Press by clicking HERE
Mike Gatto is the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee of the California State Assembly. He represents the cities of Burbank, Glendale, La Canada-Flintridge, La Crescenta, Montrose, the Los Angeles neighborhoods of Los Feliz, Silver Lake, Atwater Village, and portions of the Hollywood Hills and East Hollywood. www.asm.ca.gov/gatto
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Press-Enterprise Editorial: Favors Mike Gatto's Ballot-Box Reform
The Press-Enterprise becomes another in a growing chorus of major publications to editorialize in favor of my ballot-box budgeting fixes.
Ballot-box budgeting is the issue behind AB 2220, by Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D-Los Angeles. The bill would mandate a ballot pamphlet reminder to voters about proposed initiatives that would raise new revenue and dedicate it to specific programs. The official analysis of such measures would have to include language specifying that the money raised by the initiative would go only to the intended programs, and would not be available for other state needs unless voters approved changes later. The requirement would not apply to tax measures that directed the resulting money into the general fund without restriction.
The fate of AB 2220, now in the Senate, is unclear. Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed nearly identical legislation last year, saying that a rote disclaimer in initiative analyses “won’t provide voters greater clarity.” Well-informed voters, of course, already know that legislators have little power to alter initiatives — which is one reason ballot measures are popular with an electorate that distrusts the Legislature.
Regardless of how the bill fares, however, Gatto has a legitimate point: Voters too often decide budget-related ballot measures with little insight into the state’s larger financial picture — or the consequences that result from such disjointed fiscal choices.
California has many voter-approved propositions that limit budgeting flexibility. The most sweeping is Prop. 98, the 1988 measure that requires about 40 percent of the budget to go to education. Prop. 99, also from 1988, raised the cigarette tax and earmarked the money for health programs. Prop. 172 in 1993 raised the sales tax to fund law enforcement. Prop. 10 in 1998 raised the cigarette tax again, directing the money toward early childhood development programs. Prop. 64, in 2004, taxed wealthy Californians to pay for mental health services.
Such tinkering blocks any attempt to set sensible priorities for public spending, and helps make state budgeting more opaque and convoluted. The Legislature should be directing available funds to sustain the most crucial programs first. Instead, the state wrestles with ways to pay for priority services while tax money flows unchecked to less critical programs. Thus Prop. 49, from 2002, requires the state to spend nearly $550 million a year on after-school programs when districts struggle to fund classroom instruction.
Yes, the Legislature has an abysmal record of making shortsighted, reckless financial decisions. But voters will not encourage greater fiscal responsibility by approving arbitrary spending dictates based on whatever cause happens to gain sufficient popular support.
Randomly disrupting sensible allocation of public money is not a strategy for fixing the state’s chronic fiscal woes. Good intentions do not justify ballot measures that make the state’s budget more intractable."
Read more HERE
Ballot-box budgeting is the issue behind AB 2220, by Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D-Los Angeles. The bill would mandate a ballot pamphlet reminder to voters about proposed initiatives that would raise new revenue and dedicate it to specific programs. The official analysis of such measures would have to include language specifying that the money raised by the initiative would go only to the intended programs, and would not be available for other state needs unless voters approved changes later. The requirement would not apply to tax measures that directed the resulting money into the general fund without restriction.
The fate of AB 2220, now in the Senate, is unclear. Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed nearly identical legislation last year, saying that a rote disclaimer in initiative analyses “won’t provide voters greater clarity.” Well-informed voters, of course, already know that legislators have little power to alter initiatives — which is one reason ballot measures are popular with an electorate that distrusts the Legislature.
Regardless of how the bill fares, however, Gatto has a legitimate point: Voters too often decide budget-related ballot measures with little insight into the state’s larger financial picture — or the consequences that result from such disjointed fiscal choices.
California has many voter-approved propositions that limit budgeting flexibility. The most sweeping is Prop. 98, the 1988 measure that requires about 40 percent of the budget to go to education. Prop. 99, also from 1988, raised the cigarette tax and earmarked the money for health programs. Prop. 172 in 1993 raised the sales tax to fund law enforcement. Prop. 10 in 1998 raised the cigarette tax again, directing the money toward early childhood development programs. Prop. 64, in 2004, taxed wealthy Californians to pay for mental health services.
Such tinkering blocks any attempt to set sensible priorities for public spending, and helps make state budgeting more opaque and convoluted. The Legislature should be directing available funds to sustain the most crucial programs first. Instead, the state wrestles with ways to pay for priority services while tax money flows unchecked to less critical programs. Thus Prop. 49, from 2002, requires the state to spend nearly $550 million a year on after-school programs when districts struggle to fund classroom instruction.
Yes, the Legislature has an abysmal record of making shortsighted, reckless financial decisions. But voters will not encourage greater fiscal responsibility by approving arbitrary spending dictates based on whatever cause happens to gain sufficient popular support.
Randomly disrupting sensible allocation of public money is not a strategy for fixing the state’s chronic fiscal woes. Good intentions do not justify ballot measures that make the state’s budget more intractable."
Read more HERE
# # #
Mike Gatto is the Assistant Speaker Pro Tempore of the California State Assembly. He represents the cities of Burbank, Glendale, and parts of Los Angeles, including Los Feliz, North Hollywood, Silver Lake, Toluca Lake, Valley Glen, and Van Nuys. He has served in the Assembly since June 2010.
Website of Assemblyman Mike Gatto: www.asm.ca.gov/gatto
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)