Will Supreme Court ruling help Brown’s tax plan
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision ordering California to reduce its prison population by 30,000 over the next two years has sent shockwaves through the Capitol as legislators and the Brown Administration struggle with how the state will comply.
Some are hoping that the ruling, and the attention it is getting, will give new momentum to Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposal to extend about $11 billion in temporary tax increases that are expiring this year. Brown wants to use some of that money to reimburse counties for taking control of inmates who have short sentences or have been returned to prison for violating the conditions of their parole.
Voters, the thinking goes, will be more likely to approve the tax hikes if they think one of the consequences of not doing so will be the release of dangerous felons to the streets.
Setting aside the question of whether such releases really need to happen, is this really an issue that can drive voter sentiment?
Maybe. But it depends on how it is framed.
Deficit primer
California has a budget deficit.
The deficit was caused by (1) the Legislature
spending one time revenues on ongoing programs, and (2) most recently, the
recession.
The deficit has persisted because the Legislature
relied on gimmicks and one-time solutions instead of dialing back spending.
At the urging of Governor Brown, the Legislature
adopted $13 billion in solutions, including billions in permanent spending
cuts.
LA Kills ‘Gold Cards.’ Why Not Sell Them Instead?
The city of Los Angeles last week shut down a "gold card"
program that allowed certain officials to expedite challenges to parking
tickets.
The
decision was understandable as public relations, given the spectacle of favored
people getting special service and privileges. But it might not have been the
right move for a city desperately in need of new revenues.
A better
solution: let any Angeleno who wants this kind of service purchase a "gold
card" instead. You pony up extra to the city treasury, you get better service.
Yes, it’s
not ideal. It’s not egalitarian. But it recognizes fiscal and political
realities. The wealthy and well connected are going to get special help any
way. So make them pay for it.
The state
and other local governments might consider doing the same thing.
Want to save schools? Fix pension systems
Originally published in the Sacramento Bee.
The recession deserves most – but not all – of the blame for the 1,200 layoff notices mailed to Sacramento area teachers this year.
You can also blame California’s public pension system, which drains at least $3 billion from state coffers that could be saved if prison guards, California Highway Patrol officers and Caltrans workers retired with benefits comparable in value to those provided by Cisco, Chevron and Safeway.
Proposition 98, which guarantees a level of school funding, would make sure schools get their share. Teachers’ jobs would be saved and program cuts would be less severe.
The California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility released a study earlier this month showing that private and public employees earn comparable salaries for comparable jobs, but that state and local governments provide retirement benefits that are three times as generous as those provided by California’s largest companies.
This year, a 45-year-old state employee earning $60,000 annually will accumulate retirement benefits valued at $19,000. A comparably paid employee of a large private company receives retirement benefits worth less than $6,000.