With budget votes called in both the Senate and Assembly today, one wonders how well legislators know the details of the proposed budget. While debate raged over the potential for a special election and the tax extension part of the budget plan, the California Taxpayers Association took a look at what is actually in the budget bill and came up with some interesting insights.
CalTax reports that the proceeds from the sales and car tax increases would be state revenue, and would be put into a special fund and earmarked for local governments to pay for the public safety programs that would be transferred from state to local governments.
This “public safety” money would be on top of what is now spent on public safety because another provision prevents local governments from using this transferred revenue to replace other funding for public safety. CalTax asks an interesting question: “With local governments facing massive deficits, would this provision make them unable to reduce police and fire budgets?”
But, then the CalTax analysis notes the bill’s definition of public safety, one that can only be imagined by bureaucratic thinking. The budget proposal includes welfare-type services such as mental health services, certain children services and alcohol and drug abuse recovery programs under the public safety umbrella.
A constitutional provision is added to protect local government’s revenue stream if and when the temporary taxes expire. The state controller would be required to transfer from the general fund to local governments the amount the local governments would have received had the taxes not expired.
CalTax observes that with guaranteed revenue, local government does not have to look for efficiencies and that along with Proposition 98’s guarantee for school funding most of the state budget would be on autopilot. Do the legislators really want to give up more funding authority?
Speaking of school funding, CalTax notes a “puzzling” feature in the proposal—earmarking 6.5-percent of income tax collections dedicated to schools. Proposition 98 already guarantees funds for schools. Is this additional guarantee of what could amount to over $3-billion a year an inducement to line up the education establishment behind the measure?
With attention focused on the issue of tax extensions, the budget particulars and their effect on future governance has not made much noise with the public. You have to hope legislators have done their homework. But many of us remember that ill-formed energy bill over a decade ago and cross our fingers.