Opinion: Still waiting for an alternative

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

One thing missing from the debate over California’s budget problems has been the debate. Back when lawmakers were struggling to come up with a plan, the Democratic leadership offered proposal after proposal for closing the yawning budget gap, and Republicans countered with little more than a statement of governing philosophy. With a budget so grossly out of balance, we needed a healthy partisan wrangle over the services the state provides, its relationship with local governments, its approach to taxation -- big, weighty topics that get to the heart of the Sacramento’s role in its residents’ lives. Unfortunately, we got nothing of the kind, probably because it would have taken too much political courage. And now that the public has to vote on key parts of that plan, foes on both sides are offering little more than outrage.

The latest example of this comes from the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, which welcomed the train wreck that will ensue from the almost certain defeat of Propositions 1A, 1C, 1D and 1E. In addition to getting the substance of most of the measures wrong, the board joined in the chorus of superficial analysis from pundits and pollsters, saying that voting down the propositions will send an important message to lawmakers about the need for lower taxes and less spending. No, it would send an all-too-familiar message that compromising is for losers.

The Journal’s right about some of the roots of the budget mess, particularly the ministrations that lawmakers have paid to public employee unions and the broken tax code. But its ideas for solutions are laughable. It’s facile to say that the state should “cap total spending” and “add a flat-rate income and sales tax” that are significantly lower than the current ones. The problem today is the chasm between what the state takes in and what it spends, which means making some non-facile decisions about what the state does with its money. Where are the meaty suggestions for $21 billion worth of cuts in the state’s budget (more than 10% a year in this year and next)? The only suggestion for bridging that chasm is “drilling for oil offshore,” which is the kind of short-term thinking that the Journal ridicules.

I don’t like the deal that legislators struck, either -- it’s rife with penny-wise, pound-foolish choices. I’m confident that there are better ways to close the gap. But rather than just denouncing tax hikes (or teacher layoffs or cutbacks in mental-health programs or any other favored cause), we need to see some credible alternatives. That means moving past vague exhortations to “rein in spending” or “eliminate waste, fraud and abuse,” and getting serious about the state’s duties and the most efficient way to fulfill them.