Alameda Times Star, February 24, 2004

Letter to the Editor

PROPOSITION 56 has been deftly packaged by its supporters as a way to ensure that lawmakers pass the state budget on time.

If legislators miss the June 15 constitutional deadline, they would forfeit pay and be forced to stay in session until a budget is enacted. This is the main message spun by supporters. But it is far from the main purpose of the proposition.

The real objective behind Prop. 56 is to get rid of the two-thirds vote requirement to pass a budget, making it easier for legislators to raise taxes.

If Prop. 56 passes, lawmakers will pass a budget on time, but there is no guarantee the budget will be responsible.

There are currently more than 80 bills before the Legislature that would raise taxes and fees $65 billion annually. Without the two-thirds vote requirement, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will likely be handed a budget in June radically different from the one he proposed in January.

Supporters are playing to voters' frustration with the Legislature, which continues to garner record disapproval ratings.

But the remedy they propose does not address the heart of the issue. Californians are frustrated with the quality of the work coming out of Sacramento, not the speed with which it is enacted.

Replacing partisan gridlock with a tax-and-spend autobahn is hardly a solution.

Significant tax raises would only further stifle economic growth, just as they did following Gov. Pete Wilson's 1991 tax increases.

Andrew Gloger
Policy Analyst
Pacific Research Institute
San Francisco

Andrew Gloger is a Business and Economic Studies policy analyst at the California-based Pacific Research Institute. He can be reached at agloger@pacificresearch.org.