We can debate whether any individual program is worthwhile, but we shouldn’t have to debate whether money spent on approved programs should be spent responsibly, with oversight and accountability. Prop 41 would be a step in the right direction.
In November, California voters will have a chance to take a modest step in the right direction. What will they choose?
Prop 41 would do a few things. First, it makes it so that new state taxes cannot dodge the Gann Limit, a constitutional spending limit. Second, it compels the independent state auditor to review and analyze what new special tax programs hope to accomplish and give voters good information to take to the ballot box. Third, the auditor would actually have to periodically audit the program after passage to see if it’s working and funds are being spent effectively and to recommend ways to cut costs by 10%.
California’s auditor does great work, but for the most part it looks at programs at the request of the Legislature – and lawmakers often prefer not to look. Prop 41 would replace a system where audits happen possibly someday with audits required every time.
We need oversight and accountability because every dollar wasted through waste, fraud and abuse is a dollar not spent toward achieving a program’s objective. With Prop 63, it was mental health services getting shorted.
Nothing contained in this blog is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Pacific Research Institute or as an attempt to thwart or aid the passage of any legislation.
California spends first, asks questions rarely
Matthew Fleming
We can debate whether any individual program is worthwhile, but we shouldn’t have to debate whether money spent on approved programs should be spent responsibly, with oversight and accountability. Prop 41 would be a step in the right direction.
In November, California voters will have a chance to take a modest step in the right direction. What will they choose?
Prop 41 would do a few things. First, it makes it so that new state taxes cannot dodge the Gann Limit, a constitutional spending limit. Second, it compels the independent state auditor to review and analyze what new special tax programs hope to accomplish and give voters good information to take to the ballot box. Third, the auditor would actually have to periodically audit the program after passage to see if it’s working and funds are being spent effectively and to recommend ways to cut costs by 10%.
California’s auditor does great work, but for the most part it looks at programs at the request of the Legislature – and lawmakers often prefer not to look. Prop 41 would replace a system where audits happen possibly someday with audits required every time.
We need oversight and accountability because every dollar wasted through waste, fraud and abuse is a dollar not spent toward achieving a program’s objective. With Prop 63, it was mental health services getting shorted.
Read the entire op-ed here.
Nothing contained in this blog is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Pacific Research Institute or as an attempt to thwart or aid the passage of any legislation.