State spending and school funding limits. Initiative constitutional amendment.

Proposition 76 is about a change in priorities. It is also about a government that cannot regulate itself in order to spend only what it receives. It is about trying to replace a system earlier approved by voters to become a system in which more discretion is left up to the governor. Proposition 76 seeks to entirely change the budgeting expectations in California.

One of the most complex public initiatives ever to be up for statewide election, Proposition 76 is possibly the most far-reaching. There is no question the state has significant debt. Governor Schwarzenegger has targeted the general fund as a way to reduced yearly deficits. The most crucial component of Proposition 76 to do this is reducing the amount the state has been mandated to pay for education since 1988. In 1988, voters approved Proposition 98, setting up a minimum percentage of the state’s budget to be used for education funding. Later, in 2004, Proposition 58 required state budgets to be balanced.

Through various mechanisms from other election initiatives and from court interpretations of laws over the years, the state has found ways to deal with a shortage of revenues. However, Proposition 76 would create a mechanism to stop the boom-bust system of state funding by building a reserve for years with low revenues. However, it seeks a lower guarantee for state funding of education and a possibility of other general fund services to lose state funding.

Once that happens, a number of drawbacks arise to 76. With a reduction in funding for education, school districts will be forced to look at ways to decrease costs. This will mean cuts to nonessential school programs (athletics, clubs, music, art, bus transportation), larger class sizes, and an overall decrease in teacher salaries over time. This is even more troubling looking at Proposition 74’s likelihood of decreasing the number of teachers entering the profession.

Furthermore, other programs funded by the general fund like social programs, will lose state funding if the budget goes out of balance. The counties will pick up the costs for those programs. If these funding requirements are more than currently, this could put dangerous pressure on the counties. Not too long ago, Orange County declared bankruptcy. In the Valley, the prospects are frightening. Many counties are struggling to maintain open/agricultural land. Meanwhile, counties gain much of their funding from sales taxes. This puts pressure on counties to allow big box/mall retail and auto malls to increase the sprawl on our urban edges. It means more building on prime agricultural land in the Fresno area and in flood plains in north Sacramento. On the plus side, counties will be repayed by the state in 5 years instead of the previous 15 for programs that are mandatory.

The priorities have shifted with Proposition 76, away from an educational commitment and towards transportation. It is really difficult to see the right way to approach California’s fiscal troubles. This is Governor Schwarzenegger’s way. Due to the threats to education funding and the possibility of unchecked abuse by a governor in the future, it is not ValleyVue’s way. We recommend vote No on 76.