Enacted California Budget Spreads Pain, Banks on Ballot Measures

FIRST PERSON | Like most of my fellow Angelenos, I remember the "great California garage sale" that was part of Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to augment passed budgets filled with holes and budget cuts in all the wrong places. Individual cities and school districts attempted to unilaterally fix budget holes by asking taxpayers to step up to the plate and vote in additional taxes. Case in point was Measure E, which went down in defeat. Had it passed, Los Angeles residents would have had to pay an additional $100 in property taxes.

Gov. Jerry Brown ran for office on the promise that he would fix the California budget mess once and for all. Not stopping there, he vowed that he would not resort to the "smoke and mirrors" tactics made popular by his predecessor. A Democratic majority state legislature nodded assent and swore to play ball.

The love fest lasted until January 2011, when the freshly minted governor proposed a budget that irked both Republicans and Democrats alike. Too heavy on additional revenue generation for the former and too deep in cuts for the latter, both sides attempted to go it alone; finally, a unilaterally Democrat-approved budget was presented to the governor, who promptly yet unexpectedly vetoed it. Back to the drawing board, the legislature scrambled to present a budget that was balanced -- at least on paper. This time around, Gov. Brown signed and thus enacted the budget.

The 2011 Budget Act is a $129 billion deal that promises to eliminate the $26.6 billion gap by cutting expenditures to the tune of $15 billion. Success of the budget relies on a $2.9 billion revenue increase and the efficacy of a realignment of funds. In plain English, the governor hopes that county and city governments will step up and take on functions and funding of projects that thus far the state provided. Cases in point are mental health, education and public safety programs. Bearing the brunt of this budget are social services, higher education, and also the prison system. What sets apart this budget from its predecessors is the setup of benchmarks. If these benchmarks are not met, automated additional cuts to these services go into effect.

Take, for example, social services and the prison system. CalWORKS grants are rolled back to levels last seen in 1987, while the prison inmate population will be artificially reduced by 25 percent. Who the released offenders will be is unclear. At the same time that these offenders are released back into society, the safety net that would normally ensure their physical and mental well-being is cut. It is fair to speculate that recidivism is a real danger, yet the overcrowding of the jails and the halting of the court system's planned construction projects ensure that re-apprehending offenders will be an exercise in "catch and release."

It is simplistic to look at social services as the types of government spending that benefits unnamed "others." The adverse effect of a large prison population release -- without adequate supervision, mental health treatments and employment or training opportunities -- is sure to impact all segments of the population. Another segment of the population, college-bound students, will face a public university system that has suffered 22 percent to 25 percent in cuts. Community college students will pay $10 more per class unit.

Granted, it is alarmist to suggest that an increase in tuition and cut in higher education funding will lead Golden State residents into a life of crime. However, if opportunities are scarce, a state population that has thus far relied heavily on government handouts will likely lack the support networks needed to weather their sudden absence. The quality of life that has made California attractive to new residents and businesses -- in spite of high taxes -- is bound to take a nose dive. Yet this budget battle is not over in spite of an enacted budget. The benchmark provisions are the back door through which Gov. Brown hopes to usher in new revenues (read: increased tax revenues).

There is a good chance that Brown is banking for this very noticeable change in the way the state is run to scare the electorate. Neither the window bars of the poorer Los Angeles districts nor the gates of Beverly Hills communities will provide protection against the cut in public safety spending. There is bound to be a November election with copious ballot measures designed to get Californians to agree to increased taxes with the understanding that they will make up for the cut funds of education, public safety and mental health.

Much like the game of chicken, it is anyone's guess who will blink first: the voters or the legislature.