Comments on: Prop. 31 is a Trojan Horse for wealth redistribution

By: Lenea

Lenea — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 07:15:07 +0000

It sounds like this would be a great first step in the right direction. We need change to our system. What we have now does not work. We need more transparency and a system that the voters and the government can actually understand. It is no wonder the different departments are discovering money or losing money, no one can understand how it works.. A few years ago California Forward, Repair California, and the Bay Area Council worked hard to get a constitutional convention on the ballot and it failed. People were afraid to have sweeping changes to the constitution, that is understandable. That is why this sounds like a great first step. Do it in stages to see what works or doesn’t work. We might fail at times and find things that also don’t work but our system isn’t working now so what is the risk

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 05:46:00 +0000

Dear author –
DID YOU READ THE BILL?

What is wrong with
1 – accountability

2 – transparency

3 – long term planning

Tell us what your real agenda is.

By: BobA

BobA — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 04:18:18 +0000

If anyone wants to know the truth about prop 31, I have one simple suggestion: follow the money. The fact that paid supporters are using this forum to hype prop 31 suggests to me that something is inherently rotten about this proposition.

By: Wayne Lusvardi

Wayne Lusvardi — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 01:59:50 +0000

Commenters 2 to 6 are paid supporters of Prop 31 who want to confuse with cliches.

I worked in government for over 20 years. Voter approval and a Constitutional amendment is NOT needed for any of the so-called reforms in Prop 31 such as:

1. Two-year budget cycle – tried in the 1930’s depression in California and failed.
2. Performance budgeting – the high cost of performance budgeting will offset any gains and is the wrong budgeting too for agencies with make work jobs programs that need to be zero-base budgeted.
3. Allowing Governor to call fiscal emergency and line out items in the budget – the governor already has these powers
4. “Pay-go” means making sure there is money for a bill before the legislature passes it, or that another existing program can be cut to free up money for a new program. But think about this “pay-go” provision: it locks in the existing level of the state budget and does not allow it to be reduced or increased if necessary in an emergency. The legislature would just devise more gimmicks to get around this provision as they always have.
5. Three days advance notice before the legislature can vote on a bill is also provided in Prop 31 to counter the legislature’s “gut and amend” practice of taking a bill on water and removing its language and then approving funding for say social services without any public notice. This 3-day rule can be gamed too — passing a law over the weekend would be standard operating procedure. And there would be a huge number of bills passed on 3-day holidays.
6. The provision in Prop 31 for “Strategic Action Plan” committees is not needed – can be done as it is now through Joint Powers Authorities or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

If there is so much “transparency” in Prop 31 why do its proponents have to deceive about it and rely on cliches?

By: Kodie

Kodie — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 01:20:50 +0000

Stanley K. I’ll will be sure to keep a look out for these so-called “workers” in the mean time, why don’t you tell us how to fix this mess!

By: Stanley K.

Stanley K. — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 21:50:00 +0000

Beware of Prop 31 campaign workers who repeat talking points such as “California needs reform,” “California needs serious budget reform,” “It’s not perfect but we have to start somewhere,” “this sounds like a great step in the right direction,” etc. Which is probably so obvious it doesn’t even need to be pointed out…

By: Rosie

Rosie — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 21:13:58 +0000

So, what I’m hearing is: “a two-year state budget, a “pay-go” requirement for funding any new programs; performance budgeting; promised deregulation of laws identified by local government; authority for the governor to call a fiscal emergency and veto budget items.” All good things that will help improve California.
Oh, but there’s this one thing the author doesn’t really like, let’s not have any reform and wait for each component to pass on its own.
Are you kidding? We need to move beyond the status quo NOW, before it is too late, not wait for a perfect proposition in shining armour to save us!

By: Jordan

Jordan — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 20:54:59 +0000

Is it me or does this sound pretty close the comments of someone wearing an aluminum foil hat and raving about the conspiracy to fluoridate the water? California needs serious budget reform and this takes a giant step in the right direction. Beyond that, coordination among localities to prepare disasters and build water systems sounds rather like a no-brainer.

By: Janae

Janae — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 20:24:22 +0000

Nothing will make California perfect or snap out of its economic crisis overnight, but we have to start somewhere. This bill pushes for transparency for Californians & brings them out of the dark concerning the budget. It aims to show exactly how the state is using their tax money. It specifies that the state budget & subsequent laws are to be easily accessible for both public contribution & review. This will stop California politicians from voting on them without public knowledge. The California budget has been a big secret for too long & it is time politicians respect California voter’s rights & allow them to have a voice in the matter of their tax dollars & how they are being spent.

By: Osahon

Osahon — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 20:09:19 +0000

Look, California needs reform. Badly. We are among the nation’s leaders in every terrible financial statistic. As a voter, I demand more accountability from my state government, as well as a true push for reform, and it that happens through the collaboration of local gov’ts, I’m all for it.