Failure is not an option.
This year’s budget process is on hyper-drive, the spirit of reform is in the air, and lots of options are on the table, many of which could be up to the voters. Will my Republican colleagues’ staunch “no new taxes” pledge deny the voters a chance to vote on a compromise budget package? If so, then my friends on the other side of the aisle face a challenge.
The Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review held its first hearing on Governor Brown’s proposed budget on Thursday, January 13. In view of Brown’s desire to have the Legislature adopt the budget by March 1, we have a very ambitious schedule before us to examine the proposal and to hear the public’s concerns about it.
Consistently, polls show that the public favors a balance of cuts and new revenues to balance budget deficits. Brown’s proposal, congruent with the electorate’s thoughts on the matter, will ask voters to approve extending existing taxes that are set to expire this year. In order to do that, Brown will need a 2/3 vote of the Legislature to place the proposals on a June special election ballot.
Many of our Republican colleagues, most of whom have signed the Grover Norquist pledge against any and all tax increases ever, have come out opposed to Brown’s initiative. So a legitimate question arises, what if our Republican friends have their way and the Legislature is unable to place the question before the voters? What is their Plan B?
We could close every state park and shut down the entire CSU and UC systems and still not solve this problem. A Plan B would necessarily include closing down schools, universities, prisons, parks, highways, firefighting, public safety, and other state services. It seems only reasonable that those who oppose Brown’s initiative should let the rest of us know what path they would prefer instead. Brown’s plan raises an additional $12B in revenues; what would they cut to replace $12B in additional revenues?
Those who oppose Brown’s proposal should tell us what they would cut to replace those revenues. And if they fervently believe their constituents would want this, their proposed cuts should start at home. My colleagues opposing these revenue options should make a list of state services in their district that they are willing to shut down to help close this deficit. This would, of course, have to be on top of the tens of billions of cuts that Brown has already proposed.
A $12 billion hole divided by 40 Senate districts equals a $400 million dollar hole for each Senator. So for those Senators that oppose putting these revenue options to the voters, the challenge is to remove $400 million worth of state services from their districts. Failure is not an option.
