When Proposition 1A was "birthed" last year as a part of the terrible 2009 budget deal that gave us the largest tax increase in the history of any state, it was highly respected and noted economist Benjamin Zycher who poured over the details of the so-called "spending cap" in 1A, and came the unfortunate conclusion that the so-called "spending cap" contained in it was very poorly written, and helped us conclude that even without massive tax increases tied to it, it should be defeated. Happily, 1A’s tax increases and faux spending cap were given the heave-ho by the voters.
With the "secret squirrel" budget deal being voted on today, we hear that there is another ballot measure in the works that purports to put forward a spending cap for voter consideration. The question is this: Have changes been made to the language from last year’s 1A proposal that would cause respected economists like Zycher to give it a seal of approval?
The problem with "back room" budget deals is that there isn’t time for external experts out of government service, like PRI’s Zycher, to review proposals and give feedback. I can only say that if you are a legislator interested in real spending and budget reform, I would insist on independent analysis before putting something on the ballot. After all, fake budget reform that makes voters think they have really put something in place to keep a determined Governor and legislature from overspending, but that actually doesn’t accomplish this feat, is a huge step backwards.
But I digress — the real purpose of this column is to share with FlashReport readers Dr. Zycher’s most recent work, a study completed for the Pacific Research Institute on the true and very negative impact of AB 32 implementation on jobs here in California. This study give one all of the reasons needed to vote for Proposition 23, and suspend this "job killer" regulatory scheme…
Zycher has this to say:
In a nutshell: Based upon official estimates of the reduction in state energy use attendant upon implementation of AB32, Proposition 23 would increase California employment by over half a million in 2012, and over 1.3 million in 2020. (Total employment in 2009 was about 16.2 million.) This is based upon an econometric analysis of the relationship between California employment and energy use for the period 1976 through 2007.
That employment gain is no trivial benefit from suspending a law the original justification for which was—I am not kidding—“California has to be a leader,” a rationale utterly shallow even by the standards of political sloganeering. The California unemployment rate stands at 12.4 percent; it will be interesting to see if the voters in this deep-blue state will choose to turn away from a regulatory juggernaut promising massive costs and, literally, no benefits.
Click on the link below, and take a few minutes to read the Executive Summary of the study, then dig into it in more detail as time permits…
October 7th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Prop 23 is make it or break it for California. If 23 does not pass, then the liberals will have succeeded in the de-industrialization of California.
This war between big government/ political doctrine of environmentalism against free enterprise has never before been so clear and personal.
I believe that Prop 23 will pass and the lefties will pass gas.
October 11th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Ken….relax Captain Medfly will make it right…
And forget the country club cocktail party grazer…it is over…