The venerable Claremont Institute has been a leader nationally and here in California in sound public policy. Specifically their Golden State Center for State and Local Government has long been looked to as a leading source for outstanding policy review and advocacy.
Tom Karako of CI’s Golden State Center contacted the FlashReport yesterday to let us know that today they would be releasing their analysis of the six ballot measures that will appear on the upcoming May 19th Special Election — giving each a letter grade!
Without even asking them what grades they assigned to any of the measures, I told them that we would be pleased to feature this important information for our readers.
As you will see from Tom’s introduction to their report below, the Claremont Institute’s review of these ballot measures has led them to the conclusion that most are extremely poor public policy — and a couple are mediocre at best. I encourage all of our readers to download the .pdf of their report which is available through the link provided below….
Grading the Propositions
Executive Summary
On May 19, Californians will go to the polls. There they will be asked to render judgment upon six complicated ballot measures, Propositions 1A-F. The combined financial implication of these propositions is in the billions, and they come at a time when our state is facing the largest budget crisis in its 159-year history.
Are these six ballot measures good for California? Will they help remedy California’s broken financial and budgeting system? These are questions of good government, and they are non-partisan.
On balance, these measures fall far short of the needed reforms, in either the short- or long-term. Some propositions threaten to prolong and even worsen California’s systemic fiscal problems.
The following is an assessment of the individual propositions on their respective merits as a matter of public policy. For simplicity and to help clarify their content, we’ve given them nicknames and graded them as follows:
1A “The Tax Increase” Grade: F
1B “The Teachers Union Special” Grade: F
1C “Gambling with the Lottery” Grade: C
1D-E “Moving Money Around I & II” Grade: C+
1F “Legislators’ Guilty Consciences” Grade: F
Collectively, the propositions ask Californians for permission to borrow additional billions, to move money around between programs, and to extend tax increases through 2012.
Propositions 1A and 1B threaten to harm California’s economy with tax extensions its citizenry cannot afford, make the budget process even more complicated, further ensconce education spending from legislative oversight and meaningful reform, and make future budgeting even more difficult. We have given both 1A and 1B a failing grade of “F.”
Proposition 1C may be needed to alleviate short-term budget shortfall without raising taxes, but does so with potentially severe long-term costs. Thus we have given Proposition 1C a grade of “C.”
Propositions 1D-E hold out some prospect of alleviating the short-term budget crisis while also pointing to the need for more general flexibility and responsibility among the legislators to prioritize and reallocate funds. For this reason 1D-E receive a grade of “C+.”
Proposition 1F would neither help nor harm the state budget. Instead, 1F gives a false impression that voters were somehow punishing their legislators. With voters laboring under such a delusion, they may be less inclined to exact real accountability from their elected officials at the ballot box. We also give 1F a failing grade of “F.”
Again, FR readers can download the full report from the Claremont Institute’s website here.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:00 am
There you go again, Jon, off the rails to the far right. What a shock that the right wing Claremont Institute, who bills itself as “The mission of the Claremont Institute is to restore the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life.” would come out against 1A through F. But what do they propose to do? And what do you propose to do should these propositions fail?
April 7th, 2009 at 12:00 am
It sounds as if Bob Evans is indirectly defending the May 19th ballot measures, which would make him a truly unique individual. These disastrous measures will only make our problems worse. He asks Jon Fleischman, “What do you propose to do should these propositions fail?” The real questions is what would we do if they were to pass? They will only make life more difficult in California.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:00 am
The “far right” is now defined as anyone who believes that it is wrong to run a state government having the highest tax burden in the nation.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:00 am
It is simple what to do when the ballot measures fail….and they will fail by a landslide…CUT GOVERNMENT PERIOD!!!
We keep dancing with RINOS and LIBERALS and see what we got…a populace of moochers who are on the verge of running the asylumn.
Evans possibly is a pragmatist feeling it is inevitable that the moochers will elect the permanent government ruling class. At least it will not be a revolution such as Russia’s. Now that is pragmatic!!! No bloodbath, but we get to bend over politely instead…
April 7th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Is this the same Bob Evans from Mission Viejo who used to tear me up in our local newspaper every month only to have coffee with me and do a mea culpa in the Register becoming one of my biggest supporters?
The last think californians need at this time is a (Prop 1A) tax extension for another two years as they disguise its true impact to the voters. Vote NO on all of them.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Here is what I propose we should do. We should defeat these Propositions that will make life burdensome to Californians. Then we should have our legislature do the difficult work of cutting the budget. Why is it that for the past five years we have found it necessary to add approximately 10,000 new employees to the state payroll every year? The state ran pretty well with 50,000 fewer employees in 2004. What about cutting out half of the new adds? Would the state run more efficiently with 25,000 fewer state employees? You bet. There are many places to cut expenditures but the Democrats in the legislature don’t want to take the heat from those who benefit from the State bounty.