Jean Ross on the State’s Cash Flow Crisis

As State Controller John Chiang began the process of issuing IOUs to deal with the state’s cash flow crisis, Jean Ross, executive director of the CBP, released this statement today to the media:

“California’s current cash flow crisis is a symptom of its persistent budget shortfalls, a drop in revenues brought about by the current economic downturn, and the problems in the global credit market, which make it difficult for the state to borrow money. But there’s a fourth culprit at work right now in California, one we can do something about: the state’s two-thirds vote requirement to pass a budget and tax increases. Without the two-thirds vote requirement, it’s likely that California’s policymakers would have been able to come to an agreement that could have averted the issuing of IOUs.

California is the only state in the nation that requires a two-thirds vote to pass both a budget and tax increases. Today, more than ever, we see how necessary it is to change that supermajority vote requirement to a majority vote.”

— Lisa Gardiner

Bookmark and Share

2 thoughts on “Jean Ross on the State’s Cash Flow Crisis

  1. The two-thirds super-majority is only one of the things that needs to be changed in the laws promulgated by Prop. 13. Personally, I’d like the whole thing to disappear, except for seniors’ exemptions, but that would arouse too much opposition. But there is NO reason to keep the business property owners at a reduced rate on their property taxes. Getting rid of that would help raise quite a bit of revenue to pay off CA’s debts.

  2. Despite the 2/3 vote requirement, and an increase in revenues year after year, at least until cery recently, legislators still managed to create a fiscal mess — overspend and fail to plan for the future- what would have happened without the 2/3 requirement?
    Where are the investments in our infrastructure, including transportation and water deleivery and storage systems, energy? I might agree with a change to a 60% aprroval, but never a simple majority to approve the budget.
    As far as Prop 13, perhaps a small fixed increase should be considered-at least on commercial properties, but I would never want to see the limit be at the mercy of legislators who are more interested in passing favors to their special interest constituencies, as they look for teir next job, than protecting the state’s future.
    What really needs to be changed is our Inititative process, both voters and legislators have completly misused the process, and have stupidly voted to earmark too much of the state budget for specific expenditures…

Comments are closed.