Just over a week ago, the Assembly Speaker and I
— on behalf of Assembly Democrats — offered a state budget
alternative.
Just over a week ago, the Assembly Speaker and I — on behalf of Assembly Democrats — offered a state budget alternative. We made our point by releasing our budget in the same place the Governor announced his school funding deal with the education coalition just over a year ago — a deal that he has since walked away from.
We proposed a balanced budget that reduces borrowing, refinances and pays down existing debt, makes difficult program cuts for California’s workers and retirees, and leaves a prudent reserve.
But we also understand Californians are hungry for a better future, and we outlined plans to make whole the Governor’s deal from last year on education, prepare for the coming senior population, and fund transportation projects over the long-term.
All sides have presented proposals, and the time has come to hammer out a budget that bridges the political gaps and gets past the posturing to the tough decisions that must be made. And we must make sure that this year’s budget invests in California’s future—rather than a repeat of last year’s lowest-common-deno-minator-budget that postponed tough decisions.
The Assembly Budget Committee convened hearings earlier than in recent memory to listen to what kind of California we want to have—100 budget hearings were held in Sacramento and across California. We heard that Californians want a future that includes reduced state borrowing, protection for our seniors, a stronger transportation system and good support for accountable public schools.
Crafted through the public legislative process over the last few months, the budget proposed by Assembly Democrats differs from the Governor’s in three key ways:
- For transportation, the Governor’s plan calls for one year of increased funding. Our proposal lays out a plan that would protect funding not just for next year, but in out years as well.
-
For education, the Governor proposes not to honor his deal of last year—which took $2 billion from education in return for full Proposition 98 funding in this and future budget years. His proposal would take another $3 billion from the education guarantee.
Our budget proposes raising income taxes on upper income Californians, just as former Governors Reagan and Wilson did in times of budget shortfalls, to help fund the Proposition 98 guarantee, and attempt to lift California’s per-student funding above 44th among all 50 states.
- For seniors, we will see the first baby boomers turn 60 this budget year. The Governor has proposed cutting back on home health care, and he’d pocket the money the federal government gives to California to pass along as a cost-of-living increase for seniors on social security. Our budget would restore each of these items.
To be sure, we support a number of cuts as part of the budget process, such as state cost-of-living increases for persons on public assistance. And during the budget crunch of the last few years, significant other cuts have already been made.
In these last few years, middle and lower-income Californians have endured increased fees for higher education and access to public parks. They’ve endured endlessly escalating appeals for public school fundraisers. They’ve watched car repairs climb as our roads crumble. And poorer seniors were threatened by a tax increase in the Governor’s budget.
So with those sacrifices made, it is fair to ask the wealthiest among us—those who have benefited from the Bush tax cuts—to help invest in California’s future. Their federal tax cuts, coupled with this proposed increase in California state taxes, would still give nearly all of them reduced income taxes. It’s time for everyone, not just poor and middle income Californians, to sacrifice for the future of California.
Investments from the 1960s and 1970s built the freeways, water systems and universities that propelled California to 6th largest economy in the world. Californians have long understood this public investment is true economic development. No one locates businesses where there is limited public investment in roads, water and schools.
The Governor has been successful when he’s done two things: listened to the public, and acted in a bipartisan manner. In the most recent Public Policy Institute Poll, 68% of Californians said they would support the upper income tax bracket increase, and a similar majority said they are not for weakening school minimum funding guarantees.
It’s time to respond to the people, and work in a bipartisan manner to meet California’s future. We stand ready to do both.
Assemblymember John Laird, chair of the Budget Committee, represents portions of Santa Cruz, Monterey and Santa Clara Counties.
