Spending Limit Flaw: Gov. Would Get Upper Hand

I won't identify the man -- he might not want to be publicly associated with what I'm about to write -- except to say that he has been working the Capitol crowd for about 40 years. And that throwaway line of his has been pretty much on target as a prophecy of government deterioration.

Blame everyone, including the voters.

First there was Proposition 13, which dramatically reduced property taxes, but switched the burden for funding schools from local taxpayers to state government. One result was less local control. Another was increased strain on the state budget.

Later came legislative term limits, which robbed the Capitol of knowledge and know-how, as evidenced by the current bumbling over a budget.

And there's all that ballot box budgeting -- the most stifling being Proposition 98, which guaranteed minimum school funding that grows automatically each year. Rather than allow the governor and Legislature the flexibility to make major spending decisions, the law locks them into a complex formula adopted narrowly by voters 17 years ago.

No business could operate that way. No government should.

Now, the current budget brawl in Sacramento highlights a glaring flaw in Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's ballot initiative to limit spending and "live within our means." It will be on the governor's special election ballot in November.

First, two good things about the initiative:

* It would enforce some fiscal discipline. Spending growth would be limited to the average increase in revenue over the previous three years.

* Proposition 98 would be amended to give the state more flexibility over education funding. Schools could be granted a one-time bonus without it becoming part of their annual guarantee.

But the flaw:

* There'd be a significant shift of power to the minority party and the governor, resulting in a disincentive to compromise with the legislative majority.

If the Legislature didn't pass a budget by July 30 -- one month into a new fiscal year -- the previous year's spending plan would be imposed. This means that, because of California's draconian two-thirds vote requirement for passage of a budget, one-third of one house could stonewall and "pass" the old budget.