Proposition 4 on California's November ballot calls for borrowing $10 billion to fund quite a few environmental proposals that, unfortunately, are more the product of politics than good policy.
Voters should reject this measure. After this 12 months's budget debacle, elected officials mustn’t be eyeing latest bonds and more debt for an unfocused spending plan.
Less than three months ago close a budget deficit of $47 billion, Governor Gavin Newsom and state lawmakers agreed Withdraw $12 billion over two years from the state's emergency fund. That is around 35% of the state reserves.
This money should really be put aside for a serious economic downturn, not for a gross miscalculation of presidency revenues. The government is now in a weaker position to cope with a future recession.
With this in mind, California should definitely not overdraw its bank card and increase installment payments – especially not for a hodgepodge of programs.
There is nothing incorrect with most of Proposition 4's individual proposals to make sure clean drinking water, strengthen drought, flood and water resilience, increase clean energy production, mitigate rising sea levels, create parks and outdoor access, mitigate heat, or fund wildfire prevention programs.
But the measure reads more like a shopping list than a smart policy proposal. Proposal 4 would distribute money to just about 100 different programs. There isn’t any prioritization or evaluation of what would offer the very best value for money.
In fact, the state has spent a median of $13 billion per 12 months on natural resources and climate change mitigation over the past decade. According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's OfficeAbout 15% of this comes from borrowing in the shape of bonds.
Since 2000, California voters have approved eight other measures which have allowed the state to issue bonds for environmental projects totaling $29 billion. But that's not free money. The state's annual payment for environmental bonds is currently about $1.4 billion.
Proposal 4 would increase these payments by an extra $400 million annually for the following 40 years. This is a committed expenditure that comes from the already tight federal budget, crowding out funding for other programs.
Of course, as climate change increases, we also need to deal with environmental issues. If Proposition 4 were designed to fund essential long-term projects that warrant long-term borrowing, we could be the primary to support it, just as we now have supported environmental bond programs prior to now.
But that's not the case here. Rather, Proposition 4 is split into eight different spending categories – each of which is in turn divided into roughly five to 25 spending allocations – which are more aimed toward appeasing political constituencies than ensuring efficient and effective allocation of precious funds.
Proposition 4 was originally imagined to promise even more cash, however the $10 billion limit was set when Newsom announced he would only support $20 billion in bonds on the ballot, with the opposite half going to the poorly designed Proposition 2, which might proceed a failed school constructing program.
Perhaps at one other time, when the state has numerous money, Californians might be more permissive. But for now, voters should only consider a plan that has been rigorously crafted to provide essentially the most cost-effective results possible. That isn’t what this measure is about.
Voters should make it clear they need improvement. They should reject Proposition 4.
image credit : www.mercurynews.com