Jerry Brown, in his first stint as Governor of California
(1975-83), gave public employees the gift that kept on giving:
collective bargaining. Now, in his second stint, nearly three
decades later, he is facing the consequences of that gift.
Public employee unions as a group, and especially the teachers’
unions, have ended up owning the state legislature: virtually all
the majority Democrats and even some Republicans. These politicians
have come to depend upon contributions from the huge war chest of
the California Teachers Association.
From 2000 to 2009, the CTA spent $211 million in contributions
and lobbying, two times the Number Two spender, the Service
Employees International Union. Add $40 million to that for the two
years since, including a hefty contribution to Brown’s 2010
campaign.
The Los Angeles Times reports that a year ago, when the
state was facing another multibillion dollar deficit, Gov. Brown
called a conference with legislative leaders to decide where to cut
spending. Significantly, also at the conference table was Joe
Nunez, chief lobbyist for the CTA. Threatened cuts to schools were
shelved.
Brown then decided on a swing-for-the-fences strategy. He would
put on the 2012 ballot a measure to “temporarily” increase incomes
taxes on those who earn more than $250,000 a year and increase the
sales tax by one-quarter of one percent. The state’s income tax
rates are already among the nation’s highest, as are its sales tax
rates.
Brown’s pitch for this measure (Prop. 30 on the ballot) has been
that it’s “the people’s choice.” If they vote for it, much of the
new revenue will go to schools; if they vote against it, education
budgets will be cut and promised new allocations for local law
enforcement will not materialize.
Not coincidentally, the CTA has thrown money at promoting a
“Yes” vote on the measure. A recent poll released by a University
of Southern California unit shows the measure still in positive
territory, 54.5 percent to 35.9 percent. That will narrow, but CTA
money may put it over.
Californians are already overtaxed and the state is too heavily
in debt. In recent years the state has faced annual multibillion
dollar deficits, “cured” at the last minute by accounting
sleight-of-hand.
Brown’s proposal is expected to yield about $6 billion annually.
This will do nothing to stem future deficits, for neither he nor
the legislature is willing to tackle the causes of much of the
problem: overly generous public employee pensions and health
plans.
Last year, Brown proposed a series of pension reform measures
and said it was up to the legislative Democrats to respond. Not
surprisingly, nothing happened. Brown is no Scott Walker and the
Democratic legislature consists mostly of lapdogs dependent upon
the largess of public employee unions.
Added to this self-perpetuating gridlock is the discovery that
the Parks Department — and perhaps others — was sitting on $54
million of “user” fees it had collected while at the same time
wringing its hands over budget cuts that threatened to close 70
state parks. These “special funds,” as they are called, represent
nearly one-third of the annual state budget. The Brown
Administration conceded that it has only an “honor system” to keep
track of these funds.
The State Office of Finance is now investigating all of these
“special funds.”
Heads may roll, but more importantly, will Finance’s report
recommend an air-tight system for accounting for these funds and
will the money be put to use to reduce deficits?
Jerry Brown I unleashed a political and policy monster. It looks
as if Jerry Brown II has washed his hands of reform and is standing
aside, hoping the voters will give him a temporary budget “fix”
while emptying their own pockets more than ever.
