TAXPAYERS NOT TO BLAME FOR SHORTFALL.

Byline: David Nott

LEADING up to the release of his budget plan, Gov. Gray Davis said this was ``one of the toughest budgets ever.'' He was right; this budget is tough - on California families.

Just when you thought you didn't have any money more to give, Davis proposes a one-cent sales tax increase that could cost the average family at least $200 per year; a cigarette tax increase that would force smokers to cough up an extra $1.10 per pack; and a personal income tax increase that could cost the state's wealthiest residents around $2.6 billion.

In all, the plan calls for around $8.3 billion in new taxes and $20 billion worth of painful cuts to education ($4.5 billion), health care and other vital services.

There's clearly no arguing that we're in the midst of a budget crisis - a $35 billion deficit if you ask the state Department of Finance, a $21 billion deficit if you ask the bipartisan Legislative Analyst's Office. But are we, the taxpayers, to blame for this epic shortfall? Absolutely not.

If there truly were no other options, Californians would probably bite the bullet, agree to the new taxes and drag the state out of this mess with their pocketbooks. But we didn't create this problem and we shouldn't bail the politicians out by supporting tax increases and random, across- the-board spending cuts.

The state doesn't need to take more money in; it needs to scrutinize and better manage the money it spends. In the past four years, California's revenues actually increased 28 percent. During that same time, state spending increased by 36 percent - meaning for every additional $1 the state collected, it spent $1.29. If state legislators had limited the spending increase to the growth in inflation and population, the state would have a $5 billion surplus today, according to figures from the Legislative Analyst's Office.

Unfortunately, Gov. Davis has chosen to pass the buck to taxpayers and local governments by raising taxes and shifting much of the financial responsibility for health and child welfare programs to counties. How are cash-strapped local governments going to pay for those critical programs? The new tax revenue would go directly to counties to pay for these programs, but you can bet it won't be enough, and when it isn't, cities and counties will consider raising local taxes and fees as well.

In addition to the new taxes, fees and shifted responsibilities, the budget plan calls for more than $20 billion in cuts, including $4.5 billion in education cuts. If you thought our schools were struggling now, just wait until they try to deal with these cuts while simultaneously meeting the standards set forth in President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act. If California doesn't meet the act's goals, it could lose billions in federal funding.

Instead of recklessly cutting education and health programs - cuts that will end up costing the state more money in other areas by creating additional problems - Davis should have first looked to suspend noncritical programs and eliminate government waste.

Do we need to give prison guards a 34 percent raise, as the governor did, or should we consider privatizing prisons in order to save up to 30 percent? Who is changing the oil on state vehicles? Can Jiffy Lube do it for $19.99 per car? Who is mowing the lawn at state office buildings? Can we outsource with a local landscaping company?

At this point, nothing is too small to examine and there should be no sacred cows. As state leaders try to broker a budget deal, they must recognize that the problem is their spending habits, and the road to reform is internal, not one leading back to the taxpayers.

CAPTION(S):

photo

Photo:

Gov. Gray Davis

Passing the buck