Deciphering budget mess

California political watchers Peter Schrag and Dan Schnur are featured in the NYT's Room for Debate page to explain why the state has turned the budget process into high drama. Much of the story is familiar: a two-thirds supermajority requirement to approve the budget, an unwieldy and counterproductive initiative process, and a polarized legislature that really says a lot about how splintered the state's interests have become.

From Schrag:

Californians were long spared tough choices on how to pay for services they became used to. No more. But that’s only part of the story. For the past 30 years California voters have tied the state fiscal system into knots, enacting one initiative after another, some reducing and/or capping taxes, some raising spending without corresponding revenue increases. The measures include bonds for stem cell research; park development; development of a high-speed rail system; a three-strikes sentencing law that’s driven prison populations (and costs) through the roof, and a rich menu of other attractive but unfunded programs. For years, the legislature resolved its problems by borrowing and fudging, sparing voters the tough choices between the good services they’ve been used to and lower taxes. This year, with the recession hitting California particularly hard, all the fudges and borrowing were exhausted.

From Schnur:

There are those who point to the requirement that the legislature two-thirds vote requirement to pass a budget leads to stalemate. But that’s more a symptom than a cause. Our ballot initiative process, which allows voters to earmark large sums of money for particular areas of spending, reduces the options available to lawmakers when faced with a budget crisis. But that’s a small price to pay in exchange for making sure the citizenry has a check on its elected representatives. Finally, there’s the question of hyper-polarization, which is exacerbated by a situation in which legislative districts are intentionally drawn to elect only the most liberal of Democrats and only the most conservative of Republicans. But while gerrymandering intensifies the partisan divide, it’s worth remembering that the primary reason our politicians are so divided is that the constituencies they represent are so culturally, economically and demographically diverse.