Hearing on Proposition 165 Senate Committee on Health and Human Services
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons California Joint Committees California Documents 10-1-1992 Hearing on Proposition 165 Senate Committee on Health and Human Services Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Assembly Ways and Means Committee Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_joint_committees Part of the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, Senate Budget and Fiscal Review, and Assembly Ways and Means Committee, "Hearing on Proposition 165" (1992). California Joint Committees. Paper 39. http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_joint_committees/39 This Hearing is brought to you for free and open access by the California Documents at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in California Joint Committees by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE JOINT HEARING OF ffiE SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; SENATE BUDGET AND FISCAL REVIEW; AND ASSEMBLYWAYS AND MEANS COMMI'ITEE SENATORS DIANE E. WATSON, ALFRED E. ALQUIST, AND ASSEMBLYMAN JOHN VASCONCELLOS, CHAIRPERSONS HEARING ON PROPOSITION 165 9:30AM THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1,1992 SfATE Bun.DING, 107 SOUTH BROADWAY AUDITORIUM-ROOM 1138 LOS ANGELES 725-S CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE JOINT HEARING OF THE SENATE COMMITTEES ON HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; SENATE BUDGET AND FISCAL REVIEW; AND ASSEMBLY WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE SENATORS DIANE E. WATSON, ALFRED E. ALQUIST, AND ASSEMBLYMAN JOHN VASCONCELLOS, CHAIRPERSONS HEARING ON PROPOSITION 165 9:30 A.M. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 01, 1992 STATE BUILDING, 107 SOUTH BROADWAY AUDITORIUM--ROOM 1138 Los ANGELES A G E N D A oot Senate Health and Human Services Committee Senator Diane E. Watson, Chair Senate Budget & Fiscal Review Committee Senator Alfred E. Alquist, Chair Assembly Ways and Means Committee Assemblyman John Vasconcellos, Chair JOINT HEARING ON PROPOSITION 165 Thursday, October 1, 1992 State Building, 107 South Broadway 9:30 a.m. -- Room 1138 AGENDA Overview of Proposition 165 1. Elizabeth Hill, Legislative Analyst Proposition 165 - Budget Issues 2. Steve Gold, Director, Center for the Study of States, Rockefeller Institute 3. Richard Sybert, Director, Office of Planning and Research 4. Janis Nielsen, California League of Women Voters 5. Dr. Naomi Caiden, Chair, Department of Public Administration California State University, San Bernardino Proposition 165 - Education Issues 6. Diane Brahams, State PTA Representative 7. Denise Rockwell (Woods), President, National Education Association Chapter, United Teachers of Los Angeles 8. Maureen DiMarco, Secretary of Child Development and Education (Break For Lunch) Proposition 165 - Health and Human Services Issues 9. The Most Reverend Phillip Straling, Bishop of San Bernardino/Riverside Catholic Diocese 10. Michael Wald, Jackson Eli Reynolds Professor of Law StanfordLCenter,for the Studv of Families, Children, and Youth 10a. David Illig, LAO Officer, Senior Fiscal & Policy Analyst, Social Services Section 11. Wendy La~rus, Children Now 12. Genevieve Heron, IHSS provider for Frankie Banks 13. Claire Deffense, Chair, Area Board X Governmental Affairs committee 14. Dr. Lewis King, Dean, College of Medickne, Drew Medical School 002 * * * * * 0 P E N I N G S T A T E ME N T 00~ T R A N S C R I P T 004 SENATOR ALFRED ALQUIST: This is the second joint public hearing pursuant to Section 3523.1 of the Elections Code on the so-called Taxpayer Protection Act of '92 (Proposition 165), which is before the voters on the November 3rd ballot. Joining the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee is the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, chaired by Senator Diane Watson, and members of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee, chaired by Assemblyman John Vasconcellos, who was unable to be with us today. I have a few comments of my own to make before I ask others to do so. In seven of the last ten years the Legislature has failed to send a budget to the Governor by the constitutionally required June 15th deadline. One major reason, of course, is the lack of revenues to fund the increasing demand for public services to meet California's diverse and expanding population growth. The second reason is the two-thirds vote requirement that allows a small minority of legislators to block passage of a budget. California is one of only three states out of the 50 that has such a requirement. The third reason involves initiatives, not like the one before us today, that allows special interest groups to establish major constraints that limit the Governor and the Legislature in enacting a balanced budget. The Governor and the Legislature are currently faced with federal requirements, state mandates, court-ordered mandates, statutory requirements, and constitutional provisions that mandate 92 percent of the spending in our state budget. While Proposition 13 resolved the skyrocketing property tax increases in the late '70s, it also contributed to a $250 billion loss in revenue and a shift in education funding from the local level to the state. Proposition 98 established in the State Constitution mandates that require K through 14 education to be funded at the minimum guarantee of approximately 40 percent of the state's budget, regardless of any other fiscal priorities. And Proposition 99 requires the cigarette tax revenue to be spent on specific health related programs, and many changes must be made with a four-fifths vote of the Legislature. Proposition 165 will be appealing to those voters who want to cut the Governor's and the Legislature's pay when a budget isn't enacted by June 15th. And this measure will also be appealing to voters who want to reduce AFDC benefits by 25 percent. -1- OJ5 Yet a closer review of this initiative reveals that public testimony and participation in the budget process is reduced by the Prop. 165 provisions that shorten the Legislature's review of the Governor's budget. A closer review will demonstrate that this Governor and future governors in California will have powers that no other state affords their chief executive. A still closer review will indicate that the provisions of this initiative will eliminate the Legislature's ability to override a Governor's veto action if a fiscal emergency is declared. This point cannot be emphasized enough: If by unanimous vote the Legislature sent to the Governor a budget and the Governor refused to sign the bill, the Governor can then declare a fiscal emergency, enact his or her own budget without regard to legislative or public budget priorities. And this is not the vision needed to ensure the success of california's future. In today's hearing we will examine the fine-print provisions of Proposition 165. This morning's testimony will be focused on the constitutional role of the Legislature and the executive branch that's contained in the Governor's initiative. Testimony will also be heard on the potential impact this initiative would have to the state support of our children's education. And after lunch we will hear from health services and children's advocates on the potential loss of funding under the passage of Proposition 165. The Governor's own campaign on behalf of Proposition 165 raises several questions: Is the Governor really asking California voters to approve a constitutional amendment that his own staff admits is constitutionally flawed? After all, if the Legislature passed a bill and asked the Governor to sign it, acknowledging it was unconstitutional, the Governor would never do so. Who drafted Proposition 165, and if this is a technical error, how come it took nearly a year for the Administration to discover the error of these five repeated questions on this very same subject? And I don't think that that is something we want to have decided by the court. With me so far this morning, although we are expecting any number of other Members, is the Vice Chairman of Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, Senator Frank Hill. Senator Hill, any comments? SENATOR FRANK HILL: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate being here. I think the concern that I have this morning is focusing on, really, the balance of power issues. While we would disagree on the two-thirds vote requirement of passing a budget, I would think that we would share as -2- 006 legislators what this is going to impact, the balance of power in our three branches of government. I'm especially concerned about this new issue that was raised at the hearing that we had up in Sacramento last Monday about whether or not the Legislature is going to maintain its authority for legislative override. And so, I would ask any of those witnesses that are coming forward, at least for my benefit, if they could focus on that issue, because that, to me, is the Republicans' very disturbing concern whether or not there is indeed going to be the possibility of a legislative override; and the reality is there is no guarantee that any one party is going to control the Governor's office in the foreseeable future and I think we need to look at it in that context. And I look forward to participating in the hearing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. SENATOR ALQUIST: We'll call first this morning as our first witness, Ms. Elizabeth Hill, who is our Legislative Analyst. Good morning, Ms. Hill. You may speak from there or from here. I think you might be more comfortable here. MS. ELIZABETH HILL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Members. It's a pleasure to be here today. The hat that I'm wearing today is a little bit different than our traditional legislative hat. We do have in the Legislative Analyst's office a statutory mandate to produce impartial analyses of state ballot measures, and it's in that role that I appear before you today.