State Spending
“We’re No. 1!”
This is the cry often heard at sports events when the faithful fans express their opinion about a winning team. But sometimes being No. 1 is no reason to cheer.
California is No. 1 in all of the following spending areas:
Average salary per state employee,$57,000 (not including pension, benefits and time off), which is 30% higher than the national average.
Retirement benefits for state employees,highest in every category among five states surveyed by the Legislative Analyst and an average of 30% higher than the other states.
Establishing the basis for retirement income. California is the only state that bases permanent pension benefits on the employees’ one highest year of pay. It is this provision that has spawned much abuse, with salaries being spiked for one year to guarantee a much higher pension. Most other states take an average of the last three years’ salary.
The number of additional populations than required by federal law to whom we offer the No. 1 medical coverage.
Salaries for public school teachers,$55,693 (exclusive of pension, benefits and time off), according to the American Federation of Teachers.
Lowest fees charged to community college students.
And there are lots of areas where we are No. 2, such as the percentage of population on free government-funded health insurance (18.2%, second only to New York).
Overall tax burden? Why, we’re “only” No. 4.
Despite howls from liberals, California’s spending and taxation levels are not too low, they are too high.
And on top of that, we’re not getting what we pay for.
John Campbell
State Senator, Republican
Irvine
Measure M
Extending the Measure M half-cent transportation sales tax is a tough issue for the Orange County Transportation Authority and for Orange County.
The local option sales tax has helped to rebuild neglected freeways and freeway interchanges, allowed OC to develop the Metro link train system, and given cities the money needed to fix potholes, widen streets and relieve traffic congestion.
But it is, after all, a tax.
In this case, a voter-approved tax, but a tax nonetheless. And, in OC, getting approval for any tax is a difficult thing to do.
Almost 15 years ago, Measure M was approved by voters because of a confluence of factors:
Traffic congestion was the No. 1 issue on voters’ minds. The OCTA offered up a balanced, specific plan of countywide transportation improvements that included freeways, streets and roads, and transit that promised (and in most cases has delivered) significant traffic congestion relief.
And Measure M had a rigorous citizen’s oversight procedure that guaranteed that transportation dollars could not be diverted for any other use. Measure M mandated that new transportation money had to be spent only on specific, identified projects and nothing else. The safeguards in the program were airtight.
With a specific project list and rock-solid safeguards in place, 55% of OC’s notoriously skeptical voters approved the 20-year Measure M program in 1990. It was the first locally approved, countywide revenue measure to pass in OC since the Eisenhower Administration.
Now the question of bringing the transportation and tax issue back before voters for a re-authorization is the centerpiece of the OCTA’s 2005 agenda.
And here’s why it is a tough issue: Since Measure M passed, the rules of the political game have changed. It now takes a two-thirds countywide vote to extend the existing sales tax beyond the 2010 sunset date. And getting a two-thirds vote on anything in OC is a tough assignment.
OCTA Chairman and county Supervisor Bill Campbell has handed the assignment of recommending the OCTA’s position on the Measure M extension to a board of directors committee chaired by Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle.
Along with the difficult assignment, Campbell also provided polling data that another OCTA committee began putting in place last year.
Three different polls have tried to understand the public attitudes toward extending Measure M. All of the polls have given high marks to the OCTA for their stewardship of the Measure M expenditures so far. And when asked if they would support an extension of Measure M, all of the polls receive a favorable response.
On a cold question, more than 50% say yes, they would support an extension of Measure M. Not two-thirds, but more than 50% percent. That’s a good starting point.
Also, in a survey the OCTA commissioned last year, the pollster asked the next logical question: If the right series of transportation projects were included in a traffic-reducing plan, would you support extending Measure M?
Voters loved the idea of specific projects. When offered a smorgasbord of transportation improvements, support for Measure M jumped to the 70% level, enough to win re-authorization of the measure.
The message: Get the right projects and you can win.
Determining what transportation planners call The Measure M Expenditure Plan,the allocation of precious transportation dollars to a wide array of transportation projects, while still being able to attain the two-thirds voter threshold,is the really tough assignment Pringle’s committee will be working on.
It is an assignment that should be discussed openly and broadly, with creative ideas on needed transportation projects collected from the public and private sector, from citizen and community groups and directly from individual voters.
If a Measure M extension is seriously considered for the ballot, in 2006 or whenever, think about what it would take for you to vote to support OC’s half-cent transportation sales tax. Think about the transportation projects you want,and are willing to pay for. Think about ideas that will relieve traffic congestion.
Think about extending Measure M.
Stan Oftelie
President and CEO
Orange County Business Council
