Voter Guide: Proposition 31 - Two-Year Budget Cycle

[Barry]

From the Pacific Sun:

YES - Prop. 31 is largely a hodgepodge of little measures packaged as a single initiative intended to streamline certain fiscal responsibilities of the governor and state Legislature—it's got no clear identity, such as the death penalty or the GMO labeling propositions, and therefore, will probably go down in flames. And that would be a shame. It won't solve every problem in Sacto, but it should improve a few. First, it will establish a two-year budget, which will at the very least make the current annual state-budget crisis an every-other-year embarrassment. It will also require bills before the Legislature be made public three days prior to a vote—preventing laws from being rushed through before state elected officials have a chance to digest what's really in them. Additionally, Prop. 31 would allow the governor to make "emergency" spending cuts if the Legislature fails to act—and these "emergency" powers would be pretty rare; the Legislature would basically have to go bonkers before the governor could step in. The Prop. 31 reforms were put together by the bipartisan California Forward think tank, which led the drive for the new top-two primary system and the recent redistricting—both of which, in very short hindsight, appear to have been worthy of their voter approval.

The most controversial provision in 31 is that it would allow local governments to partner with other local governments to tackle broader problems, such as, say, childhood obesity rates, or—wait for it—affordable housing! Yes, critics of Prop. 31 point to this provision and argue that it's a thinly veiled plot to institute regionalization on local municipalities and that an influx of ABAG-type agencies will swoop in to establish the U.N.'s Agenda 21 Europeanization of America. But that's a load of Tea Party hysteria—unless by "Europeanization" they mean better club music and more art house films. In that case we're doubly for it.

CA Democratic Party: No - Locks California into permanent underfunding of education, health, and other vital services

CA Green Party: No. Here's a long discussion of their position.

The left seems to be divided over this. What do you think?