We learned last week that Santa Ana City Councilwoman Michele Martinez is supporting the Government Performance and Accountability Act ballot initiative. She joins the Orange County Business Council, South Orange County Regional Chamber, Senator Marian Bergeson, Councilman Jeffrey Lalloway of Irvine, Councilwoman Kris Murray of Anaheim, Councilman Jerry Amante of Tustin, Mayor Frank Ury and Councilman David Lechness of Mission Viejo and many others who support this radical revision to the State Constitution.
Among the things this initiative proposes, is changing the state budgeting process from the current one-year process to a two-year process. The success of such a process is highly questionable because of the unpredictability of state revenues. As we have seen with each budget cycle, revenue forecasts rarely seem to pan out on an annual basis, to balance a two year budget would be even less predictable.
Martinez should know this. While she wrote in a mailer from her failed campaign for Santa Ana Mayor in 2008 that the city was facing a $28 million deficit; she joined her council colleagues in ignoring that deficit for two more years. That failure to pay attention led to the outsourcing of hundreds of city jobs including the entire Santa Ana Fire Department.
The Democratic leaders in the State Assembly and State Senate have significant reservations about this proposed initiative. While some provisions are intriguing, others severely limit the ability of the legislature to control the state budget making it unacceptable.
The California Legislative Analysts Office writes of the initiative:
This measure amends the Constitution to: 1) Constrain the Legislature’s authority to enact laws that increase state costs or decrease state revenues by more than $25 million annually; 2) Expand the Governor’s authority to implement midyear reductions to appropriations in the state budget; 3) Shift state funds to local governments for the purpose of implementing new “Community Strategic Action Plans;” 4) Modify state and local government budget practices. Read More.
I’m not so sure that shifting limited state funds to local control, to fund unrestricted “Community Strategic Action Plans” is such a great deal. This plan appears reminiscent of the now shuttered Community Redevelopment Agency’s that permitted city leaders were able to bankroll their campaigns with developer contributions in return for massive giveaways of public funds.
The fact that Michele Martinez has joined pay-to-pay princess Anaheim Councilwoman Kris Murray (Republican), and the Orange County Business Council, tells us who’s side she’s on. This, combined with her history of pay-to play behavior as a councilwoman in Santa Ana, demonstrates that she is probably FOR SALE to the highest bidder. Imagine what Michele Martinez would do if she were to represent us in the California State Assembly.
@ Joe Hill:
An excellent post!!!
You ask rhetorically, “[IMAGINE ]what Michele Martinez would do if she were to represent us in the California State Assembly.”
Well, actually she wouldn’t represent us…she would represent $$$$$$$$$$$.
To know, just remember:
1) Michele Martinez has been violating the law – accepting campaign contributions and voting illegally, as pointed out by various media outlets;
2) Michele was also found to be coordinating with campaign Independent Expenditures in violation of state law, as widely reported by independent media;
3) Michele is proposing less citizen oversight and less citizen control over elected officials and their actions;
4) Michele is attacking small family owned businesses by supporting higher taxes on Santa Ana’s small businesses through the unconstitutional PBID, when it is small to medium sized businesses in California and in the country that create 90% of the jobs; and
5) Michele is dismissive of citizens concerns…it seems that the majority of this city council feels that they can disregard the citizens without impunity!
Francisco Paco Barragan
For State Assembly 2012 – 69th AD
Business, Veterans and Community Leader
http://www.linkedin.com/in/franciscobarragancpacia
(714) 605-2544 cell
Michele Martinez did something good.
Our choices are (1) the passage of this State Constitutional Amendment in 2012, or (2) California default on its debt obligations in 2013-2014.
If one were to “google” >> “CA derivatives bubble” one would find, on page one, a page from my website, “Cap and Trade: a $2 Trillion Derivatives Bubble Potential”.
Obviously, the Legislature needs to be constrained from enacting laws that increase state costs, (or decrease state revenues).
If the Democrats are against it, it can’t be all bad.
Over 30 years of Democratic control in California. How well has that worked for us?