Currently, there does not appear to be a significant effort to budget sustainably. Revenues, namely property taxes, can fluctuate heavily from year-to-year, yet public agencies use those funds for many types of general expenditures. As specific revenues increased, so did the size of public agencies, irrespective to the nature of the revenues. Yet, as revenues dry up, what remains is are bloated, overgrown organizations.

An example of this in action is for education in California. School are funded primarily by the state, but subsidized by property taxes in each county. For the last 3 years, education payments are deferred, causing public schools, especially charter schools to manage difficult cashflow issues. My point here is to question specifically how property taxes relate to funding education. As the market fluctuates, should the quality and breadth of our educational offerings fluctuate accordingly? This seems to be the code set in law, or at least what is practiced.

As it stands, the budgetary process is very reactive. Reactive to special interests, political interests, and now to the fiscal ‘emergency’ that is upon the state. As stated in the article, “it’s time to rip off the band aid”. I interpret that statement as it is time to endure a bit of hardship for long-term gain. I agree with this in theory. Yet, practically, it is tough for citizens to trust in long-term gains when the political environment and rhetoric remains woefully shortsighted.

I’ve been trying to wrap my head around this budget situation for sometime, and always return to conclude that citizens can and should “act locally” with cities and counties. Citizens should come to expect effective and efficient governance, rather than settle for such mismanagement.