The LA Times Is At It Again

[courtesy of The California Majority Report]

Cross-posted on Calitics. 

Back in December, after a series of articles in the LA Times that framed our budget crisis as the product of locked-in spending, I wrote an op-ed challenging this view that the Times published, arguing that by focusing on spending rules, the paper was not informing readers of the actual problem -- a structural, long-term revenue shortfall.

Unfortunately, that does not seem to have stopped the Times from continuing to espouse this view. Today's paper brings us an article by Evan Halper with the headline "In closing state budget gap, vast sums are off limits". In this case the spending rules that are examined are "novel" programs, but the basic conclusion is the same as usual -- California's budget crisis is the result of locked-in spending, and not a structural revenue shortfall.

"The state is about to pump half a billion dollars into teaching children to roll sushi, juggle pins and master new dance forms, even as spending cuts threaten to erode instruction in reading, math and other fundamentals.

That's because the sum scheduled to be spent on such after-school enrichment next year is off-limits for anything else. State law dictates that cooking classes continue even if some calculus courses could be canceled.

In good economic times, voters have passed ballot initiatives that devoted billions of dollars to novel social and recreational programs, such as the after-school initiative championed by Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2002, before he was governor. It is intended to keep youths off the streets by offering them extracurricular activity -- like cooking, juggling and dance -- as well as tutoring and volunteer opportunities.

Such measures lock spending into the state Constitution, forcing lawmakers, many of whom endorsed the propositions, to keep funding them despite a lack of cash for some essential services."

Certainly it is true that these kinds of programs have locked-in funding, and it is also true that if one takes a cuts-only approach to the budget, these programs would be spared while others deemed more central are slashed. But this frame and analysis has some serious problems to it.

There's more...