We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. No, that’s not it, we don’t have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem. No, that’s not it, we have a revenue problem and a spending problem. Gov. Schwarzenegger appears to believe that all we need to do is ratchet down spending and we can overcome the state’s current dire fiscal straits. Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, also a very lame duck, seems to think that the voters of California are gullible enough to think that a targeted, one-time tax increase to balance the books can be approved by going to the ballot.
Wrong on all counts. And this commentary does get around to our subject of California workers’ comp, but please indulge our rant for a few moments.
Gov. Schwarzenegger, like any other governor, is hamstrung by various ballot measures that have in the past dedicated a certain percentage of money to certain interests. Education is the prime beneficiary of that.
So the governor and the Legislature have a spending and revenue problem even when everything is in the black. But when the budget is in the black, the Legislature and governor decide to treat us, or at least some of us, like Pavlov’s dogs, with various tax “incentives” to prod certain behavior or curry favor with various constituencies. When things are in the red, “incentives” become “loopholes” that need to be closed. Just ask Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill.
All this budget confusion suggests, barring some degree of enlightenment unlikely to descend upon Sacramento, that what both legislative leaders and our governor need to do is reexamine state government.
Rather than saying everything that government currently does should be done with 10% less, why not take a serious look at whether everything that government does should continue to be done? This déà vu moment is brought to you by the California Performance Review (CPR), a project initiated by the governor before he realized that it really does take a Legislature to make a village.
CPR has been so buried that Geraldo Rivera couldn’t find it. That is too bad, because while its conception and delivery were public policy malpractice, its fundamental concept was sound – state government is doing way too many things, paying way too many cronies, and not holding itself accountable for the billions of dollars it spends every year.
Without a doubt, complex funding of public programs does not always mean there are clear solutions when the budget deficit is in the tens of billions of dollars. But as long as policymakers are unwilling to turn a critical eye on what government does, and how it can be done better, there will be no structural resolution to California’s fiscal woes.
This leads us to user funding and disability determinations. At least three systems in California provide compensation for disability: state disability income (SDI), workers’ comp, and retirement disability under the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). Each of these has its own standards. Why? Just ask yourself which set of cronies was active when they passed, and which set becomes the special interest if they’re reexamined?
A uniform disability system within state government would allow a single dispute resolution process to address disability issues and, given that employers already fund the most expensive of these processes, alleviate at least some general-fund obligations for these systems. Consistent with CPR, it also would allow for dissolution of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Add to that moving workers’ comp medical disputes to independent medical review (IMR), and imagine how streamlined things could be. And how much less expensive for employers.
Then again, that was recommended under CPR. It is highly unlikely that this or any other CPR recommendations will be dusted off for this budget debate. If that is the case, then we need to talk about another form of CPR, one that requires a defibrillator for the state’s economy.