Prop 1F - Immature? Yes. Will it pass? Oh, Hell Yes.

Petty, vindictive and childish. That’s how the opposition describes Proposition 1F in the voter guide for the May 19 statewide special election.

Oh, I love the dicey ones! I’ll be writing about the special-election measures in the coming weeks, but I could not resist starting with this one.

If the name Abel Maldonado rings a bell, it’s probably because he was the final vote in favor of the scabby scramble that passed for a “state budget” this year, thus temporarily ending the 8-month financial cluster in Sacramento. In exchange for ruining his future with the GOP, the state senator, R-Santa Maria, demanded, among other things, that two “good government” reforms be put before voters. Prop. 1F is one of them; the other will be on the June 2010 ballot.

The deliciously vindictive Prop. 1F basically says: no balanced budget, no raises for legislators. (Download Prop 1F.)

Prior to 1990, salaries of legislators were set by legislators, though they could not give themselves more than a 5 percent raise. Then in 1990, voters decided we needed some new foxes to guard the henhouse. We passed Prop. 112, which let the governor appoint seven people to the California Citizens Compensation Commission and gave that commission power to raise salaries with no hard limitation. The commission (which has three empty seats right now — any takers?) is supposed to set the increases based on the amount of elbow grease expected from lawmakers and the pay of their counterparts.

Prop. 1F says that in any year where the state’s rainy-day fund will have a negative balance equal to more than 1 percent of general-fund revenue (1 percent this year would be $1 billion) state elected officials — including the governor — would not be eligible for raises.

Will Prop. 1F really help balance the budget? According to the state voter guide, if the change stopped a 3 percent raise across the board this year, it would mean a savings of $480,000 — chump change compared to the $40 billion-plus deficit we had this year. So, this is not literally about the money saved.
 
Can the threat of withholding raises force lawmakers to act right? In 2006, legislators (most of whom are paid about $116,000 a year) received a 2 percent increase, and in 2007 that amount was 2.75 percent; there was no raise in 2008. These do not appear to be amounts that would outweigh the damnable pressure from political parties or special-interest groups upon which politicians’ futures depend.

If it will not save us money or change behavior, what good is Prop. 1F? Let’s be honest: It would feel great to get back at the folks (whomever you think they are) that brought this state to the brink of financial ruin.

I have to wonder, though, if the state’s voters are so eager to thump lawmakers that we will pass an ineffective, blustering constitutional amendment. Can we really be surprised that Sacramento is full of representatives who are petty, vindictive and childish?