PROPS. 6 AND 9 ARE BUDGET BUSTERS

One of the reasons that California has a multibillion-dollar
structural deficit is that voters keep approving spending mandates
without providing a way to pay for them.

As a result, our elected representatives in Sacramento have less and
less discretion to fund priorities that are not "locked in" by the
electorate. This ballot-box budgeting results in pressure to make
either deep cuts in programs that are not protected by voter mandate
- - higher education, law enforcement, parks, many social programs - or
to raise taxes.

Propositions 6 and 9, promoted as "tough on crime," continue this
practice of legislating through the ballot box.

Prop. 6, the "Safe Neighborhoods Act," is a prime example of a
measure with a catchy title but with significant implications for
both the state budget and the priorities of law enforcement. This
32-page measure would make 50 changes in state law and commit $965
million a year to certain state and local criminal justice programs.

Prop. 6 would increase an array of sentences on crimes related to
street gangs, drug dealing and guns. For example, a gang member
convicted of a violent felony would get an extra 10 years in prison.
Accomplices in crimes in which a gun was used - such as a drive-by
shooting - would be subjected to the same enhanced penalties as the
shooter. It would increase the penalties on gang-related graffiti and
prohibit illegal immigrants arrested for violent felonies or gang
crimes from being released on bail without a hearing.

While Californians who are concerned about crime might be tempted to
approve any shopping list of toughened penalties put before them,
they should consider that the current laws are overcrowding prisons
to the point that the state is at the risk of a federal takeover of
the system. Also, the intervention and prevention programs funded by
this measure may or may not prove to be the most efficient and
effective use of our scarce resources.

Prop. 9, designed to strengthen the rights of victims and to make it
more difficult to release inmates from prison, also would have an
enormous budget impact. It expands the victims' rights that were
approved by voters in 1982.

Its more consequential change would be its restrictions on
early-release programs to relieve overcrowding - such as those that
have been considered for nonviolent offenders by Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger and state legislators - and tighter rules on parole.
For example, some inmates who are eligible for parole now get
hearings on their suitability every year - with a maximum wait of
five years between hearings. Prop. 9 would give the parole board the
discretion to require a parole-eligible inmate to wait up to 15 years
for his next hearing.

The Legislative Analyst's Office has projected that the cost of Prop.
9 could amount to "hundreds of millions of dollars" every year.

California voters should reject Props. 6 and 9.