Your blogger's expression of support for Props 1D and 1E -- two of the six measures on California's May 19 special election -- was so back-handed that the headline writer on the Internet version of my piece in today's LA Times seemed to think I'm against both propositions.

I'm not. Given the state's budget problems, the repurposing of money from early childhood and mental health programs makes a ton of sense. But the unintended consequences worry me. These two measures effectively take away -- temporarily -- tax money that was raised by voters through two ballot initiatives, Prop 10 and Prop 63. Such fiscal responsibility in ballot initiatives is rare. By making targets of those measures (albeit for the good reason of a budget crisis), lawmakers have eliminated whatever incentive there was fiscal responsibility among initiative sponsors.

The good news; there's an opportunity to fix the problem. State Sen. Denise Ducheny, a San Diego Democrat, and Sen. Roy Ashburn, a Bakersfield Republican, have drafted a constitutional amendment that would require future initiatives to be self-funding -- that is, to provide revenues to cover the costs of whatever programs or mandates they create. 

If anyone needs further proof that California is not quite a republic, look at the budget deal that appears to have saved the state from a fiscal disaster. (At least for now -- we could be at the brink again if the economy continues its downward march and state tax revenues slip even further below the current estimates).

The deal requires citizens to pass judgment on seven related ballot measures (At one point, a possible deal looked like there might be eight ballot measures, but in last-minute negotiations, it was decided that one measure--that would have involved docking the pay of lawmakers when they don't pass a budget on time -- was unconstitutional).

It's a national phenomenon. Policymakers in initiative states are seeking to get at funds set aside by initiative in order to balance their budgets. In California, the targets are funds for early childhood programs (Prop 10) and mental health (Prop 63). In Arizona, the target is tobacco tax money that's supposed to be used for early childhood. Already, there is pushback, as this Tucson Citizen column makes clear.