It’s time to reprioritize
California’s expenditures

Re: “Walters: Is California bond issue rejection a sign taxpayers are fed up with high taxes?” (Opinion section, March 8):

In the title of his CalMatters column, Dan Walters asks, “Is California bond issue rejection a sign taxpayers are fed up with high taxes?” In his thoughtful response, he rightfully concludes, “Advocates of more spending, borrowing and taxes may be learning that even in blue California, there are limits.”

Agreed. But there are other ways to fund necessary, essential programs.

A sensible approach would include phasing out redundant, low-priority programs in lieu of constant tax increases that won’t be approved. Perhaps something along the lines of zero-based budgeting where legislators and sometimes voters are faced with prioritizing options and making tough choices.

Some choices may not be that difficult. For example, California’s Executive Branch currently has over 200 state agencies, some with overlapping, or conflicting, roles and responsibilities.

Does California really need so many state agencies? It’s time to reprioritize our necessary expenditures. Don’t our elected officials need to face up?

Chris Kniel
Orinda

Submit your letter to the editor via this form
Read more Letters to the Editor