"Poll shows California voters want budget cuts somewhere, just not to things they like."  That headline from the June 10 Press-Enterprise seems to sum up the problems California is facing in balancing its budget.

There's been much finger pointing on this issue, mostly at the legislature. They have a difficult job, trying to close a gap of about $17 billion between planned expenses and scheduled revenue. The difference is significant: more than 10 percent of the governor's proposed $141 billion budget.

But even if they do find a solution, are we going to help them out? The gist of the poll results discussed in the article is that the people want to balance the budget by cutting spending that impacts other people. Don't take my money, don't cut my programs.

But on top of that, the people regularly go in and override one part or another of the state budget. Initiatives are a powerful tool in a democracy, but they may not be the wisest way to balance a precarious budget.

So, on top of whatever the governor and the legislature do to balance the current budget, they have to watch the ballot results in November to see what expenses the voters are going to require of the state.

Are the voters going to insist the state issue $9.95 billion worth of bonds by voting for the "Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century?" Is the state going to issue $980 million worth of bonds under the "Children's Hospital Bond Act?" 

While few would argue against safe neighborhoods, how many voters will consider how to fund the Safe Neighborhoods Act, an initiative with a budgetary impact estimated as "likely to exceed" 500 million dollars a year, and first-year one-time costs "potentially exceeding" another 500 million dollars.

The fiscal impacts for all those ballot measures, and others, are available from the California Secretary of State.

I know what I'd think if someone knocked on my door after every election and said 'here are your new mandatory expenses.' I know quite well, and generally call them taxes and utility bills. Essential expenses that are mostly out of (my) control. I think most households understand how difficult it is to factor such expenses into a budget, but I am constantly surprised at how many people think the state government should be able to do it with ease. 

On a related note, it was very interesting to see a new study this week on the possible economic impact of the state Supreme Court's May 15 ruling on same-sex marriages. I wonder where the state could use an extra $64 million of tax revenues.  

-Citizen Voices blogger Chuck Hartley is an attorney who lives in Escondido.