California has a referendum system. That so few referendums focus on cutting costs says something about its voters’ priorities.
On the other hand, the state is losing population on an absolute basis (and relatively even more so against a backdrop of national growth). So some folks are voting with their feet. I'm eagerly awaiting the day when I'm free enough to do the same.
I’m arguing the opposite. The voters have the tools to oppose the state government’s size. That they don’t use them signals support in broad terms.
One key difference that I do like about the CA referendum process is that laws passed by referendum in California are equal to the state constitution and require 2/3 supermajority in state congress to modify or change, just like the state constitution itself. This avoids many attempts by legislature to foil or spoil the will of the voters’ referendums, in contrast to other state referendum processes which are only considered a law passed by other means and are usually able to be modified by simple majority.
A) Idealistic voters with little interest in detail or executions.
B) Hard working state employees executing in an ineffective way because they are working on over constrained problems with conflicting and sometime impossible goals.
C) A number of opportunists that take advantage of poor rulemaking and bureaucratic disorganization.
For what it is worth, I dont think corruption is a major driver of problems, but bad policy detached from the practical considerations.
One simple example is SF parks maintenance:
The city wants to keep invasive species out, so it has staff to remove them. The city also believes in livable wages, so the workers make >100K. Residents dont like pesticides, so the workers must hand weed. Hand weeding doesnt work, so the City periodically pays outside consultants to come in and take care of the invasives (with pesticides and low paid workers).
These small examples are extremely frustrating as a tax payer. What is the solution to these examples, or does one just try to ignore it as a price of living in that society?
One consideration is having a broader tax base so that voters have more skin in the game.
For example, taxes in Houston are less progressive than SF, but SF city budget per resident is more than 500% that of Huston.
The $1.7M public toilet was a painful example showing how far off the rails we are. Should auditors and controllers have some teeth? What would they be?