An obscure measure on this year's ballot, Senate Joint Resolution 8206, has major implications for state budgeting—a bit of an issue these days.

Currently, the legislature has to set aside one percent of state revenues annually for its rainy day fund, formally known as the stabilization account. The measure, being pushed by Republican state budget leader Sen. Joseph Zarelli (R-18, Ridgefield), would mandate that when the state sees “extraordinary revenue growth”—revenues that are one-third higher than the average growth over the past five biennia—it must put three-quarters of that revenue increase into the rainy day fund.

Zarelli explained laid out his case for the measure here:

The biggest problem is that when you have a spike in revenue that you know isn’t going to continue and then you spend that spike, it creates a bow wave — you have no way to support that spending. When revenue comes back down to its historical growth pattern and then spending is way out of balance, that creates problems like we’re in now. The idea is to harmonize the spending pattern so it stays consistent with what is long-term growth instead of the ebbs and flows.

There are some of those in the social services arena who think that we can’t commit to saving money, we have to spend it because there’s a huge need.There is a small group, but my message to them is that it does us no good if we commit to spending that we then have to withdraw from.

For a liberal response, check out today's post on Schmudget (that's Yiddish for budget), the blog over at the lefty Washington Budget & Policy Center.

Their basic argument: stowing away more money in an account that is protected by a near-insurmountable two-thirds majority, is shortsighted and works only as a feel-good solution to a more fundamental problem with the state's unsustainable revenue system.

Here are their bullet points:

While the goal of SJR 8206 is to create a more adequate and reliable RDF, it does nothing to address the rainy day fund’s largest and most pressing issues:

• Our revenue system is not capable of supporting a robust RDF. Experts in public finance recommend a rainy day fund balance of approximately 15 percent of annual spending. States with rainy day funds at or near this benchmark have strong revenue systems to support and replenish the fund. An expansion of the sales tax to a wider range of services would do much to bolster our revenue system and, in turn, the adequacy of our rainy day fund.

• In times of need, onerous barriers to withdrawal make it difficult for the state to use RDF funds. Unless the Governor declares an emergency, the withdrawal of funds from the RDF requires a supermajority (3/5ths vote) of the legislature. This creates an almost insurmountable barrier for the state to address budget shortfalls and allows a small minority of legislators to block the funding of vital public structures in times of need.

• Mandatory deposits are counterproductive during tough economic times. Under current constitutional law, 1 percent of total annual revenues must be deposited into the RDF by the end of every fiscal year regardless of the financial or economic issues facing the state. Mandatory transfers defeat the purpose of a rainy day fund and deprive key public investments such as education and public safety of funds when they need them most.

• While SJR 8206 would prompt additional saving during good economic times, it does nothing to address the fundamental failures currently associated with our rainy day fund. To create a robust and dependable rainy day fund which can stabilize and support the state in its toughest time, more adjustments, both to the RDF and our revenue system, are needed.