Supporters of expanding a state's role in various areas of the economy, at some point in time, come face to face with the disappointingly political nature of government spending and budgeting practices. The debate about how to use new revenues from California's cap-and-trade law provides an apt example.

Act 10, which was signed into law last year, included provisions that require annual recertification elections and eliminate the ability of unions to automatically withdraw dues from employee paychecks.

The new compromise, titled the "Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012," pitches itself exclusively as a "Millionaire's Tax" despite retaining the aspects of Brown's original plan that would hit far more than California's top earners.

Although the State Supreme Court has declared Ohio's school funding system to be unconstitutional, leaders have failed to make any lasting, comprehensive reforms.

In a way, the very idea of state budget reform presumes some basic level of government transparency. Many simply take for granted the premise that access exists to information like budget documents and state expenditures. Yet the amount of information related to the spending of tax dollars provided by each of the state governments varies wildly.