I’ve spent about much time as I’m going to spend reading and researching our ballot measures for May 19, and I’m ready to share my much-needed recommendations. Be advised that the last time I posted ballot recommendations, the Winships accused me of coming from the other side of the moon (I don’t understand that accusation even on a figurative level, but I’m pretty sure it means they did not agree). So consider this a shady lunar view.
No on 1A: The rainy day fund is a nice enough idea. The formulae are so complicated you could go blind trying to read and understand. But even if you are a math PhD, you can read it all day and never find the real significance, the $16 billion dollar tax increase. Tax increasers needed four Republican turncoats to sell out and approve about $36 billion in increases (Adams of Hesperia, Villines of Fresno, Niello of Fair Oaks, and Schwarzenegger of Brentwood were the traitors). $20 billion of los impuestos nuevos are in the books with nothing we can do short of moving to Nevada, but $16 billion is made contingent on 1A passing so pounding out a “no” vote is your best chance since Prop 13 to vent your frustration about high taxes.
No on 1B: This is a fixed super-priority of $9.3 billion dollars to go to education, contingent on 1A passing. The super-priority for education that 51% of us voted in to law with the old Prop 98 is a set of interrelated formulae so obtuse that no two people will ever interpret it the same. Has the state complied with the voter’s complex request for putting kids first? Hard to say, but this is a compromise that is being held hostage to Prop 1A as a means of luring the teacher’s union to spend their recession-proof advertising fund to promote 1A. Did that work? Turn on the radio and you’ll soon find out. If this goes down as predicted the teacher’s union will pick more money off their money-tree to hire experts and lawyers and go to court over Prop 98 funding. My thinking is to give the legislature a little more latitude about where to cut, and vote no on 1B. Plus maybe I’ll get work on the lawsuit over Prop 98. I’m available and willing to represent either side. Seriously.
No on 1C: This is a one-time (ha-ha) borrowing of $5 billion to absorb part of the current budget deficit, with the repayment to be made by a pledge of future lottery receipts. Won’t that take from the education-earmarking that was part of the lottery package? Not really because as the legislature pays back the bonds over the next 30 years it is required to put back the earmarked revenue for the schools. Its a little like “taking money out of your house” (i.e. borrowing) to cover your current shortfall, to be paid back by your kids (unless all the education they get makes them smart enough to get out of it). Its yet another act of fiscal child abuse, which adds a really bizarre irony to the teachers’ union’s current radio ads where children’s voices are used to plead for a “yes” vote.
Yes on 1D: This takes part of the earmarking of tobacco tax funds for mass media buys and reallocates it to a more general fund for health-related stuff that could free up other money for general budget purposes. Personally, I’m a cancer survivor and nonsmoker but even I am offended by those godawful anti-smoking ads, which smack of a creeping fascism in which the government takes our money just to spend it on TV ads telling us how to think. I’d rather see it relieving budgetary pressures by spending it on health care, etc. so I’m sold on voting yes on 1D.
Yes on 1E: Remember the millionaire’s tax on the 2004 ballot, with a surcharge on incomes over $1 million dedicated to mental health services? When Rob Reiner bankrolled that measure, it would have taken all the fun out of it if the state just cut back existing mental health spending by the amount of the new revenue, so the measure included safeguards against making such cuts. 1E raids those earmarked funds for purposes not subject to the no-offsetting-cuts provision ($460 million over two years) to help with the current crisis. I feel a little bad about Rob Reiner paying extra tax under false pretenses, but I’ll get over it.
Yes of 1F: Legislators get no pay raise if budget not balanced. Notable as the only part of the May 19 ballot that is easy to understand.
YES ON F……all others should be donated
to Arnold’s Campaign for Secretary of HUD
when he leaves the Governor’s mansion! OH,
he never did live at the Governor’s mansion!
Well, whatever Hotel he lived – in Sacramento!
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO & YES!
Be Sure to VOTE!!!
I will vote no on all of them, including 1F.
One F — (uck) is smoke and mirrors, no pay raise in bad years? One F should be setting the pay cut reductions that these top government management & elected officials need to take to reflect the current state of the economy.
Where as most workers are taking pay cuts, loss of jobs, or reduced hours, pay and benefits. One F calls for NO CUTS for fat cat politicians. What a bunch of crap.
Let them eat cake.
Not No, but HELL NO! A-F
Ron, it helps to know what you’re voting on when making recommendations.
The tobacco tax that 1D diverts has nothing to do with anti-tobacco ads. It diverts Prop. 10 money which goes to county First 5 commissions, and a minority share to the state First 5 commission, for 0-5 year old health and education programs.
1D takes more than half that money and throws it into the maw of the state general fund.
Why reward spendthrifts with more money?
WRT the ‘rainy day fund’… I fail to understand why they’re advertising this as a significant reason to vote for the measures; after all, it’s not like the Leg doesn’t have the power today to vote to set aside money.
O yea and the Healthy Famiies Comission( first 5 program) is for all the children of orange county RIGHT!!!!
And please don’t anyone write, “its for the underserved”, Most socialist counties citizens would be jelous to be that underserved”.
Ron St John.
Batting .500 in baseball will get you into Cooperstown but not when it relates to these ballot measures. We voted NO on all six measures yesterday. And while 1F might feel good do we really need to have a ballot measure that contains basic common sense. Not to give yourself a raise when you are operating in the red.
Don’t confuse the voter. It is much easier to follow Nancy Reagan and just say NO to drugs!
Spending other peoples money has become addictive in our state and federal legislatures.
Here’s where I got confused on 1D:
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf-guide/text-of-proposed-law.pdf#prop1d
It clearly crosses out the 6% Mass Media Communications Account and adds the 6% to the Unallocated Account. I’ve seen commentary about the first-five concerns but can’t track it to the text of the proposal.
Even if it is taking money from first-five rather than tobacco ads for the general maw I’m still voting Yes on 1D. The overall effect of earmarking and prioritizing is to ratchet up spending.
Think about your home budget. If you set aside a bunch of different expenditures as ‘we have to spend A on X, and we have to spend B on Y’ then you’ll have a harder time balancing your budget than if you are willing to look at all your expenses and income and then make choices. So the anti-earmarking in 1D and 1E is at least a little helpful.
The nihilistic approach of voting no on everything is typical of partisan politics that puts team spirit ahead of practical solutions. Its like Rush Limbaugh saying he hopes Obama fails. Let’s grow up already.
I’ve been hearing the same crap since I studied political philosophy in the 70’s, that you have to “dumb down” your message because “people” just don’t understand. I refuse to do that. You keep dumbing down and dumbing down and eventually you end up with George W. Bush as president.
Ron.
Having been active in a few ballot measures I have seen where our “title and summary” were changed due to partisanship. Those changes forced us to spend more time explaining the ballot measures. There have also been cases where a YES vote means NO and vice versa.
Increasing taxes in two years is not the solution to our financial challenge which was self induced by growing the size of our state government.
Can you justify the massive growth during the Schwarzenegger years? I can’t.