I’m voting against all of them. Basically, these measures are half-assed alternatives to the necessary step of raising taxes – right now the only means the legislature has of maintaining fiscal responsibility and maintaining basic necessary programs. Unfortunately, because of the goofiness of the tax revolts of the late 70s and early 80s which require among other things a two-thirds majority for any tax increases. The legislature is hand-cuffed, and nobody wants to even make the effort to raise the revenues. So we’re getting a piecemeal proposal which cannibalizes essential programs to meet short term budget balancing needs. The hard right rejects the proposals because the moderates of their party tried to sweeten the deal for liberals by throwing in a few bones in the form of taxes, while placing even more restrictions on the discretion of the legislature to adapt to the needs of a particular year. If you don’t trust the legislature with your money, then vote in a different legislature, but don’t try to micromanage the budget process by ballot.
1A - proposes to put a larger chunk of money into a “rainy day” fund, and requires that it be done every year regardless of the economic conditions. It’s essentially a spending cap, and quite frankly if we have extra money I’d much rather it be used to pay off bonded debt. Having a rainy day fund is like putting money in the bank with a 1 percent interest when you have an outstanding balance on a loan for 7 percent.
Basically, the proposition locks us into a formula that does not allow flexibility to expand social services as the retirement population increases dramatically. And from what some of the experts are saying, the formulas for usage during “rainy days” are somewhat obscure.
Also, the proposition extends the time period for the emergency sales tax to 2012, instead of the current expiration of 2010. The sales tax is a regressive tax. Whether it’s necessary to get through this lien time, it shouldn’t be encouraged as a long term option.
1B – Guarantees that some of the 1A money would go to education, a bone thrown to get CTA support for 1A. Without the 1A funds, it’s pointless.
1C – Looks to allow flexibility to sell more lottery tickets. The Lottery is essentially a regressive tax which prays on mathematical ignorance and the hope of lower income people. I don’t support it as it is, and I certainly don’t support its expansion. And I don’t support messing with the flow of the money to encourage the use of the lottery for purposes beyond education.
1D – Seeks to pull money out of the special fund from tobacco taxes (Proposition 10) for certain children’s programs in order to be put into the general fund. Why are they picking on childrens’ programs? If they were willing to dip into the designated funds for prison construction and road construction as well, I might consider it as I would prefer the legislature have the flexibility to determine the needs and priorities of the moment, but until then leave the kids alone.
1E – Does what 1D does, only messes with the mental health care recipients instead, albeit temporarily. Again, don’t let essential services be deprived because moderate Republicans don’t want to increase taxes.
1F – A moronic proposal to prohibit legislative pay increases when there’s a budget deficit. First of all, contrary to popular belief legislators are not overpaid in terms of the market value of their services. Despite the popular bashing of politicians, they are actually underpaid. And to a certain extent they should be. But this is just a feel-good measure which plays on pettiness and adds nothing to the solution. The problem is not that the legislators are sitting on their asses. The problem is that they’re structurally paralyzed by the 2/3 vote requirement.
Hopefully, in 2010 there will be a ballot measure to eliminate the 2/3 vote requirement for tax increases. That’s what’s necessary, unless you want to slash even further the bare-bones services we currently receive. The lack of services is actually starting to take an economic toll.
Personally, I’d also like to see the elimination of constitutional changes by ballot box, or at least the instituting of 2/3 majority for that purpose.
In summary, my recommendations: no, no, no, no, no, no.
31 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 5, 2009 at 8:30 am
Anonymous
Are you the blogger of no now Eric?
May 5, 2009 at 8:36 am
Moonshadow
I was going to vote for 1F and against all the others, but you’ve made a persuasive argument against 1F as well . . . as of now I am convinced and plan to vote against 1F as well.
Your comments about eliminating the 2/3rds requirement for tax increases and getting rid of constitutional changes via ballot box both are things I’ve been saying for a long time.
May 5, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Fred Mangels
Wow. Scary. We’ve recently passed the biggest tax increase in California history and that’s not enough for you.
May 5, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Moonshadow
Former State Senator Sheila Kuehl has some interesting comments about 1A, 1B, and 1C . . .
http://www.sheilakuehl.org/sheila-s-essays/props-1a-1b-and-1c
May 5, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Bruce Ross
OK, let’s give 1A the old college try:
Twice in the past 10 years, the state of California has experienced $10 billion crashes (likely even more this year) in year-over-year tax revenues. Despite all the many problems with our political system and the people running it it, this volatility on its own makes it extraordinarily difficult to make long-term budgets for schools, health care and all the other public services we enjoy. The smoothing effect of the rainy day fund wouldn’t work only on the way up (i.e., the spending cap) but also on the way down. We can avoid draconian cuts, we can avoid making promises to people (the aged, blind and disabled included) that we can’t keep, we can avoid the bureaucratic chaos of teacher layoffs, we can avoid signing union contracts that later prove unaffordable.
If we had sage lawmakers who could always take the long view, we wouldn’t need to shackle them with a spending cap. What in the recent experience of the state suggests we’ll ever have leaders with the wisdom of Solomon? (And in any case, the king was notoriously free-spending back in his day.)
You mention paying off debt. Several provisions of Prop. 1A encourage the state to use extra money to pay down debt.
As for the sales tax, yes that’s also extended (for two years — not “long term”), but so is the income tax “surcharge” and the higher car-registration fees (which I’d speculate are less regressive, since poor people have cheap old cars, though I’m not aware of any data to profe that).
May 5, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Not A Native
Yep I see your points these props are gimmicks, but I’m still undecided. No good options, the State government is dysfunctional, that’s apparently OK for enough of the electorate.
The “simple” solutions like term limits and required balanced budget haven’t worked to generate legislative consensus. 1F is the latest “simple” solution, truly moronic as you say. But the fact it was actually drafted and on the ballot is incredible to me. I can’t imagine the discussions and process that led to its being put forward.
Changing executives doesn’t seem to work either. Wasn’t Arnold elected (and Davis recalled) as the solution to fiscal gridlock? It feels to me that citizens, as a group, are saying “I don’t care to have a state government if it represents interests of people I don’t agree with.” It seems that compromise is seen as a weakness not a virtue of a patriotic citizen.
May 5, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Moonshadow
If I am reading Ms Kuehl’s thoughts on this correctly, what is not being said is that the sales tax increase extension is actually for 2 more years beyond the two it has already been extended.
My other objection to 1A is that it is completely unclear as to whether or not it would cap spending that is the result of the initiative process.
May 5, 2009 at 9:04 pm
moviedad
I was listening to the radio, and the commentators were predicting that the voting public would be voting no on every proposition, even before they knew what they were. I think they hit it on the head.
May 5, 2009 at 9:06 pm
moviedad
“….the biggest in history…blah, blah..” for crying out loud. That is pure hyperbole. Everything is the, “…biggest _____ in history.”
May 6, 2009 at 2:19 am
Matt
The legislators are overpaid. They make more than double the average American household income. Anyone who works *for* the people, shouldn’t be getting paid significantly more than than the people they work for. (This applies to University presidents too – exhibit A: Rollin Richmond)
May 6, 2009 at 6:39 am
milt
Thanks everyone. You just saved me 42cents.
May 6, 2009 at 7:54 am
Moonshadow
Uh Milt . . . you do realize that not sending in your ballot is tantamount to voting whichever way the vote goes. Which may, or may not, be the same as pre-vote predictions are showing. Also . . . not voting can cause your registration to be listed as inactive and purged, thus making it necessary for you to re-register.
May 6, 2009 at 9:09 am
Eric Kirk
Bruce, you make good points, and I’m not all dead set against the concept of a rainy day fund, but sometimes we also have immediate needs for the money. The mistrust of the legislature may be reasonable, but then there’s no guarantee the fund won’t be abused either. I understand that 1A has some esoteric formulas to determine when the fund can be used, and when the analysis uses words like “possible” to describe what might happen, it’s a clear sign to me that it’s a measure too complicated to be put on a ballot to be voted on by people who won’t even be reading the measure, let alone comparing alternatives – the function of a legislature.
So what they put out is a one-size-fits-all cap with a lot of gobbly-gook as to how the money might eventually be spent. I’m a reasonably educated attorney and I can’t even make out precisely when the fund would be used, or I should say the several components of the fund.
And with regard to the encouragement to pay off bond debt, again, I’m all for that. But again, the needs of one year might make the emphasis on paying off debt practical, whereas the next year we might really need to fund education, or road repairs, or something particular to the events of that year. My point is that we have already hand-cuffed the legislature, and more restrictions on their discretion isn’t the answer where the real problems are structural – needing to get that 2/3 vote to do anything.
Unfortunately, when Prop 13 was passed, politics had not evolved to where more moderate alternative measures were introduced for voters consideration (as per the more extreme opposite situation the year everybody and his uncle introduced a proposal for insurance reform). We need to rethink the structure in a way that does not allow for runaway property taxes (which can be regressive in nature), but allows a legislature to do its job and raise taxes when necessary. Perhaps a 55% majority instead of the 2/3.
And how many people who are going to vote on this measure truly understand it. I’m one of those people who reads the actual text of the law and I don’t completely understand it. That’s not good. Quite frankly, I don’t think any law which is more than two pages long should be on a referendum, unless the bulk of the law is fluff (such as incorporating portions of the old law to demonstrate what would be omitted or added to).
May 6, 2009 at 9:10 am
Eric Kirk
Not a good principle to operate on if you want to attract qualified candidates.
May 6, 2009 at 10:25 am
Moonshadow
Can’t agree with you there . . . not at all.
If one considers the size of the budgets they deal with as well as the legal and policy questions, then it is clear we are likely underpaying them. To get qualified, knowledgeable, and dedicated, candidates they need to be paid commensurate with what they could be getting paid in private industry/business.
the day is long past when our Statehouses could have “citizen legislators.”
May 6, 2009 at 11:04 am
Anonymous
A lot of the legislators still have operating business and law practices that pay them. The $168,000 they receive is their salary, but they also get per diems when they are in session or do anything and expenses plus they get a free car of their choice and all expenses paid on the car also. It all adds up to quite a bit.
Be careful how you vote if you do not want them to get a salary increase if the “budget is in deficit”. I believe a yes vote actually means they would not get an increase. There are probably a few loopholes as to how the deficit is actually determined so I don’t know that it is going to make a difference or not. Their salary increases are determined by a Committee.
May 6, 2009 at 11:29 am
Bruce Ross
Who wouldn’t like simpler ballot propositions? Unfortunately, to change the state Constitution requires the consent of the voters. Some of these laws are complicated, in part because lawyers find loopholes and other lawyers try to write the law to close those loopholes.
The entire mechanism of government in California (let alone the United States) has become so complex that anymore only the lobbyists understand it. It’s become a game stacked in favor of the insiders, not necessarily or only because of corruption but because they’re the only people with the means and motivation to keep it all straight. And this has profoundly anti-democratic implications.
But has anyone figured out a better way to run the modern world, which really is pretty stinkin’ complicated?
May 6, 2009 at 12:10 pm
milt
First. You do not have to vote in every election, especially special elections, and not doing so will not result in being “purged” or deemed “inactive”. Show me where the rule(s) that support that fear tactic are, please.
Second. I look at the polls and all props are not even close to passing – except for some interest in 1F. Which is all that I see there is left to banter about. Either way is fine with me on that one.
Third. Now if they hold a recall election on Ahnold, items specific: (see sub sect B below), and the vehicle registration fee increase, that that f*cker campaigned on, as the famousTaco Bell , Che’- Chihuaua, once said; “I’ll be there !”
Third.(sub sect B) I’m getting fed up with all these special elections, most of which in the past, present, and most likely, future, center around these goddam bond issues – which are the numero uno reason this state is in such deep shit. I have consistently voted against every one of them, to no avail, because of the half-wits who do vote for them buying into the lie that this bond measure or that one will save our schools, roads, hospitals, and immortal souls.
So relax, we’re all going to heaven anyway.
May 6, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Eric Kirk
But it’s not just that they’re too complicated for everyone in the public to understand. When legislation is passed by representatives, the committees bring in witnesses, experts, bean counters, etc. In theory, they plow through the drafts, or their clerks do anyway, and revise. Citizens and lobbyists add their input. That’s what the legislator is supposed to do. We don’t have direct democracy precisely because we don’t all have time to take in and consider all of the conflicting concerns.
I’m not against the referendum. I think some level of direct democracy is healthy for a republic. But ballot propositions should be simple as a matter of course. I suspect the average voters spends less than 20 minutes reading the pamphlet. We can kvetch about what they should do, but ultimately what they actually do is the issue.
And when even the authors themselves can’t agree on what it means, it probably shouldn’t be passed.
Just my opinion.
May 6, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Bruce Ross
Let’s circulate an initiative limiting the length of initiatives: “No ballot measure presented to the voters shall exceed 100 words in length.” Heck, mine’s just 13 words.
May 7, 2009 at 6:28 am
Carol
“In heaven, every little thing is fine.”
–from Eraserhead
May 7, 2009 at 6:29 am
Carol
My absentee ballot just sits on the desk looking bewildered.
May 7, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Shane
Good recommendations, Eric. Thanks for sharing them with everyone.
I agree with you on all of them except for 1B. Why not support it, just to send a message about the importance of funding education? It’s probably going to take a lawsuit to restore Prop 98 funds, but a good result for 1B will show public support for the cause.
Plus, if 1A does pass, we really need 1B to pass. This is the position taken by the California Federation of Teachers, which strongly apposes all of the initiatives except for 1B. Not only is this a principled position, it’s the best strategy for progressives in this election.
That being said, the really important part is to defeat the other measures!
May 7, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Moonshadow
Interesting point . . . I’ll have to consider that.
May 7, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Moonshadow
Oh obviously . . . I made those points because quite a few people make a habit of not voting just to show their disgust with the system. While this election is a special election and wouldn’t cause one to be purged if not voting . . . why get in the habit?
Better to vote to show your disgust . . . than not.
May 7, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Matt
“Not a good principle to operate on if you want to attract qualified candidates.”
Yeah, like we’re really attracting qualified candidates now
May 8, 2009 at 9:05 am
Eric Kirk
No, it’s not enough Fred. The services are at bare bones, and I believe the cuts are starting to take an economic toll which probably exceeds the value of any increases. There’s nowhere to cut back, unless you want to invade the cash cows of the prison industrial complex and sweetheart road construction no-bid jobs which the voters refused to reform several years ago. Roads and prisons are sacrosanct.
May 8, 2009 at 9:28 am
Moonshadow
I think we have too many people who want the services but don’t want to pay for them.
May 18, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Remember to vote tomorrow « Sohum Parlance II
[...] 18, 2009 in Uncategorized My recomendations as posted, with one change of [...]
May 19, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Matt
Still think we need to pay the legislators so much??…
“Even with the cuts, however, the governor and legislators will still be the best-paid in the land, easily outpacing New York – which pays its governor $179,000 and its legislators $79,500.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/19/BAPL17N53F.DTL
May 20, 2009 at 6:52 am
Moonshadow
You have a point Matt, but we also have to remember that wages tend to be regional (ie: what the cost of living is in a given area affects wages too).
I also recognize that $179,000/yr sounds like a lot to those of us who make less, but then we have to remember even in this recession that’s not a heck of a lot of money out here in California.
My point being . . . it’s not just about the raw numbers.