Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Recommendations for May 19 special election

All six special propositions on the May 19 ballot are the result of a flawed Sacramento budget and policy-making process. The causes include term-limits, the two-thirds super-majority requirement, a distorted initiative process, insulated legislative districts and a Governor who has proven to be ineffective.

These forces and Republican legislators who refused to accept any tax increases (despite the fact that no reasonable solution was possible without them) combined to produce a weeks-long stalemate to begin 2009. The deadlock continued as the State's budget deficit crept beyond $40 billion. The impasse was barely bridged by a few Republicans in each house who broke ranks to support the compromise that included budget cuts and the voters deciding on Measures 1A-1F.

The propositions are:

1A - Sends a portion of state revenues to a "rainy day" fund for use in lean years. The percentage set aside for economic downturns increases from 5 to 12-1/2 percent of the State's General Fund. Spending is capped at a 10-year average of state revenue, adjusted for population growth and inflation. Revenue above that average goes into reserves, requiring the State in most years to put a projected 3 percent of its general fund revenues in the reserve fund, which could only be used for budget shortfalls, bond repayments and emergencies such as natural disasters or if the Governor declares a fiscal emergency. Extends 1 percent state sales tax increase for one year, and extends vehicle license fee increase and top income bracket increase for two years, generating some $16 billion in revenue. This measure also authorizes the Governor to make midyear spending reductions if the budget falls out of balance.

1B - Beginning in 2011-12 requires additional payments to local school districts and community colleges to offset recent budget cuts. Payments come from the rainy day fund established in 1A and continue until total amount is repaid.

1C - Makes changes to improve performance of state lottery and increase payouts and proceeds. Allows state to borrow $5 billion to address current budget deficit against projected additional lottery proceeds.

1D - Temporarily redirects $600 million in funds from California Children and Families Act (1998 Proposition 10) to General Fund for support of health and human services children's programs. Additional diversion of $268 million in years 2010-11 to 2013-14. Early childhood development programs funded by the Act would be cut.

1E - Redirects $230 million from Mental Health Services Act funds (2004 Proposition 63) for two years to existing health programs. Community mental health programs would be cut.

1F - Prohibits legislators and state constitutional officers from receiving pay raises when the State is running a deficit.

There are plenty of reasons for anyone from any part of the political spectrum to oppose these measures. 1A is the only proposition of the six that contains long-term structural reform of the budget process in an attempt to limit the revenue swings we have recently experienced. Its opponents on the left say it will deprive the state of essential revenue needed for important programs, yet some anti-tax groups oppose it because of its built-in taxes and perceived loopholes. This package moves revenues from voter initiative-established programs to the General Fund. Some say this thwarts the will of the voters and cuts these programs when such services are most needed. Others like that it moderates, if temporarily, our ad hoc initiative-based budgeting process.

The problem with defeating these measures is what might happen if they don't pass. The whole mess would go back to legislators and the Governor who are already likely facing a multi-billion dollar additional shortfall they must deal with, even if these measures pass. Hard-line anti-tax forces in the legislature would claim an even greater anti-tax mandate even though they don't have any other solutions. If these measures are defeated we wouldn't bet on a better resolution in round two than we have here. Which is why, painful as it may be, we recommend a Yes vote on all six propositions.

Posted by Community courtesy, a resident of another community, on May 8, 2009 at 7:13 am

Dear Dolores,

Iron Horse corridor e-exchanges have published an ad hoc analysis of the proposition that simply defines each for operational effectiveness and potential political results. Each was considered a work-around without real functional resolve for our state's budget and political problems. Neighbors throughout the corridor responded with their intention to vote NO on all propositions.

Possibly, you might add to your editorial by explaining to corridor readers how each can be effective in resolve of budget problems without being vehicles to justify more taxes poorly used by California's government.

Hal, as a community courtesy

Posted by Rick, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on May 9, 2009 at 9:50 am

The reason this state is in debt is because we spend to much on things we can't afford, such as illegal immigrant benefits. They bankrupt our hospitals with their multiple births in the emergency rooms (costs the state billions of dollars a year), their criminals who crowd our state prisons (alone costing 10 billion dollars a year) and their requirements for food stamps and the like. The corporations who hire these people pay them on average $10,000 a year. Obviously that's not enough for a person to survive and raise a family. The employers pass the cost of illegal immigrant living thus onto the taxpayers, who pay for their healthcare and food and all the rest. We are thus paying these fruitpickers and whatnot around $40,000 each. This is also because illegal immigrants have a lot more kids on average than native-born citizens. Well, why don't the employers just pay their employees $30,000. Then, you will find that there are plenty of native-born US citizens who will take these jobs. The main difference between native-borns and illegals is that we're not as prone to see welfare as a valid means of survival. We consider it to be stealing from the state, which it is, and so are not willing to take a job that pays $10,000 and then make up the rest on food stamps and the like. We need the employers to pay reasonable wages and get our own people working. It will end up costing the state far less because we don't have so many kids on average, or criminals for that matter. The truth stings my opponents I'm sure, but it is just that - the truth. Sorry.

Posted by Community courtesy, a resident of another community, on May 11, 2009 at 7:11 am

Dear Dolores,

Your Alamo region neighbors are suggesting your revisit TDW's endorsement of a YES vote on all propositions. In interviews with State Senate and Assembly members, the next result predicted for success of these propositions is the requirement to create new fees for State services that would be very costly our citizens.

Every potential fee or tax that does not require a vote of the people would be increased to overcome the arbitrary specification of funds usages within the propositions. Alamo region community of neighborhoods is suggesting that you and your readers thoroughly consider the forced impact of these propositions.

Hal, as a requested courtesy by Alamo region neighborhoods

Posted by Rick, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on May 19, 2009 at 3:58 pm

We should not have voting directions and ballots in multiple languages. If you don't understand the basics of English, you shouldn't be voting here. Learning our language is supposed to be a prerequisite to becoming a citizen.