Remember some months back when the state legislature found itself gridlocked, unable to deal with a staggering budget deficit in the midst of a global economic crisis? Remember how they finally resolved that stalemate? I didn’t either. Apparently, the legislators decided that instead of actually legislating they could hitch their wagon to our oft-abused popular referendum system. Now, the people we elected to make the tough decisions have asked us to make those decisions for them, in the form of 6 propositions number-lettered 1A through 1F. In fairness, none of these proposals could be enacted without changes to the State Constitution, which requires us, the voters, to offer our blessings. If current polling and past trends are any indicator we won’t be offering our blessings and will instead be sending the budget problem right back to Sacramento. That is, unless the expensive and omnipresent ‘Yes on Everything’ campaign currently being waged manages to sway the hearts and minds of people like us. First, some basic info…
Election Day is Tuesday, May 19th
Polls Open 7am to 8pm
IMPORTANT:
Your polling place may have changed. Check this website to find your polling place: http://www.smartvoter.org/
The Propositions
Each of these six propositions impacts the state budget. They were placed on the ballot when the state legislature decided they couldn’t pass an acceptable budget in the face of ballooning deficits resulting from the ongoing recession. Most observers blame the legislature’s budget failure on our State Constitution’s Article 13A, which requires a two-thirds majority to pass a budget – a stipulation found in very few states. Unable to pass a budget on their own, the Democrats wooed the ‘Sacramento Six’, a group of Republicans willing to play ball and approve the budget, including this special election, in exchange for various concessions. What we are left with is a very imperfect series of Constitutional changes that, at best, may temporarily fill some of the holes in our state’s balance sheet.
Prop 1A – Rainy Day Fund/Spending Cap/Tax Increase/Etc, etc.
This unholy compromise is billed as the lynchpin of the entire Extra-Special Election Plan to Save the State Budget. It’s complicated, it’s important and it’s the reason I’m wasting my time scrawling this write-up. So why, then, does everything I read, hear and watch about Prop 1A reduce it to simplistic sloganeering? Ok, that’s rhetorical, but it has been a serious source of frustration over the last couple weeks as I try to make sense of this potentially game-changing proposition.
Let’s take a look at Prop 1A’s four primary components…
Rainy Day Fund – We already have one (despite what you may have heard). It is currently 5% of the annual budget. Prop 1A would change it to 12.5%. Should we expand the rainy day fund, as this prop suggests? Sure, it’s probably a good idea. Is 12% enough? Well, 5% wasn’t enough. Maybe it should be 20%, or 100%! But more importantly, is right now really the best time to spend $70 million on a special election to help prevent the next budget shortfall? I’d say no.
Governor’s Power – Should the governor have expanded power to unilaterally cut government spending as Prop 1A would allow? The governor sure thinks so. But who will be governor in the future? A Democrat, a Republican… or HITLER?? We don’t know, but let’s not forget we once elected Ronald Reagan… and then Arnold Schwarzenegger. I would rather not give a hypothetical Governor Hitler expanded budgetary power at the expense of the legislature.
Extended Tax Increases – Recent tax increases, slated to last 2 years, would be extended for an additional two years. This is fine by me, but it doesn’t necessarily take a $70 million election to get that done. And it does nothing to help the current deficit.
Spending Cap - Prop 1A will also establish a state spending cap… of sorts. State spending will not be allowed to exceed a certain spending level, which is determined by examining trends over the last 10 years and adjusted for inflation. Any increased revenues would be diverted to the rainy day fund, Prop 1B, debt payments and potentially infrastructure spending or other one-time outlays. As a result, new programs could not come from current revenue sources, but would require a brand new source of revenue, most likely a new tax, which is difficult because everyone hates those.
People on both sides of the political spectrum oppose Prop 1A. Much of the left views the spending cap as an underhanded way of restricting future spending on social services. The right’s opposition is due largely to the temporary extension of minor tax increases. The center, populated by most of the political elite, are the driving force behind the Yes on 1A campaign and have tried to paint it as the only possible solution to our state’s budget woes - which it isn’t. It’s just a patched-together compromise that managed to barely squeeze through the legislative process when nothing else could. It also does nothing – absolutely nothing – to help with the massive deficit we are facing right now. It merely places an additional layer of restrictions on state budgeting that proponents hope will help stabilize the budget in the years to come.
That we are being asked to vote on something as complicated as Prop 1A – and spending $70 million for the privilege – is a tragedy of our state’s political process. Instead of trying to rectify the root causes of our budget problems, such as strict property tax limitations (Prop 13, 1978) or the two-thirds budget requirement, we are offered a convoluted half-solution that most voters, including myself and everyone I’ve discussed it with, cannot fully understand. What I do understand of it does little to make me think it's worthy of passage. Does the governor really need expanded powers to cut state spending? Does a future “rainy day fund” have anything to do with closing our current budget deficit? And perhaps most importantly, should we really be spending $70 million to place a nearly-incomprehensible patchwork of budgetary laws on the ballot for people like you and I to decipher? The answers are no, no and no. No on 1A.
Prop 1B – Funding for schools, maybe, but only if 1A passes
If and only if Prop 1A passes will Prop 1B even be in the picture. It’s the carrot to Prop 1A’s stick, promising a windfall of $9.3 billion to the education system if we dutifully pass the above-mentioned spending cap/rainy day fund/tax increase/etc. Note that this $9.3 billion is actually money the state already owes to the education system as mandated by Prop 98 and it will only be paid out if surplus funds are available to do so. I’ll vote Yes on 1B just in case 1A passes.
Prop 1C – Complicated lottery shenanigans
This proposition does a bunch of obnoxiously complicated things to our state lottery system. Here’s the gist of it: modernize our state lotto and increase marketing so that future revenues will be higher than they are today. Then, borrow $5 billion against the new and improved lotto system on the hopes that it will pay off as planned. Just like that, we get $5 billion to help with the current deficit at NO RISK!
This entire scheme relies on a few questionable assumptions. One, the lotto is a good thing and encouraging people to spend more money on lotto tickets is just fine. Two, a lottery system is a smart way to fund the state budget, specifically education, and we should milk that cow for all its worth. And three, the scheme itself will work and lotto revenues will actually increase as predicted. The first two points could be debated all day, and may offer plenty of reasons for you to deliver a No vote, but that third one will have a concrete outcome that will retrospectively vindicate or damn Prop 1C. Considering that lotto sales have decreased since the onset of the recession, this is as much a bet on statewide economic recovery as it is on the efficacy of an improved lottery system. It could pay off, it may even be likely to do so, but there is no guarantee. Either way we will be paying back that money, with interest, at a future date.
There are plenty of reasons to vote Yes, including the simple fact that Prop 1C offers the single largest influx of fast (but borrowed) cash of any measure on the ballot. However, I harbor an ideological distaste for pushing gambling to fill state coffers (isn’t that what taxes are for?), so I’ll be voting No on 1C.
Props 1D and 1E – Let’s cut social services, hooray!
These two props divert funding from mandatory social services to the general fund to help pay for, oh, I don’t know, more special elections maybe? Prop 1D cuts funding for mental health services and Prop 1E cuts funding for the First Five program that provides healthcare, education and other services to youngsters. I would rather see taxes go up than cut services for poor children and the mentally ill, so I’ll be voting No on 1D and 1E.
If, on the other hand, you think social services for the state’s most at-risk populations are part of a communist scheme to steal your hard earned cash and give it to lazy, unemployed children and crazy people, go ahead and vote Yes. That will allow lawmakers to use that hard earned cash to pay for other state funding that you probably think is also wasteful and redistributionist. Just keep in mind that cutting these services in no way will reduce your current or future tax burden, it will only free up funds to be used for the State’s other expenses.
Prop 1F – Blame the legislators!
This will likely pass. It simply stops elected officials from giving themselves pay raises in years when the state is running a deficit. The fiscal impact is negligible. It was placed on the ballot as part of a deal with Abel Maldonado (Republican Senator from the Central Coast) in order to secure his support for the entire special election. In my opinion, this is far too gimmicky to warrant a yes or a no vote. Abstain or write a sexually provocative haiku on that space of the ballot.
I hope you enjoyed my little summary of this terrible election. If you want more information, these sites are a good place to start…
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_2009_ballot_propositions
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_state_special_elections,_2009
No comments:
Post a Comment