California Special Election & Propositions - May 19, 2009
 

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 is a special election day in California, with many state-wide propositions placed on the ballot by Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state's legislature, who are seeking more money since they've already wasted too much of it.

I am voting NO on ALL the state-wide Propositions 1A to 1F.

Prop. 1A especially deserves a NO vote, since this measure "extends" the recent tax increases for up to two "additional" years in exchange for a spending limit that doesn’t limit spending.

What do you think will happen if 1A-1F fail?

You guys already have pretty much the highest state tax burden in the country next to New York, don't you?

I don't live there, but I'm voting no with you in spirit.

I already pay about 25% of everything I earn to the gov. NO MORE! THAT's IT. They need to learn to deal with less money. Everyone needs to cut back.

I say start at the top. How many of the top administrators really have a job that we can't live without? Or how about cut their pay? or benies? I don't have a pension. I don't get a car. I don't get 3 weeks of vacation.

I'm voting no on all of them.

I don't know what will happen if they don't pass. Perhaps we'll find out.

Oh dear, I never mailed in my ballot

Going at lunch....NO on all!

If the propositions fail and most Californians are seemingly going to vote "no" on them (according to polls), then I hope the state legislators will be forced to make even more budget cuts and spending cuts.

Even if the propositions passed, the state would still be in a major financial mess of $15 billion to $21 billion deficit.

The state's elected officials--like the rest of California's citizens--need to:
1) Live within your means.
2) Do your job.

We all have to live within a budget; so does the state. Our representatives were elected to make these tough decisions: quit trying to duck these decisions and do your job--balance the budget and cut spending.

Would that it will work out that way, but it won't. They may get voted down, probably will, but the government NEVER thinks it should have to do with less.

It isn't just an issue of the CA gov'ment spending too much, it is also an issue of significantly decreased revenue.

I'm still voting no, but wanted to consider all sides of the issues.

I blame the budget issues in this state as 30% the fault of the politicians and 70% the fault of past idiocy by the voters.

Nothing useful is going to get fixed until Prop 13 is repealed or significantly updated and the general proposition process is revised so I held my nose and voted yes on all of them.

The people of this state created an idiotic system, and so we get idiotic results.

Prop 13....that limits property taxes or increases thereof?

Alex will inevitably provide a much more intelligent and complete answer, but ...

Effectively yes. Unfortunately, it also created a bit of an unfair taxation method for future generations as the is now disparate taxation among similar neighbors.

It needs to be repealed or significantly updated, but has far too much popular appeal to be changed.

It's not generally known, but Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann, who spearheaded Proposition 13, also invented Almond Roca and had significant stakes in cookie dough and wrapping paper companies.

As for me, I would prefer to get paid over the next year, so I'll be voting yes on some or all.

Yes. It also created a requirement that any new tax or tax increase be approved by a 2/3 supermajority.

Combine that with an easy proposition process by which the voters can mandate spending* and disaster results eventually. Classic case of voters wanting government to provide a lot of services but not to have any taxes.


* And that mandate frequently actually creates rules that a $1 increase in Program A requires a $5 (to make up a number) increase in the total budget. For example, because of previous propositions the education budget must be a certain percentage of the total budget. Let's say 30%.

So you have a budget of $100. $30 goes to education. You want to approve a new freeway project that will add $20 to the non-education budget? Instead of a new budget of $120 you actually have to increase education spending by about $8.5 so that it remains 30% of the total budget. So because you wanted to spend $20 more you had to actually spend $28.50 more. Stupidities abound.

To which I reiterate a long-held belief of mine (for which I often get ripped on for): while people (individuals) are generally fairly smart, the masses are often stupid.

Can't find current numbers, but in 2006 only 36% of the state budget was discretionary (meaning the rest of the budget was required by statute or contract). Half of that discretionary money went to the UC and CSU system.

The current state shortfall is also about 50% of the discretionary budget. So if that shortfall is going to be overcome it would appear that the easiest way to achieve that would be shut down public higher education in this state.

Basically Prop 13 says that if you don't sell your property, the most that the value, for taxing purposes, of your property can raise in 1 year is by 2%. So if you bought your house for $100,000 in 1978, and it's now worth $700,000 on the market, your property tax is going to be 1% of ~$180,000 instead of $700,000.

There are two main arguments for why this is stupid. 1) It discourages sale of property. 2) My biggest gripe with Prop 13 is the fact that the largest properties, the ones that should be generating the most property tax revenue, are owned by large established corporations - least likely to sell. So while homeowners are fairly regularly resetting their tax basis by selling their home, companies that have giant tracts of land that they've owned since forever are still paying taxes based on 1970s property values. It's a massive deficit that means new homeowners are carrying the major burden of funding the state with property taxes.

The point of (that part of) Prop 13 was to avoid huge sudden raises in property tax to homeowners. Why it's also applied to commercial property is beyond me.

Then I hope you lose your job along with my friends who will be losing their jobs when those spending cuts cut the programs they work for.

Because the logic of the idea, that people were being forced to sell and move away because they could no longer afford the property tax on their home applies just as well to businesses being forced to relocate because of increases on their property taxes (and when a big business does it they're likely to move out of state taking a lot of other revenues as well and when a small business does it they may very well just close shop altogether).

I'm not strongly opposed to the driving idea beyond the tax rollback and cap, though I think it was done in too brute-force a way. By far the most damaging part, in my view, is the 2/3 super majority.

Saying "you can't have these taxes, and you also can't have any other taxes, but everything else is going to make it incredibly easy to spend" is just a bad combination. Especially since state Republicans are no more anti-spending than state Democrats, they just don't agree on which things to spend money on and the general public is also allowed to directly spend money.

Thank you... Many who blindly call for cutting or eliminating government programs usually have no clue who it would hurt.

Social Services in this state have already been cut to the bone. With the dramatic increase in the client population that this recession has created, any further drastic cuts will make it nearly impossible for us to effectivly serve that community.

And sadly it will effect Social Services and Education before it ever effects something that impacts the politicians.

The issue with all government crap is that crap that doesn't matter is always sucking up money. Necessary social programs are great. We can all list stuff we don't think is important that should be cut.

I don't want government cuts to hurt anyone anymore than I want private sector cuts to hurt anyone. But the fact is that it's necessary and it does hurt in both.

There's also the little matter of the fact that it's literally impossible to discern if passing any of these measures will accomplish what they say...or are intended to accomplish what they say...or accomplish what they say while screwing over something else they do or don't intend to.

Which side do you believe on 1D? The side that says that it's taking only from surplus funds that aren't being spent anyway, or the side that says that it will affect the operating costs of the programs that it's supposedly not taking away from? There is absolutely nowhere that says definitively which one is telling the truth...probably because they're both just guessing/basing their claim on the most extreme high and low estimates for projected budgets and revenues and we won't know until we know exactly how much tax money the state takes in over the course of that the bill is in effect.

What about 1C? Is balancing the budget important enough to give the state license to become and even bigger gambling house?

Not one of these measure solves a problem. They just temporarily shift money around while still leaving the amount of money needed unchanged.

Here's a listing of endorsements if you want to find how a preferred special interest group is voting (pretty solid evidence that a group gets money from the state in any significant quantity they support all of them).

The teaching union is a bit weird since they say no on everything but 1B. But 1B does not go into effect unless 1A passes (observation not original to me, but not anybody people here know).

Sometimes private sector cuts are competitively necessary. Sometimes they seem like ritual gestures to appease stock analysts.

Like FDR before me, I think it is a social good for people to have jobs. As I've said before, I reject the assumption that society's organizing privately to discharge certain supposedly necessary functions is superior to its organizing publicly to discharge certain supposedly necessary functions.

I'm just guessing, but I bet if you did the math, "crap that doesn't matter" sucks up tons of money that could be better spent. "Crap that doesn't matter" is actually a nice way of putting it when we're talking tobacco, assault rifles, 2000 calorie fast food burgers, Hummers, etc. Yet somehow, this (job-creating) waste of money is an exercise of our freedom, while debatable job-creating government programs are viewed as an abuse.

If I earn the money, I should be able to spend it on whatever I want. If I come and take yours and spend it on whatever I want you might object or want a lot of input. We can all site examples of waste. I'm looking at a convertible mustang, which some people might call impractical or wasteful, but Ford might think it's pretty cool.

The fact is, when running a 1.4 trillion federal deficit this year, it might be time to scale back spending. For those that know my posting history, I have always been critical of Bush for his uncontrolled spending. It's a simple issue of fiscal responsibility, and sometimes that hurts.

I couldn't decide on 1A.

The state lottery mostly grosses me out, and there's no way I'd want it expanded (which is what "modernized" means). The lotto is just another tax on people who can't do math. Yes, I've bought a ticket before and will again. The lotto takes advantage of the habitual users, and I find that gross.

Yes, they should not be able to vote pay raises for themselves during tough times. Did you see the argument against, where one guy wrote it, and here's his credit: "PETE STAHL, Author, Pete Rates the Propositions". Seriously??

I voted yes on the other two. They seemed to have some provisions to make up for these lacks using other programs. I'm sure there will be some impact anyway, which is sad but we have to cut somewhere.

For the record, the state legislature can't vote themselves pay raises. Salaries for elected state officials and certain other offices are set by an independent commission, the California Citizens Compensation Commission.

Mostly the commission works to keep salaries adjusted for inflation and cost of living. 1F bars that commission from making upward adjustments in years with a projected deficit.

I think it is a mostly pointless Prop but I held my nose on that one as well.

Well, it looks like the voters rejected every single one of the props except for the one that definitely will have absolutely no significant budgetary impact.

But it was the one that they could feel good about voting for

How much money did we spend on this election? :rolleyes:

Probably less than it would have cost to pay interest on the tax returns that wouldn't have gone out if the budget compromise requiring this election hadn't been reached.

Why do they keep trying to pass the buck onto us to make these decisions?? Isn't it their job??

How are ballot initiatives put on the ballot in CA? Are there certain things that are required to go to the people in that form or is it accomplished by people getting signatures to get a specific proposition on the ballot?

Because, in another bit of the proposition stupidity (in my opinion), things that are passed through the proposition process have to be changed through it.

So, if the state legislature wants to fiddle with Prop 98, it has to be approved by Prop 1B, for example. The California Citizens Compensation Commission was created by Prop 112 in 1990 and therefore changes to its mandate have to be addressed through proposition (Prop 1F in this case). I don't know for sure that this is the reason for all of the props being propositions but most of the time when the state legislature or governor put propositions on a ballot this is the reason why.

So they did make the decisions as far as they could and would have made most of these changes if it was in their power.


You may recall that this was also Schwarzenegger's justification for vetoing the gay marriage bills passed by the legislature while saying he was personally fine with it. Since the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman was passed by Prop 22 he said it was outside the jurisdiction of the legislature to change it and therefore either the courts would have to overturn or the people would have to pass a new proposition repealing it.

Both. Citizens may gather signatures to get a proposition on the ballot. Also, if the state legislature passes a proposed amendment to the state constitution, it then automatically goes before the electorate for approval.

We had an election?

There were also a few earthquakes.;)

This is how I read this: