We suggest voting no on the array of ballot measures in next Tuesday’s election.
These are put forward as a part of the messy political machinations last winter when the governor and legislators tried to close the big gap in the state budget. Most of these measures let the general fund borrow from designated funds now, “to be paid back later.”
Here’s how intrepid reporter Val Robichaud sees the best and worst case scenarios …
Proposition 1A
Best Case Scenario: Ready for a Rainy Day
A cap on spending provides road map for balanced budget as the state learns (along with the rest of us) how to live within our means. Expanded “rainy day fund” becomes insurance policy against future emergencies, natural or fiscal. The series of extended taxes (sales, vehicle, upper income), which are a necessary evil right now, really are “temporary” and end as planned. Sacramento’s annual rancorous budget battle reduced to animated discussion.
Worst Case Scenario: Soaked Again
Poor economy leaves “rainy day” account under funded. The account, regardless of size, is raided by Legislature looking for a quick funding fix. Governor uses new powers to make unapproved mid-year budget cuts. State invokes new right to borrow up to 8 percent of all property tax revenues. “Temporary” taxes become permanent.
Proposition 1B
Best Case Scenario: Money for Schools
Starting with budget year 2011-12, local school districts and community colleges get $9.3 billion in supplemental payments from the state, restoring previous cuts. Schools can decide how to spend the money. State realizes savings of up to several billion dollars in 2009–10 and 2010–11. Legal dispute arising from 1988’s Prop. 88 is finally settled.
Worst Case Scenario: An “F” in Math
The state doesn’t have its act together by the 2011-12 budget, when the billion-dollar bills are scheduled to begin. Attendance drops, triggering lower allocations. You’ve got kids in the State or UC college system… sorry, four-year programs aren’t included. This passes and 1A doesn’t, in which case they both go down.
Proposition 1C
Best Case Scenario: Lottery Bucks Rescue the Budget
The state borrows $5 billion from future lottery profits to help balance the 2009-10 budget. Lets the lottery, which is per-capita one of the worst performing games in the country, implement new games and higher payouts to attract more play and higher revenue for state. The current school funding level is protected, and perhaps rises with increased lottery play. (Last year the Lottery gave $1.1 billion to the public schools, accounting for about 1 percent of K-12 and around 2.5 percent of community college funds).
Worst Case Scenario: Voters Get Played
“Improved” lottery fails to drive increased play. Without higher profits to the state, payments for debt-service and to education make it harder to balance future state budgets. Governor and Legislature can spend lottery proceeds without restriction while leaving the general fund on the hook for school money. Unable to resist glitzier games and giveaways, you blow all your money on scratchers.
Proposition 1D
Best Case Scenario: Helps the Budget, Helps the Kids
Passing this, along with 1C and 1E, directly helps balance the state budget. It redirects $340 million in unspent reserves from the California Children and Families Program and applies it to general fund expenses of the same purpose: health and development programs for children up to age 5. General fund saves up to $608 million in 2009–10 and $268 million annually from 2010–11 through 2013–14, while committing to current care levels.
Worst Case Scenario: Arnold, Help Yourself
The state gets its general fund mitts on a portion of the tobacco tax (at 50 cents a pack, about $1.7 billion over the next five years) that now goes specifically to the California Children and Families Program.
Proposition 1E
Best Case Scenario: You Already Gave Them the Money
As with 1D and to access money now to balance the budget, the state gets to redirect unspent money from a dedicated budget to the general fund for like needs, in this case mental health programs. About $230 million a year in flexible funding becomes available for two years, courtesy of 2004’s Prop. 63: a 1 percent surtax on personal income over $1 million. Care levels remain consistent.
Worst Case Scenario: They Want it Back
Changes original intent of Prop. 63, which established a budget specifically to fund mental health programs. Now that cash goes to the general fund, and for all the “savings” there is a corresponding reduction in funding available for community mental health programs.
Proposition 1F
Best Case Scenario: Take the High Road
The governor and legislators are eligible for a pay raise.
Worst Case Scenario: Or the One Out of Town
As tempting as it is to stiff them, if they are prevented from receiving a raise it was a year in which they didn’t pass a balanced budget by June 1. Better a $500,000 payout than (the usual) zillion-dollar deadlock.
To find your polling place for next Tuesday, May 19, visit sonoma-county.org/RegVoter.
