Craig’s Picks for May 19
by Craig Alexander

The May 19 Special Election is just around the corner. Many of you will soon receive absentee ballots in the mail. While this is an off-year Special Election, your vote is important. The six Propositions are all related to the budget deal reached in Sacramento in February. I am no fan of that deal. It is the largest tax increase in California history; it did not result in any real reductions in the state government; and it is an all-around bad deal for taxpayers. One of these propositions (Prop. 1A) actually extends the "temporary" taxes for one to two extra years.

The politicians in Sacramento have had their say by increasing your taxes. Now it’s your turn to have your say. You can vote NO on these propositions (that’s what I am doing), thus sending a message to the tax-and-spend crowd that you will not agree to more taxes and you expect your Legislature and Governor to decrease state spending!

Following are my recommendations on all six Propositions and why I am voting no on them: [Condensed descriptions]

Proposition 1A: NO. Titled the Budget Stabilization Act. If passed, it would establish a “spending cap,” and a percentage of the funds collected by the state would be deposited into a rainy day fund. The “temporary” tax add-ons passed in February to the sales tax, vehicle tax and income taxes would be extended for one to two more years. To vote “yes” would reward politicians for increasing the budget by more than 40 percent in five years.

Proposition 1B: NO. If passed, the first $9.3 billion going into the Prop 1A rainy day fund would go to public schools and colleges. I call Prop 1B the payoff or bribe for the California Teachers Association union so they will not oppose Prop 1A. A “no” vote will tell politicians to cut the size of government.

Proposition 1C: NO. This is called the Lottery Modernization Act, and it would authorize borrowing against future lottery proceeds to avoid cutting down on spending. This proposal would repeal the current requirement that lottery revenue be used only for education. This proposition would give politicians another cookie jar to steal from.

Proposition 1D: NO. Titled the Children and Families Trust Fund Act. It would authorize a fund shift of $268 million in tobacco tax revenue currently earmarked for early childhood development under the terms of California Prop 10 (1998). That money, plus other funds, would be used to pay for other state government health and human services programs for children. If those programs are important, the state should continue to fund them from the general fund, not rob Peter to pay Paul.

Proposition 1E: NO. This is very similar to Prop 1D except it picks the pocket of 2004’s Prop 63 (Mental Health Services Act of 2004) rather than Prop 10 from 1998. For the same reasons as Prop 1D, I recommend a NO vote on Prop 1E.

Proposition 1F: NO. If passed, it would prohibit the commission that sets salary levels of certain statewide elected officials and members of the Legislature from increasing their salaries if the state budget will end in a deficit that year. Of all the propositions, this is the only one that might not be objectionable. However, I am voting NO on it. It is part of a package of bad deals. The amount of increased salaries is very small compared with overall shortfalls, and it really does nothing to resolve the overall budget shortfalls.