Nancy’s Picks for May 19 Election
by Nancy Sandoval

We have an important election coming up on Tues., May 19, for six California Propositions. Because of expected low voter turnout, your vote will be more heavily weighted than in most elections, so don't sit this one out. The most important proposition is Prop 1A. 

The last day to request a vote-by-mail ballot is May 12. (See Website for instructions or the back of your sample ballot.) Click on my Website, www.NancysPicks.com , for the results/comments of my research.

PROP 1A-$16 Billion Tax Increase    Strong No
Prop 1 A

This is the most important proposition on the ballot and needs to be defeated.

It deceptively claims it provides a “Rainy Day” Budget, a “Stabilization Fund”, and a budget “Spending Cap”.

In actuality, (and what is ONLY stated in the Official Voter Information Guide), as stated, it means the “HIGHER STATE TAXES RECENTLY PASSED [by the Democratically-controlled legislature] WOULD BE EXTENDED FOR UP TO TWO MORE YEARS”.

This prop means, the 1% Sales Tax Increase (already the highest in the nation) will be continued to 2012. The Personal Income .25%Tax Increase (already the highest in nation) will be continued to 2013. The nearly 50% Increase in the Vehicle License Fees will be continued to 2013.

Our out-of-control "Tax and Spend" legislature, who refused to allow spending caps in the past, and increased the CA budget by 40% in just five years, have authored this proposition for the ballot. They are now trying to convince voters that they have REPENTED. NOT! Vote a BIG FAT NO!

PROP 1B-$9.3 Billion Education Funding Supplement   No
Prop 1 B is contingent upon the passage of Prop 1 A. If both pass, Education would be given $9.3 Billion in future years to rectify a $12 Billion "cut" that was part of the February Budget negotiation.

However, the so-called “cut” was really NOT a cut. It was just LESS than education expected, under the old Prop 98 factoring. (Note: In 2008, education received $47 Billion from the general funds. In 2009, education will receive $52 Billion, hence, a $5 Billion increase, without Prop 1B funds.) This prop was the teacher's union appeasement, so that they wouldn't come out in opposition of Prop 1A.

Even with the February cuts, education is probably the best funded program in the budget, getting 54% of state general funds. NO ON 1B!

PROP 1C - LOTTERY MODERNIZATION ACT      No
Even the title of Prop 1C is dishonest. Foremost, what you are really voting is whether or not you support borrowing $5 Billion in bond dept from future lottery profits to help balance the 2009/10 budget. I am not fan of the lottery, but I am opposed to this measure.

The CA lottery, established by initiative in 1984 was to benefit education. The legislature should not be allowed to raid it because they have been so irresponsible in overspending. Besides, it is more debt that has to be repaid, something that CA absolutely does not need and cannot afford. NO ON PROP 1C!

PROP 1D - PROTECTS CHILDRENS'S SERVICES FUNDING No
We need a "TRUTH IN BALLOT WORDING" measure because this one's title is so misleading. Instead of "protecting" Children's Services Funds, ("First 5 Program"), which was establised in 1998 with Prop 10 (I opposed!), it allows for raiding it to help with the budget. While I believe we should never have funded the "First 5 Program", I still believe it is wrong to divert funds to the General Fund because of the legislature's irresponsible spending and catering to special interests. Vote NO on Prop 1D!

PROP 1E - MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES       No
This measure gives a portion of funds, previously approved by the voters under Prop 63, (for the support the expansion of community mental health programs), to be REDIRECTED ("raided") over the next 2 years to support the General Fund. I did not support Prop 63, and believe it should be repealed. Nevertheless, it is not right to RAID these funds. Again, we should not allow them to use these funds to help the legislature get out of their irresponsible mess that they created. Vote NO on Prop 1E!

PROP 1F - ELECTED OFFICALS SALARY     No
This prop would prevents the Governor, members of the State Legislature, and other elected state officals from receiving salary increases when the state General Fund is expected to end the year with a deficit. It is a largely symbolic, feel good, measure that will have little effect on the budget.

Many conservatives are voting "NO", mainly to be consistent with Sacramento to let them know we don't like what they have done in spending, the budget, or are trying to do with these 6 measures.

Some, also, do not want to reward Abel Maldonado with a victory, who was the last Republican vote to help pass the awful budget. They said he may use the victory in a bid for higher office and we don't want to give him that.

The only really solid reason for voting NO was brought up by former State Senator Ray Haynes, who said that "everytime you limit or change legislator's pay, all that happens is that Democrat staffers, many of whom earn more than $150,000 per year, simply have more money for raises for them. In practice, Proposition 140 has guaranteed a minimum amount of money be spent on the Legislature as a whole. If that money is not spent on Legislator's salaries, it increases the pot for staff raises. Since those staff raises rarely go to Republican staff, that means that evey dollar that is taken out of a Republican Legislator's pocket goes into the pocket of a Democrat staffer.

Until reading this recently, I was a very weak "Yes", but the above is good enough reason to say "NO".

 (Summary: I recommended NO ON ALL OF THEM, including Prop 1F.)

If you find my recommendations helpful, please pass them on to others who might like a conservative perspective.