California 30-38

No, "California 30-38" is not a sports score, and, no, it's not a highway designation. 30 and 38 are competing propositions in the November 6 election, and Californians are in such agreement about the problem they each seek to address, that we're going to send them each down to defeat. But let me explain what they are first, and then tell you why we're probably screwed.

Here's the basic problem: Our state is broke. Our June 2012 budget gap was about $16.6 billion. The budget deal worked out between Governor Brown and the legislature balanced the budget with about $8.1 billion in spending cuts, $2.5 billion in "transfers," and the last $6 billion in new taxes "pending voter approval."

Prop 30 was placed on the ballot by the Governor as part of that budget deal. The $6 billion hole is filled by increasing the tax on incomes over $250,000 (or $500,000 for couples filing jointly) for a period of seven years, and a 1/4 cent per $1 increase in sales tax for four years. The funds go into an "Education Protection Account" within the state General Fund. Because it's within the General Fund, it increases the Prop 98 guarantees to education (K-12, plus Community Colleges), but also frees up some existing funds for other purposes.

The Prop 30 taxes go into effect immediately to cover the $6 billion gap in the current year's budget. If it fails, the budget deal included "trigger cuts." We will have a balanced budget this year, no matter what. Those $6 billion in automatic cuts include $5.3 billion from public schools for the current school year. Ever wondered what would happen if thousands of teachers got laid off in the middle of the school year? Or if your local school district defaulted on its bond payments? You might just find out if Prop 30 fails to pass.

Prop 38 is an alternative tax plan, not negotiated by the legislature, but put on the ballot by Molly Munger, who has spent about $33 million of her own money to pass it.  (Coincidentally, Molly's brother, Charles Munger Jr., has spent about $22 million of his own to lead the fight against Prop 30). Prop 38 raises income taxes on just about everybody (incomes over $7,000) for twelve years, but leaves sales tax alone. The money goes into an "Education Trust Fund," but this one is outside of the General Fund, so it is in addition to the Prop 98 guaranteed funding from the (diminished) General Fund. Prop 38 does not include Community College funding, but does include early childhood education.

Prop 38 could be an interesting alternative to the Governor's plan, except for one fatal flaw: It takes effect next year, leaving the "trigger cuts" in place for this year. Prop 38 might help in the future, but the chaos the trigger cuts would cause in education this year would do incredible harm to 100% of public school students in the state this generation. But I will vote for it anyway.

Yes, I will vote for 38, AND I will vote for 30. The proponents of each have campaigned as though we have to make a choice, and can only vote for one or the other. That is not true. And this is why I say we are doomed.

California law provides for a way to reconcile two propositions passing which each address the same issue: The one with the most votes prevails. Yes, if you vote for 30 & 38, and they both pass, you don't get two tax increases, you only get the one with the most support.

Prop 30 was headed for victory, until the Mungers, Molly and Charles, put over $55 million of their fortunes into ads against 30 and for 38. Now support for 30 has dipped to 46% approval. Meanwhile, Prop 38 only has 39% of voter approval in current polling. Now, it's been a while since I was in school, but in the old days 46+39 equaled 85% in favor of one or the other. Even if we assume there's some overlap in support, there's clearly a majority in favor of some tax increase.

Despite the fact that the majority of Californians agree that we need to enact one or the other tax increase to save our schools, and our state's competitive edge, both propositions will fail because we're being presented with the election as a "choose one only" option. The majority are for saving the state, but those who would rather destroy California than pay one cent more in taxes win by dividing and conquering the majority. Which, the conspiracy-minded might wonder, may have been what the Mungers had in mind all along.

If you're a Californian voter, I hope that you'll join me in voting for both propositions, 30 & 38, and may the better solution prevail.

Here's my quickie ballot guide to the rest of the California initiatives:

30 - taxes/budget	Yes
31 - budget reform	No
32 - special exemptions	No
33 - auto Insurance	undecided
34 - end death penalty	Yes
35 - human trafficking	Yes
36 - 3 strikes reform	Yes
37 - GMO labeling	Yes
38 - tax rates	Yes
39 - business tax	Yes
40 - redistricting	Yes

Propositions "R" Us

There will be nine statewide propositions on Californian's ballots on November 2nd, including one I'm very excited about. In fact, back in May of 2009 I called it my "Fantasy Proposition: Majority Rule!" On November 2, I get my fantasy with Proposition 25, "Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget From 2/3 to a Simple Majority." What I wrote then was that:

"California is one of only a handful of states that requires a super-majority (2/3 vote) to pass its annual budget. This allows a minority of legislators (34%) to hold the majority hostage... The stalemate has to end, and the way to do it is with a simple majority rule, like we imagined a democracy would be. If the minority party wants to have a say, they've got to come to the table to work, not just be obstructionist babies."

The budget stalemates, and resulting partial shut-downs, have cost our state billions in interest and other costs. These political theatrics don't just hurt state workers, but effects our entire state economy as it punishes small businesses who rely on state spending (such as food vendors to state prisons) when they aren't paid on time. I believe Prop 25 to be one of the most important reforms Californians could possibly pass, and I urge a strong "YES" vote.

I'm also voting a strong "YES" on Proposition 22, "Prohibits the State From Taking Funds Used for Transportation or Local Government Projects and Services," and I'm appalled at the Democratic Party and other "progressives" who are recommending a "no" vote. Yes, I'm fully aware of the state's budget problems and the tough choices to be made. But the state's habit of fixing its problems by raiding other funds has been a disaster for local services and needs to stop. Now. And while I'm shaming the Democratic Party, here's also a bit of scolding for the California Teachers Association, who rightly screamed bloody murder when the Governor raided education dollars, but now aren't willing to help the cities and counties in the same fight.

My strongest "NO" vote recommendation is on Proposition 23, "Suspends Air Pollution Control Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level." This has nothing to do with "saving jobs" ... at least, not California jobs. This is simply a couple of Texas oil companies who don't want to comply with our new pollution standards.

I will probably vote for Proposition 19, "Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed," but it's largely symbolic as this does nothing to change Federal law. An interesting note is that some of the Medical Marijuana advocates are recommending "no" votes here, as current Medical Marijuana law allows for larger "private gardens" than does Prop 19.

On the two redistricting propositions, I'm torn. Proposition 20 adds Congressional districts to the responsibility of the State Commission on Redistricting, while Proposition 27 eliminates the Commission completely, and turns that power back to the State Legislature. The Democrats, who are in the majority, are for Prop 27 and against Prop 20. But I'm leaning toward Power to the People and going against the "official liberal" grain on this pair of conflicting propositions.

If you would like to see a great master list of who has endorsed "YES" or "NO" on each of the propositions (includes groups from all across the political spectrum), see the California Choices website (californiachoices.org). Meanwhile, here's a quick list with my choices (subject to change without notice):

19 - Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed - soft "yes"
20 - Redistricting of Congressional Districts - "yes"
21 - Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge to Help Fund State Parks and Wildlife Programs - "YES"
22 - Prohibits the State From Taking Funds Used for Transportation or Local Government Projects and Services - "YES!"
23 - Suspends Air Pollution Control Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level - "HELL NO!"
24 - Repeals Legislation That Allow Businesses to Lower Taxable Income - "yes"
25 - Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget From 2/3 to a Simple Majority - "PLEASE YES!!!"
26 - Requires Certain State and Local Fees to Be Approved by 2/3 Majority - "NO"
27 - Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting. Consolidates Authority - "yes"

California's Sham Election

On May 19 California voters will have special election on six propositions (1A-1F) placed on the ballot by the legislature in an attempt to solve our enduring budget crisis (we are now ten months into the fiscal year, with no final approved budget). Of course, the legislature could have actually done their jobs and come up with a workable budget solution on their own, but they've now, once again, failed to do their jobs and have put it to the citizens of this great state to do it for them. Can you tell that I'm just a little upset about this?

Prop 1A - Rainy Day Stabilization Fund - NO
On the surface, this sounds like a good idea; put money away in a special fund in case of a fiscal emergency. Except, the time to start this fund would have been a decade ago. It's pouring now, and yet 1A would immediately grab control of a chunk of the state's non-existent budget, forcing further cuts in needed services. Further, according to the League of Women Voters of California, "If Prop. 1A passes, the Governor would be given new power to make mid-year cuts and suspend COLAs in state programs without legislative oversight."

Prop 1B - Education Funding Re-payment - NO
Some years ago California voters approved a measure that would guarantee that Education's share of the state budget, as a percentage, would never be decreased. For the last several years, however, the Governor and legislature have broken that rule, "borrowing" billions from education with the unfulfilled promise to pay it back. 1B again promises to pay back the $9.3 billion owed... but not until 2011. The legislature already has the ability and the obligation to pay this money back, the proposition only grants them more time, and another two years to ignore the will of the people from previous elections.

For me, this is the most upsetting of the measures, and it is galling because the CTA (California Teachers Association) is endorsing this nonsense. Basically, the school bully took their lunch money on Monday. On Tuesday and Wednesday the bully took their money again. Then, on Thursday, the bully said to CTA, "We'll pay you back next week if we can have your lunch money again today." And now the CTA is telling the principal that bully is their best friend. Fear of deeper cuts if 1B fails is what drives this, but why should these guarantees be any more valid than the guarantees the legislature and Governor have already ignored? The CTA are fools and are complicit in the legislature's abrogation of their duties.

Prop 1C - Lottery Modernization - NO
Okay, if it were just "modernization" of the lottery, that would be fine. But they are so convinced that modernization is going to bring in new revenue that 1C will allow the state to borrow $5 billion (IE: sell bonds) from these future earnings to balance this year's budget. Never mind that most reasonable financial experts say that in the current market we probably won't be able to sell the bonds, or that the interest we'd pay if we do sell them would be unbearable, or that the lottery money was already guaranteed to education (see 1B, above). Idiocy upon idiocy. We're close enough to bankrupt already, thank you.

Prop 1D - Children's Services Funding - NO
How could I recommend a "no" vote on a proposition with a title like that? Because it's a lie. It takes away Children's Services Funding. 1D allows the state to take back the money that now funds each county's First 5 Commission and programs (as approved by voters in Prop 10) and use it to "achieve state General Fund budgetary savings" (according to the official voter information guide from the state). First 5 does great work throughout the state, and I've been pleased and proud to work with several First 5 programs in both Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties; programs that will likely close down in July if 1D passes.

Prop E - Mental Health Services Reallocation - NO
As with 1D taking back voter approved funds for Early Childhood Education, 1E takes back voter approved funds for Mental Health. As with this entire package of propositions, it demonstrates the Governor's and the legislature's disregard of the will of the people while at the same time asking the people to approve of their disregard. They have failed to do their job, and are now looking to us take the blame. They cannot accept responsibility for cutting spending (or raising taxes) and so they've wiped their hands clean and when First 5 folds, and mental health facilities close, and classrooms return to overcrowding, and the state's credit rating takes a [futher] dive from pawning worthless bonds, they can say, "It was the will of the people."

Prop 1F - Elected Officials' Salaries - YES
This, like the rest, is completely unnecessary. Elected officials have (in theory, at least) enough common sense not to give themselves raises in years of fiscal emergency. But, one self-serving State Senator thought it would score him points with voters to put it in writing. Ordinarily I'd like to tell him screw himself and recommend a "no" vote here, but I'm afraid that if 1F fails the legislature will take that a showing of support and give themselves unearned and undeserved raises.

So, what happens if 1A-1E fail? We don't know. Certainly nothing good. The legislature will certainly have to cut programs, and it won't be pleasant. But that is the job we elected them to do. We have let them slide, with late budgets, and ignoring previously passed propositions, for far too long.

But they are using this uncertainty to get our support for propositions unfairly. A co-worker of mine said it was like, "They're holding a gun to our heads." We agreed, pretty much, on the above analysis of the situation. She's giving in to the fear and voting "yes" on the full slate; I'm daring them to pull the trigger and voting "no."

So, what could help now? What propositions should they have put on the ballot?

Fantasy Proposition 1 - Majority Rule!
California is one of only a handful of states that requires a super-majority (2/3 vote) to pass its annual budget. This allows a minority of legislators (34%) to hold the majority hostage. In this way, both parties have become complicit in a dance that doesn't allow them to blame others for fear of taking their share of the blame. And there's plenty of blame to go around. The stalemate has to end, and the way to do it is with a simple majority rule, like we imagined a democracy would be. If the minority party wants to have a say, they've got to come to the table to work, not just be obstructionist babies.

Fantasy Proposition 2 - Repeal Term Limits
I know a lot of people are going to disagree with me here, and say that term limits help us remove these do-nothing politicians. On the contrary, it only helps them escape the blame. If any of them had a long-term interest in keeping their seats, they'd work out a budget compromise, as they did in the days before term limits. Now, they are on to the next position before the full estimate of the damage they've done currently is in. Musical chairs may be fun to watch and keep score, but it has left the lobbyists and political consultants in charge of neophyte electeds. It has failed the people and bankrupted our state.

More information:
League of Women Voters of California election site - Their press release is one of the best written analysis' of the measures I've seen

no on proposition 1d
no prop 1d & 1e coalition
courage campaign
vote no on 1a