CA: McClintock on the Propositions

tommcclintock.com ^ | May 5, 2009 | Tom McClintock

[calcowgirl]

Here are Rep. McClintock's recommendations for the May 19th Special Election.

Prop 1A: Extend the Tax Increases. NO. This is the fig leaf that hides certain deficiencies suffered by the legislators who caved into pressure for the biggest tax increase in California's history. This measure EXTENDS the tax increases for up to two ADDITIONAL years in exchange for a spending limit that doesn't limit spending. The "spending limit" is laughable – it requires placing "unanticipated revenues" into a special fund that is then to be spent for a variety of additional purposes including education, debt service and health care. And since all funds are interchangeable, this merely allows funds spent for one purpose to be shifted for another. The bottom line: If you were against the tax increase, you're against Prop. 1A.

Prop 1B: Increases Public School Spending $9.3 Billion. NO. This is the classic J. Willington Wimpy approach to finance – "I would gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." In exchange for not making certain mandated school payments over the next two years, this measure obligates $9.3 billion in supplemental payments in future years. But wait, it gets better. According to the Legislative Analyst, it's not entirely clear the bill will actually save money in the short term, but very likely it will cost much more in the future.

Prop 1C: Lottery rip-off. NO. This measure takes the Lottery revenue away from the schools, diverts it into the general fund to pay for $5 billion of new borrowing to balance the general fund, and then locks the general fund into making additional payments to the public schools in perpetuity. If this sounds like another of the infamous Schwarzenegger "After me, the flood" proposals, you're right.

Prop 1D: California Children and Families Rip-off. YES. This measure irresponsibly rips off an irresponsible rip-off, which in balance is probably a (barely) good thing. The Children and Families Fund (now called First 5) was the Rob Reiner disaster that raised tobacco taxes through the roof to pay for some highly dubious community programs. This slush fund has built up a sizeable reserve that Prop 1D filches for the general fund.

Prop 1E: Mental Health Funding Rip-Off. YES. This measure irresponsibly rips off another irresponsible rip-off, in this case the Mental Health Services Act that is funded by a 1 percent surcharge on upper-income wage earners and small businesses. Both 1D and 1E would require a more hardheaded appraisal of spending priorities, which is the only reason that would justify voting for them.

Prop 1F: No Raise Without a Balanced Budget. NO. What's not to like about a measure that says to the Legislature, "If you don't pass a balanced budget you won't get a raise?" My advice: beware any measure that puts a representative's self-interest ahead of the public interest. I'm afraid this would ultimately end up as a perverse incentive for legislators to pass higher and higher taxes in order to qualify for higher and higher salaries. We actually had a balanced budget device in the constitution that worked well: the Gann Spending Limit. We need to bring it back.

[Bokababe]

“No” on everything is a safe and solid vote.

Good! Because I've already sent in my absentee ballot with all "NO"s.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[afnamvet]

I voted NO on all of them.

[kellynla]

Well then that settles it & makes it easy...”NO” is the answer.

BTW, Have I ever thanked you for your service in the Nam...

You guys pulled my bacon out of the skillet on more than one occasion...in fact, I called an air strike on myself on more than one occasion....damn maps! weren't worth a damn! LOL

Semper Fi,
Kelly

[calex59]

Already sent my ballot in and there are no good measures on it, voted no on all of them! Sorry, Tom, but that is how I see it.

[SnarlinCubBear]

Yo - Codg?

[pointsal]

I appreciate the effort, but I am more inclined to simple vote “NO” from top to bottom.

[afnamvet]

Thanks kelley and thank YOU for your service. I flew air crew on a AC 119 “Shadow” as a radio operator on a rotational basis. The a/c was a “flying boxcar” transport popular during Korea. 3 mini guns on the pilot side made it pretty lethal.

[tubebender]

The Humboldt Bay area had 2” of rain yesterday on top of the 1.2” on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. I drove by our Church in a downpour yesterday and the sprinklers were going full bore!

[Seadog Bytes]

 

Thanks for the ping.  I just emailed the below to 'a few close friends'... grin

Over the past two decades, the rate of California's state spending growth has consistently well outstripped the growth of population and inflation combined (see link). 

 

Now, while everyone ELSE in our state is having to tighten their belts, and to cut their expenditures, our 'representatives' in Sacramento apparently think State Government should be completely immune from the economic realities, and they are again attempting to use FEAR to scare us into going along with their latest expansionist plans.

 

It is way PAST time for Sacramento to learn some sense of fiscal responsibility.  Voting to give the State's Spendthrift Politicians, of whatever stripe, still ANOTHER big tax increase - MORE of our money for them to waste - is NOT the way to teach them this long-overdue economics lesson. 

 

I am voting *NO* on ALL of these propositions... 1A - 1F

...and I certainly hope YOU will TOO!!!

 

 

Playing the Fear Card...

Terminator Says Your Home Will Burn if You Don't Vote for Tax Increase

May 5, 2009, 2:37pm

The SF Chronicle reports that Gov. Schwarzenegger says he will cut 1700 state fire fighters during this summer's fire season if voter's don't approve the tax increases and free spending measures on the May 19 special election ballot.

What a transparent ploy.  Threaten to cut things that will scare voters into giving you more money.  Don't admit that you could cut community redevelopment funds, or historic preservation funds, or recreation programs, or any one of dozens state programs that have constituents but clearly are not as important as fighting fires.  That would actually mean leadership and prioritization.  No, better by far to play the fear card and hope to play the voters for suckers.

Folks, keep in mind that California has (already) experienced huge growth in tax revenue, far, far more than inflation and population growth( see here).  The problem is that our state leaders can not be satisfied with that level of spending growth, but have to spend even more! 

It's not a revenue problem, it's a  spending  problem!

#####

http://www.reason.org/blog/show/1007497.html

 

[Regulator]

Just...Say....NO

[marsh2]

Vote no on D&E. They are currently allocated to local community services. The state wants to feed it back to fund the bureacracy.

[CounterCounterCulture]

This measure irresponsibly rips off an irresponsible rip-off

I love Tom McClintock (but then you already knew that). :-)

I'm still voting no on all six measures, despite the temptation to vote yes on D & E. There's at least one gnashing-of-teeth letter-to-the-editor a day bemoaning the "mean-spirited" cuts that hurt our chilllllldren and crazy people. ;-)

[Bhoy]

No money. I don’t want them to have any money. All programs GONE. All bearureacrats GONE (WITH THEIR NEVER-ENDING PENSIONS & BENEIFITS THAT NOBODY ELSE GETS). The programs have nothing to do with helping people. The programs are designed to pay-off union members & consolidate politician’s place in office — forever. GOVERNMENT IS A LIE — A CROOKED LIE. LET THEM ALL GO BROKE. NOT A DIME. NOT A PENNY FOR “CHILDREN” THE “POOR” “SOCIAL JUSTICE” NOR ANYBODY ELSE BECAUSE IT’S A LIE — IT’S ALL FOR POLITICAL ADVANTAGE. GOVERNMENT IS A LIE. LET THEM GO BROKE. I’ll help my friend & neighbor — don’t need a state PENSIONED empmployee to do it.

[heatherlund]

A concerned friend of mine sent this to me, which might better explain why many property owners in CA (or renters who will ultimately face higher rents as a result) are frustrated.
Just an FYI if this should interest you.

---

[WHY VOTE NO] on CALIFORNIA PROPOSITIONS 1A-through-1F (2009) — MORE LIES FROM THE UNION ACTIVISTS?

I just received a 4-page mailer of lies that says …

Families have to live within their means. Our state government should, too.”

“Limit politicians’ spending & stabilize California’s budget.”

“Vote Yes on May 19th to put California’s economy back on track!”

Which are, in my humble opinion, outright lies …

There is nothing in these propositions which will limit the profligate and outrageous spending of the legislature’s liberal democrats as they continue to pursue spending policies which benefits social engineering, support of illegal aliens, providing better contracts to government employee unions and paying off the state’s developers and other special interests. In fact, there is a loophole which will allow government spending to rise as revenues rise – so where is the budget limit they state?

There is nothing in these propositions that will put California’s economy back on track. What is actually required is for the housing market to stabilize; job losses to be reversed; government taxes, fees, rules and regulations altered to encourage businesses to remain in California; and a reduction in overall legislative spending.

The ONE thing Californians NEED TO KNOW …

Acceptance of these propositions will INCREASE the taxes Californians must pay … by extending the taxes for another two years! Something that they forget to tell you in the brochure designed to mislead you into insuring that politicians, government workers, unionized employees and the special interests have wages, perks, benefits and a retirement far superior to anything that is available to the ordinary worker in the private sector.

Look what they say about the individual propositions …

Proposition 1A – “Budget Stabilization: Restricts state spending in the future and forces the state to put money into a rainy day account for future economic downturns.”

The proposition not only does not stabilize the budget – which was passed by corrupt and complacent politicians in both the Assembly and the Senate and signed by Governor “I vant to be loved” Schwarzenstupid – but it increases your tax burden for another two years. The “rainy day account” is little more than a political slush fund which can be used at the discretion of those who have already spent our golden state into near bankruptcy.

Proposition 1B — “Education Funding: Requires that schools and community colleges get paid back amounts recently cut from their budgets when the economy improves.”

Excuse me … but where is the correlation between the amount of money spent on education and the actual results as demonstrated by student scores. In the Los Angeles Unified School District, and elsewhere, 50% of the students are failing to graduate – and many of those that do manage to graduate are severely handicapped by an inferior educational system. Why does the state refuse to test teacher competency? Why does the state refuse to allow school vouchers? This is just another funding mechanism for the corrupt teacher’s unions which support the democrat party. If the unions really believed “it’s about the children,” they would abandon their seniority policies and replace them with “teacher competency” policies.

Proposition 1C — “Modernizing the Lottery: Modernize the lottery so we get more revenues for schools. Helps prevent more teacher layoffs.”

What a crock of bull. If those who ran the lottery could modernize the system, they would have done it long ago. And consider the morality of encouraging gambling when a much better return on your money is to take care of yourself and your family. It is a dirty little secret in the school budgeting world – but the educational system reduces their budget contributions by an amount equal to the anticipated lottery revenues. There is no extra money for the “children” as if the money actually were spent in the classroom. Truth be told, most educational spending is on infrastructure, administrators and unionized teachers. At some of the highest pay rates in the nation.

Proposition 1D — “Children’s Services Funding: Temporarily redirects unspent funds to pay for children’s health and social services.”

This is a direct subsidy to the illegal aliens who are destroying our healthcare, educational, judicial, retirement, social and cultural infrastructure. The number of illegal aliens having “anchor babies” in California and receiving social services is not only staggering, it is one of the main reasons for our current fiscal condition.

Proposition 1E – “Mental Health Funding: Temporarily redirects unspent funds to help pay for children’s health programs including health care screening, diagnosis and treatment.

Déjà vu all over again. Read Proposition 1D – and ask yourself why we have so many mentally ill people roaming the streets in California? The socialistic legislators believe that the citizens of California need to pay for free and universal healthcare and it should start with the children; including those who are illegal aliens.

Proposition 1F — “Legislative Salary Freeze: Prohibits state elected officials from getting salary increases when the state has a budget deficit.”

Is sounds like a prudent measure, but like everything else proposed in the political arena it is highly misleading. Legislators can increase their tax “per diem” expenses and up their state-owned car allowances. They can reduce the amount of money they pay the state to compensate for the use of state property and vehicles. Or, they can simply convert some of their “donations” into personal benefits. Another indication of the duplicitous nature of California’s politicians. How about a proposition that says that legislators will receive 80% of their salary in tough times and forfeit their salaries for each and every day that the state does not have a balanced budget? Or forfeit their state benefits if they are caught in corrupt and illegal practices? Or how about keeping spouses and children from getting high-paying jobs which require little or no work and provides little or no benefit to the State of California? How about keeping “termed out” politicians off boards which pay six-figure salaries for minimal attendance and work?

Bottom line …

This mess was created by the politicians and they should not be receiving a lifeline which will further cripple California’s economy and drive law-abiding tax-paying citizens out of state – ONLY to be replaced with more easily controlled illegal aliens as they wait for President Barack Obama’s conditional amnesty program. By the way, the Obama plan does not require any loyalty to the United States and dual citizenship is still permitted.

[AndyTheBear]

Thanks for posting. I take his advice pretty seriously when I need to parse out the essentials of the various initiatives.

[calcowgirl]

Vote no on D&E. They are currently allocated to local community services. The state wants to feed it back to fund the bureacracy.

Thanks, marsh2. That is reason enough for me.

I'll quit letting my thoughts be provoked and go back to my gut: NO on all of them!

[calcowgirl]

Looks like pretty good advice.

Thanks for posting!

[calcowgirl]

I’m usually with Tom about 90% of the time.

I’ll be just goin’ with a “NO” vote on all of them.

There is no reason to join in the “irresponsibly rips offs,” particularly when (as marsh2 pointed out) it redistributes dollars from local gov and gives more to the totally irresponsible idiots in Sacramento.

[heleny]

I disagree with Tom McClintock on D and E.

Voters approved those additional taxes to fund XYZ special programs, which voters thought were worthy of getting extra funding, not for the general fund. This happens with gas taxes all the time (except that they don't ask us) -- raise gas taxes to improve roads, and then raid the gas tax collection fund while leaving the roads in disrepair. If the legislators wanted to raise taxes for the general fund, then they should have asked directly.

No on all six 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F.