Skip to comments.CA: McClintock on the Propositions
Posted on 05/05/2009 1:47:49 PM PDT by calcowgirl
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.
McClintock Ping List.
Please freepmail me if you want on or off this list
I’ll make it easy for him. No no no no no no. Simple.
Thanks for posting!
Thought provoking on D and E.
agree on F and self-interest and ‘perverse’ angle.
I’m with you.
I posted it for information purposes and also because I like to hear the various arguments pro/con.
I did find the rationale interesting on D and E... “This measure irresponsibly rips off an irresponsible rip-off....”
LOL. California has sunk so low.
I thought we were supposed to vote “NO” on ALL the propositions...
I agree... but I haven't changed my mind yet. Mostly, I'm opposed to stealing from voter approved intiatives. I'd rather just see an effort to rescind them entirely if they are wrong. In the case of 1D, "sticking it to Rob Reiner" is the most motivating reason to vote yes, LOL. I may do that before this is all over... I still have a couple weeks to decide.
lol.. just fixing the things we fixed that we fixed before we fixed them for good
“No” on everything is a safe and solid vote. Tom is making a mild case for D and E. They steal from one account (minor dollars in the scheme of things) to help fund the deficit. Those two props won’t make much difference one war or the other. I’m strongly opposed to all the others.
I hear ya, a Yes vote just to spite Meathead or just so you can say I am not a ‘party of All NO’ member .. I don’t know if you would sleep any better but what the Hey.
I thought the rationales on D and E were interesting, too, but this state is too screwed up to add rip-offs on top of rip-offs. It’s simpler for everyone to just vote NO on all 6 and give the “legislators” a choice: cut spending or fail.
Here’s how I look at it; if Sacramento wants it, it cannot be any good. I just voted NO on all six. I couldn’t care less that “mild arguments” can be made for 1D & 1E.
I bet all legislators will become anti-tax crusaders when they are forced to go and earn a living
Oh, okay. I thought you were throwing me a “curve.” LOL
Hot enough for ya up there?
I’m voting no on all of them.
As much as I’d like to stick it to Meathead, I can’t take the chance of mistaking 1F for 1D or 1A and voting “yes” on the wrong proposition—
So it’s “No” on all of them.
Sometimes, the way they word them, you can't tell if yes means no or visa versa
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.