Editorial

May 14th, 2009

Vote No on Props 1A-F

The time has come for us to admonish the state of California that . . . “we love you . . but you cannot have what you seek. It is time you learned to live within your means. The answer is no!”

If we, as voters, were to approve any or all of the various propositions offered this May 19th we are essentially saying to the state . . . “here’s more money. You didn’t plan very well, you went way over your budget. You spent more than you should have, but, hey -. . go ahead and take care of past due bills and other obligations. If you run out, come on back and we’ll give you more.”

Well, I don’t know about you but that’s not the message I want to send to Sacramento.

Here’s how we see the ballot propostions:

Prop 1(A) - Would require a State Constitutional change. That alone gives us pause. The Constitution is not something you change without a great deal of thought. This proposition deals with the State Budget. It would change the California Budget Process, Limit State Spending, and Increase the “Rainy Day” Budget Stabilization Fund.

Increasing a fund does not guarantee proper use. In those prosperous years, we didn’t put any aside for those “rainy days.” What makes you think our legislators would now? This legislation would extend “temporary” taxes (when was the last time you remember a “temporary tax” being done away with? Most of all, it does not require spending restraint; if anything, it encourages more of the same haphazard spending the state has pursued for the last several decades. In time, you can bet your last dollar the politicians would come back and say the money is needed so won’t you please vote to retain these increases? It is time for fiscal responsibility and our legislature has not proved itself competent at this talent. It’s time they learned.

Prop 1B - also requires a Constitutional change. This would provide for Education Funding and establish a payment plan. We oppose this proposition because there is no plan in place to track how effective it would be. There are no alternatives to formal public education offered or considered. At a time when public education appears to be running away on its own agenda and denying parental rights and the teaching of family values, we see no reason to further this self adopted mandate.

Prop 1C - This is another proposition that would require a Constitutional amendment. It calls for a Lottery Modernization Act.

The state wants this to increase revenue. It doesn’t really care much whether it promotes gambling addiction. Plus, the state, in anticipation of new found revenue, will go right out and borrow against it. In fact, they could, under this change, borrow up to $5 billion from future lottery profits. I think we’ve been down this road before. In fact, that’s the road that led us to where we are now, seeking propositions to correct the errors of our ways. Our state should not be dependent upon a destructive activity such as gambling. This is a no-brainer. Adding insult to injury, funding from the lottery, which presently goes to education, would be ended. They claim the new funds would go into the General Fund and the General Fund would pay the difference to education. I don’t want legislators to get their hands on General Fund money. Somehow, it doesn’t seem the money gets to where it was intended when legislators get involved. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Prop 1D - Proposes to protect Children Services Budget and to help balance the state budget. How? Why, naturally, by giving $1.6 billion to Sacramento politicians. Now there’s a comforting thought. We oppose this proposition because it would simply provide funds to be reallocated to the General Fund to replace other legislature budgeted funds for other programs. What sense does it make to raid these funds to satisfy overspending in other programs? All this would do is take the pressure off our legislators to balance the budget and for them to quit spending money recklessly. This is merely a proposition designed to see who controls the funds, thus increasing governmental control. No thanks. I’ve had quite enough governmental control.

Prop 1E - provides for Mental Health Services Funding. This is a real doozy. It says up front that it is providing for the “re-allocation of existing Prop 63 (2004) funds for mental health programs to the General Fund to replace legislature allocated funds for mental health funds. Um . . . excuse me. What happened to the original funds? You want to pass this proposition so you can raid these new funds from the taxpayer to replenish funds that you already had . . . but wasted? I don’t think so. You want us to take the pressure off you, our legislators, to balance the budget. Nope. Sorry. That’s your job. That’s why we hired you . . . and, quite frankly, we’re thinking of letting some of you go for incompetence.

Prop 1F - also requires a Constitutional amendment. This would provide for preventing pay increases during budget deficits. On the surface, this sounds nice. But aren’t you penalizing those legislators who ARE doing a good job? This proposition would have very real impact. It’s just a “feel good” proposition that has no guaranteed results or real influence.

Those legislators who are not doing the job should not be denied pay raises; they should be voted out of office, or recalled. If they can’t legislate with some sense of fiscal responsibility, if they can’t balance a budget, then they don’t belong in our legislature.