STATEWIDE PROPOSITIONS FOR NOVEMBER 2010-CALIFORNIA
Source: Tea Party Patriots - Norcal -- All recommendations are based on the Tea Party Patriots' Mission Statement: Fiscal Responsibility, Limited Government, Free Market, Respect for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and a Government that answers to the People.
Proposition 18: Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010 ($11.1 billion bond measure)
Specific spending proposals include:
$455 million for drought relief projects, disadvantaged communities, small community wastewater treatment improvements and safe drinking water revolving fund.
$1.4 billion for "integrated regional water management projects"
$2.25 billion for projects that "support delta sustainability options".
$3 billion for water storage projects
$1.7 billion for ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration projects in 21 watersheds.
$1 billion for groundwater protection and cleanup.
$1.25 billion for "water recycling and advanced treatment technology projects".
Earmarks, pork alleged - The $11 billion water bond bill includes about $2 billion in earmarks for projects that "lawmakers candidly acknowledge were included in the proposal to win the votes that were needed to pass the plan out of the Legislature. Examples of projects that would be funded if the proposition passes are:
$40 million to educate the public about California 's water.
$100 million for a Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program for watershed restoration, bike trails and public access and recreation projects.
$75 million for the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, for public access, education and interpretive projects.
$20 million for the Baldwin Hills Conservancy to be used to buy more land. The conservancy is near the home of Assembly Speaker Karen Bass.
$20 million for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands in Huntington Beach for interpretive projects for visitors.
The amount of money requested in the bill was increased by $1.15 billion in an all-night session that ended just hours before the bill was approved.
BOTTOM LINE...WE CAN'T AFFORD ANOTHER HUGE BOND EXPENSE IN CALIFORNIA DURING OUR ECONOMIC CRISIS.
*********************************************************************************************
Proposition 19: legalizes recreational marijuana use. Proposition 19, also known as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 - NO
If approved by voters, will legalize various marijuana-related activities, allow local governments to regulate these activities, permit local governments (but not the state government) to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes and authorize various criminal and civil penalties.
Arguments in favor
Create between 60,000 and 110,000 new jobs in California
Generate between $1.2 billion and $1.4 billion in new direct tax revenue annually
Expand California 's economy by between $16 billion and $23 billion annually
Reduce violence in California and Mexico
Free up law enforcement resources to focus on violent crime and property crime.
Reduce environmental damage to California 's public lands from illegal grow operations.
Reduce prison costs and prison overcrowding
Reduce funding to drug cartels, who currently get about 70% of their revenue from illegal cannabis sales
Reduce police corruption
Improve the relationship between police and the communities they serve
Reduce alcohol's cost to society by allowing adults to choose a safer alternative
Arguments against
Skip Miller, a partner in the Los Angeles law firm Miller Barondess and chairman of D.A.R.E. America, a drug-abuse prevention program, says, "Two beliefs drive this push to make pot legal: that new tax revenue will stave off deeper budget cuts and that marijuana is a relatively benign drug. Neither is true. Legalization almost certainly would bring with it additional substance abuse in the state, and the long-term public costs associated with that would vastly exceed the relatively modest amount of new revenue legal weed might bring in.
Full legalization will lead people to consume marijuana without the advice or guidance of a medical professional, and that could be dangerous for a number of people.
BOTTOM LINE - THIS WILL CREATE ANOTHER CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT BUREAU THAT WILL HAVE TO BE STAFFED AND FUNDED BY YOUR TAX DOLLARS. THE CLAIMS OF THE PROPONENTS OF THIS PROPOSITION STATE THAT TAXES COLLECTED WILL PAY FOR THIS NEW AGENCY. WE DO NOT AGREE.
*******************************************************************************************
Proposition 20: adds Congressional reapportionment to the authority of the citizens redistricting commission created by Prop 11 of 2008 - voters first Act for Congress - YES
Official summary: Removes elected representatives from the process of establishing congressional districts and transfers that authority to the recently-authorized 14-member redistricting commission. Redistricting commission is comprised of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four voters registered with neither party. Requires that any newly-proposed district lines be approved by nine commissioners including three Democrats, three Republicans, and three from neither party.
Estimated fiscal impact: Probably no significant change in state redistricting costs.
The Congressional Redistricting Initiative, if approved by voters, will:
Add the task of re-drawing congressional district boundaries to the commission created by Proposition 11.
Define a "community of interest" as "a contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Examples of such shared interests are those common to an urban area, an industrial area, or an agricultural area, and those common to areas in which the people share similar living standards, use the same transportation facilities, have similar work opportunities, or have access to the same media of communication relevant to the election process."
Ballot language was filed by Charles Munger. He was a supporter of Proposition 11 in 2008, which created a new way for political districts to be drawn for California 's state legislators and its state Board of Equalization.
A competing initiative that may also qualify for the November 2 ballot, the Financial Accountability in Redistricting Act, seeks to repeal Proposition 11.
Congressional re-districting
If this initiative does not succeed, the next Governor of California and members of the California State Legislature will, as before, choose how to draw lines for however many U.S. Congressional districts California is determined to be entitled to after the 2010 census. Estimates are that California will have somewhere between 52 and 54 seats in congress after those census calculations are completed.
From 2000 to 2010, the population in California has undergone a major shift eastward, with people moving to California 's inland areas from its coastal enclaves. This means that California 's congressional district boundaries will certainly undergo major upheaval after the 2010 census. As one example, the San Francisco Bay Area grew less than 1% since the last redistricting, while the Central Valley area has grown by 21%. Los Angeles County has grown 5%, while San Diego , Orange , Riverside , San Bernardino and Imperial Counties have grown by 17%. Another notable factor is that California 's population hasn't grown, relative to the population of the rest of the United States , and may even have proportionally shrunk. California may even lose one or two seats.
BOTTOM LINE - WE WANT TO BE IN CHARGE OF OUR DISTRICTS. INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS, NOT THE CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE, SHOULD MAKE THESE DECISIONS.
*********************************************************************************************
Proposition 22 - Ballot title: Prohibits the State from Taking Funds Used for Transportation or Local Government Projects and Services. Bars state government from taking, borrowing, shifting or restricting use of tax revenues dedicated by law to fund local government, community redevelopment or transportation projects -
The goal is to "wall off" money in local government budgets from the state government. The initiative would prohibit the state from taking local government, transit and transportation funds. Proposition 1A in 2004 and Proposition 1A in 2006 allow the state government to borrow from some categories of local funds during fiscal emergencies.
Chris McKenzie, executive director of the League of California Cities, says of the current system that it is "unsustainable, and we want to make sure that local services are not sacrificed because of the inability of state leaders to manage the state budget."
State borrowing - In 2009, the California State Legislature borrowed about $5 billion from city, county, transit, redevelopment and special district funds. Joshua Shaw, Executive Director of the California Transit Association, and Amy O'Gorman, Regional Public Affairs Director of the League of California Cities are pitching political advocacy groups around the state for their support of this initiative. In their pitch, Shaw and O'Gorman say that since 1992, the state government has taken $11.2 billion in locally approved tax measures for the general fund.
Under the proposal, the state would not be allowed to borrow or take revenue derived from locally imposed taxes, such as hotel taxes, parcel taxes, utility taxes, and sales taxes. These local taxpayer dollars are dedicated to cities, counties, special districts and redevelopment agencies and are used to fund public safety, emergency response, and other local government services. Local public transit and transportation funds, including funds from the Proposition 42 gas tax, HUTA gas tax. Also, if the ballot proposition is approved, when a local government entity sues the state government under the law and wins, the state comptroller must automatically appropriate the funds needed to pay to that local government the funds that the court has decided it is owed.
Official summary: Prohibits the State from shifting, taking, borrowing, or restricting the use of tax revenues dedicated by law to fund local government services, community redevelopment projects, or transportation projects and services. Prohibits the State from delaying the distribution of tax revenues for these purposes even when the Governor deems it necessary due to a severe state fiscal hardship.
Estimated fiscal impact: Significant constraints on state authority over city, county, special district, and redevelopment agency funds. As a result, higher and more stable local resources, potentially affecting billions of dollars in some years. Commensurate reductions in state resources, resulting in major decreases in state spending and/or increases in state revenues.
Arguments against:
Proposition 22 would create a wall that will prevent state borrowing in times of economic crisis.
BOTTOM LINE - This will stop state government from taking, borrowing, shifting or restricting use of tax revenues dedicated by law to fund local government, community redevelopment or transportation projects.
*************************************************************************************
Proposition 23: rolls back AB 32, the states landmark greenhouse gas emissions law, until the states unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters - YES
AB 32 was enacted in 2006. The goal of AB 32 is to cap state-created greenhouse gases by 2020, based on 1990 emissions. Steps taken under AB 32 include retrofits on diesel engines and new devices on gas pumps. AB 32 has been described by the Wall Street Journal as "the Golden State 's version of a cap-and-trade carbon tax."
Arguments made against AB 32 include:
Implementation costs "could easily exceed $100 billion", according to a 2009 study by economists at the California State University at Sacramento and commissioned by the California Small Business Roundtable.
The same study says that AB 32 will raise the cost of living by $3,857 per household each year by 2020.
According to Assemblyman Dan Logue, AB32 will cost California 1 million jobs.
AB 32 is likely to become a factor in California's 2010 gubernatorial election. This is because the next Governor of California, by the terms of AB 32, has the power to suspend AB 32 regardless of whether the initiative passes.
Meg Whitman has said that she would act to freeze AB 32 for a year or more. - Jerry Brown says that he would support "adjusting" some features of AB 32 but that he generally supports it and would not suspend it.
Arguments in favor of Proposition 23
Assemblyman Dan Logue: "The primary issue here is jobs. We need to concentrate on creating jobs and economic prosperity now.
Jim Kellogg, secretary-treasurer of the State Building & Construction Trades Council says, "I don't doubt that there will be more green jobs in California , perhaps even thousands of them; however, we don't want to put at risk the millions of well-paying, blue-collar jobs that put bread on the table right now. We need to make sure we do our homework, ask the tough questions and make adjustments as necessary to implement AB 32 in a way that reduces greenhouse gases without hurting millions of families in this state.
The California Manufacturers & Technology Association. A spokesperson said that if AB 32 is implemented as planned, it would be the "death knell for scores of manufacturing jobs.
When AB 32 was signed, the unemployment rate in California was 4.8%. In January 2010, California 's unemployment rate had crept over 12% and 2.25 million Californians were unemployed. In March 2010, it was learned that 8 of California 's 58 counties have an unemployment rate exceeding 20%. The last time that the unemployment rate in California was below 5.5% was in 2007. Since 2001, California has lost 34% of its manufacturing jobs.
BOTTOM LINE - BUSINESSES IN CALIFORNIA ARE SUFFERING UNDER THE BURDEN OF AB32. WE HAVE SEEN SEVERE JOB LOSSES AND BUSINESSES LOCATING TO FRIENDLIER STATES BECAUSE OF THIS ONEROUS LAW. LET'S CREATE A JOB FRIENDLY, BUSINESS FRIENDLY ENVIORNMENT NOW SO THAT WE CAN AGAIN CREATE A VIGOROUS CALIFORNIA ECONOMY.
*********************************************************************************************
Proposition 24: repeals recently enacted corporate tax breaks letting businesses carry back losses, share tax credits, and use a sales-based income calculation to lower taxable income.
BOTTOM LINE - DO WE REALLY WANT TO ENCOURAGE MORE BUSINESSES TO LEAVE AND GO TO ANOTHER STATE THAT IS MORE BUSINESS FRIENDLY?
*******************************************************************************************************
Proposition 25: Reduces legislative vote requirement to pass a budget from two-thirds to a simple majority. California Proposition 25, the Majority Vote for the Legislature to Pass the Budget Act - NO
The goal of the proposal is to end the current requirement in the state that two-thirds of the members of the California State Legislature must vote in favor of the state's budget in order for a budget to be enacted. It also requires state legislators to forfeit their pay in years where they have failed to pass a budget in a timely fashion.
Official summary: Changes the legislative vote requirement necessary to pass the state budget from two-thirds to a simple majority. Provides that if the Legislature fails to pass a budget bill by June 15, all members of the Legislature will permanently forfeit any reimbursement for salary and expenses for every day until the day the Legislature passes a budget bill.
Estimated fiscal impact: Unknown changes in the content of the state budget from lowering the legislative vote requirement for passage. Fiscal impact would depend on the composition and actions of future Legislatures. Minor reduction in state costs related to compensation of legislators in years when the budget bill is passed after June 15.
BOTTOM LINE - THE LEGISLATURE IS SPENDING TOO MUCH OF OUR MONEY NOW. IF WE GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE IT EASIER ON THEM, THEIR SPENDING HABITS WILL ONLY GET WORSE.
***********************************************************************************************
Proposition 26: Increases legislative vote requirement to impose state levies and charges from a simple majority to two-thirds.
California Proposition 26, or the Supermajority vote to Pass New Taxes and Fees Act. Increases legislative vote requirement to two-thirds for state levies and charges, with limited exceptions. Changes Constitution to require voters to approve, either by two-thirds or majority, local levies and charges with limited exceptions.
Estimated fiscal impact: Potentially major decrease in state and local revenues and spending, depending upon future actions of the Legislature, local governing bodies, and local voters
The proposed initiative would require a two-thirds supermajority vote in the California State Legislature to pass many fees, levies, charges and tax revenue allocations that under existing rules can be enacted by a simple majority vote. Supporters of the initiative call it the Stop Hidden Taxes initiative, because they believe that fees, levies, and so on imposed by the California government amount to taxes, and should therefore require the same supermajority vote required to enact income or sales tax increases. According to Allen Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce, "The Stop Hidden Taxes initiative will prohibit politicians from using a loophole to raise even more taxes by disguising them as fees. Right now, elected officials at the state and local level pass higher taxes by labeling taxes as "fees" so they can pass or increase them with a 50% vote instead of the two-thirds required by law - and in the case of many local taxes, enact them without a public vote. We need the Stop Hidden Taxes initiative to close this loophole. Higher taxes and fees make it more difficult for businesses to stay in California - the very businesses that employ Californians, create jobs and generate revenue for our state. Increasing employment and growing the economy are crucial to California 's recovery.
Arguments in favor
Susan Shafer, a spokeswoman for the "Stop Hidden Taxes" campaign, says, "Legislators have been using the loophole of only needing 50 percent to pass a fee, but what we're saying is that they should have a two-thirds vote, because what they are really passing are taxes, not fees.
Teresa Casazza, president of the California Taxpayers Association, says, "Instead of using gimmicks to pass or increase hidden taxes on products and services that Californians use every day, legislators will need a two-thirds vote as required by our state Constitution.
Opponents
The California Tax Reform Association is one of "an array of good-government and environmental groups, who see the latest proposal as simply a vast corporate loophole. They angrily contend that companies cloak themselves as the defenders of jobs and fairness, when in fact they are gaming the system to maximize profits.
BOTTOM LINE - LET'S NOT MAKE IT ANY EASIER FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO PILE ON MORE TAXES UNDER THE GUISE OF FEES. THIS NEEDS TO STOP.
*********************************************************************************************
Proposition 27: eliminates citizens redistricting commission created by Prop. 11 of 2008, putting all reapportionment authority back in the Legislatures hands. -
California Proposition 27, Elimination of the Citizen Redistricting Commission - Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting. Consolidates Authority for Redistricting with Elected Representatives.
Official summary: Eliminates 14-member redistricting commission selected from applicant pool picked by government auditors. Consolidates authority for establishing state Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization district boundaries with elected state representatives responsible for drawing congressional districts. Reduces budget, and imposes limit on amount Legislature may spend, for redistricting. Provides that voters will have the authority to reject district boundary maps approved by the Legislature. Requires populations of all districts for the same office to be exactly the same.
Estimated fiscal impact (summary): Likely decrease in state redistricting costs totaling several million dollars every ten years.
If approved, this measure will repeal California Proposition 11 (2008), which authorized the creation of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. It would also modify the provision in California law that says that proposed congressional districts can't be subjected to a veto referendum.
According to political journalist Shane Goldmacher, Democratic political strategists say that this initiative can be seen as a political tactic to defeat the Congressional Redistricting Initiative, which is likely to be on the November 2, 2010 ballot: "Democratic political strategists say the best way to ensure a 'no' vote this fall on the congressional [reform] measure]] is to confuse the public further with a second ballot measure on the already head spinning topic of political line drawing.
Arguments in favor
"Under current law, three randomly selected accountants decide who can be one of the fourteen unelected commissioners who head a bureaucracy that wields the power to decide who represents us. This reform will ensure that those who make the decisions are accountable to the voters and that all their decisions are subject to approval by the voters. "A group of unelected commissioners, making up to $1 million a year in cumulative salary, preside over a budget that cannot be cut even when state revenues are shrinking.
Opposition
Ian Johnson of The Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College says, "The California Democratic redistricting machine is worried. Led by Congressman Howard Berman and his consultant brother Michael, they controlled the state's bipartisan incumbent-protection gerrymander in 2001. Now their control is threatened by an initiative that would place Congressional redistricting within the mandate of the Citizens Redistricting Commission. Congressman Berman and his allies are responding with a misleading measure aimed at confusing voters, apparently conceding that they cannot win the debate on the merits of their views...In one respect, FAIR is a positive sign: when the beneficiaries of the status quo are forced to resort to deception to preserve their positions, it is a sign they are desperate. Clearly, even they can see which way the winds of change are blowing.
John Kabateck, executive director of the California branch of the National Federation of Independent Business. He says, "Enough is enough. Decades of cynical, self-serving behavior from politicians has helped plummet this state into a fiscal and economic abyss. We need to be able to hold our elected officials accountable when they don't do the job we elected them to do. One way to ensure that politicians remain accountable to voters is by taking the power to draw political district lines from the very politicians who stand to personally benefit from the outcome
Now their control is threatened by an initiative that would place Congressional redistricting within the mandate of the Citizens Redistricting Commission.
Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting. Consolidates Authority for Redistricting with Elected Representatives. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
BOTTOM LINE - THE LEGISLATURE WANTS TO CONTINUE TO USE REDISTRICTING AS A POLITICAL TOOL TO PERSONALLY BENEFIT FROM THE OUTCOME. AGAIN, POLITICS AS USUAL. THERE IS A REASON WE PASSED PROPOSITION 11 IN 2008 TO CREATE A UNBIASED CITIZEN RESTRICTING COMMISSION. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT POLITICIANS REMAIN ACCOUNTABLE TO VOTERS BY NOT GIVING THEM BACK THE POWER TO DRAW POLITICAL DISTRICT LINES WHEN THEY PERSONALLY BENEFIT FROM THE OUTCOME.
All recommendations are based on the Tea Party Patriots' Mission Statement: Fiscal Responsibility, Limited Government, Free Market, Respect for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and a Government that answers to the People.
|
|
