Post by jgaffney on Apr 24, 2009 19:40:41 GMT -5
I'm on a lot of mailing lists, including the one for Progressive Democrats of Sonoma County. Here's their position on the ballot measures:
Progressive Democrats Sonoma County opposes ballot initiatives 1a through 1f.
California’s budgetary problems are far too complex to be solved simply by voter initiatives; the problems began long before the current recession, in a well-orchestrated assault by conservatives on progressive taxes and programs.
Ever since 1962, the goal of the taxpayers’ revolt movement has been to continue to starve governmental entities of the financial means to fund programs that don’t benefit the wealthy. 1962 saw the codification of the requirement for a 2/3 majority to pass a budget in California, no matter how that budget compared to previous years. Thus began the installation of the tyranny of the minority in our California budget process. The passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, that codified the requirement of a 2/3 majority to approve any tax increase, simply added insult to injury. The true solution to California’s budget problems is the repeal of the 2/3 budget-process majority rule, not the piecemeal approach and political blackmail of Propositions 1a through 1f.
Careful study of Proposition 1a reveals that if enacted, California’s financial situation will actually worsen over time, as the ten-year averaging that will determine the spending cap will include years like the last two, which saw drastic cuts in services as well as large layoffs. This would mean that new programs for education, health care, and other needed state services would not be possible when the economy improves. Proposition 1b is simply blackmail, as it is tied to the passage of 1a. Propositions 1c and 1d are piecemeal promises of funds from regressive taxes: increased lottery revenues and special tobacco taxes. Prop 1e diverts funds previously promised for mental health funding to be diverted other health programs currently supported by the general fund, as they should be, thus reducing funds available for mental health treatment. Prop 1f is designed to give voters the feeling that they are punishing the legislators who are portrayed as having gotten us into this mess in the first place. It’s a red herring; the real culprits are the taxpayers’ revolt supporters whose goal is to “shrink government down the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub,” as Grover Norquist famously stated.
The simplest solution to a problem is usually the correct solution. Vote “NO” on May 19th. Next, repeal the 2/3 majority requirement.
If the Dems don't like the ballot measures, who does? The only radio ads I've heard are from the teachers' union.
It seems to me that the Republicans just want to live within our means, while the Democrats want to raise taxes to cover every conceivable program. Even in today's PeeDee, there was the article about Noreen Evans' tax proposal:
Cash-strapped counties such as Sonoma County could ask local voters to increase taxes now reserved for the state to help pay for services under a bill by Assemblywoman Noreen Evans of Santa Rosa.
Evans, chairwoman of the Assembly Budget Committee, is sponsoring legislation that authorizes counties to enact a local personal income tax or vehicle license fee, or both — if voters approve.
The Democratic lawmaker pointed out that at a time of dwindling government revenue because of the economic downturn, local governments have virtually exhausted the sales tax as a revenue source.
But the bill, which already has passed its first committee test, also comes at a time when Sacramento lawmakers have imposed the biggest tax increase in two decades, raising the sales tax, income tax and vehicle license fees.
And voters are being asked to extend those hikes for another one to two years in a special election on May 19.
Those of you who are paying attention will recall that the vehicle license fee used to be a personal property tax on vehicles that was levied by the counties, and the revenue flowed back to the counties. In the mid 90s, when the State was flush, Pete Wilson cut the VLF and promised to backfill it with State general fund revenue. That worked great until Gray Davis took us over the cliff. Now, cities and counties are scraping for revenue - witness the fights over the big box stores, major sources of sales tax reveue. Now Mrs. Evans wants to allow the locals to levy a VLF in addition to the one we will be paying to the State.
If it moves, tax it.
Progressive Democrats Sonoma County opposes ballot initiatives 1a through 1f.
California’s budgetary problems are far too complex to be solved simply by voter initiatives; the problems began long before the current recession, in a well-orchestrated assault by conservatives on progressive taxes and programs.
Ever since 1962, the goal of the taxpayers’ revolt movement has been to continue to starve governmental entities of the financial means to fund programs that don’t benefit the wealthy. 1962 saw the codification of the requirement for a 2/3 majority to pass a budget in California, no matter how that budget compared to previous years. Thus began the installation of the tyranny of the minority in our California budget process. The passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, that codified the requirement of a 2/3 majority to approve any tax increase, simply added insult to injury. The true solution to California’s budget problems is the repeal of the 2/3 budget-process majority rule, not the piecemeal approach and political blackmail of Propositions 1a through 1f.
Careful study of Proposition 1a reveals that if enacted, California’s financial situation will actually worsen over time, as the ten-year averaging that will determine the spending cap will include years like the last two, which saw drastic cuts in services as well as large layoffs. This would mean that new programs for education, health care, and other needed state services would not be possible when the economy improves. Proposition 1b is simply blackmail, as it is tied to the passage of 1a. Propositions 1c and 1d are piecemeal promises of funds from regressive taxes: increased lottery revenues and special tobacco taxes. Prop 1e diverts funds previously promised for mental health funding to be diverted other health programs currently supported by the general fund, as they should be, thus reducing funds available for mental health treatment. Prop 1f is designed to give voters the feeling that they are punishing the legislators who are portrayed as having gotten us into this mess in the first place. It’s a red herring; the real culprits are the taxpayers’ revolt supporters whose goal is to “shrink government down the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub,” as Grover Norquist famously stated.
The simplest solution to a problem is usually the correct solution. Vote “NO” on May 19th. Next, repeal the 2/3 majority requirement.
If the Dems don't like the ballot measures, who does? The only radio ads I've heard are from the teachers' union.
It seems to me that the Republicans just want to live within our means, while the Democrats want to raise taxes to cover every conceivable program. Even in today's PeeDee, there was the article about Noreen Evans' tax proposal:
Cash-strapped counties such as Sonoma County could ask local voters to increase taxes now reserved for the state to help pay for services under a bill by Assemblywoman Noreen Evans of Santa Rosa.
Evans, chairwoman of the Assembly Budget Committee, is sponsoring legislation that authorizes counties to enact a local personal income tax or vehicle license fee, or both — if voters approve.
The Democratic lawmaker pointed out that at a time of dwindling government revenue because of the economic downturn, local governments have virtually exhausted the sales tax as a revenue source.
But the bill, which already has passed its first committee test, also comes at a time when Sacramento lawmakers have imposed the biggest tax increase in two decades, raising the sales tax, income tax and vehicle license fees.
And voters are being asked to extend those hikes for another one to two years in a special election on May 19.
Those of you who are paying attention will recall that the vehicle license fee used to be a personal property tax on vehicles that was levied by the counties, and the revenue flowed back to the counties. In the mid 90s, when the State was flush, Pete Wilson cut the VLF and promised to backfill it with State general fund revenue. That worked great until Gray Davis took us over the cliff. Now, cities and counties are scraping for revenue - witness the fights over the big box stores, major sources of sales tax reveue. Now Mrs. Evans wants to allow the locals to levy a VLF in addition to the one we will be paying to the State.
If it moves, tax it.
