No on Proposition 1A

1D. California Children and Families Act.

This legislative proposal would take money from programs set up by an earlier initiative, chopping the money for services for families and kids to balance the general fund budget. These services should not be cut, but increased, but despite some cleverly confusing language in this proposition, passing it would cut the funding and hurt children and families. Vote NO!

1E. Mental Health Services.

California voters decided with Proposition 63 to dedicate certain taxes on the highest incomes to mental health services. This legislative proposal would take some of that money away, using it to balance the general fund budget. In fact, the inadequate funding for these programs should be increased. The wording of this proposition tries to obscure its real effects, but what it actually would do is cut funding to vital mental health programs, and hurt patients and their families. Vote NO!

Proposition 1B looks like a way to give more money to the schools. We want more money for the schools, but we are not fooled by this trick.

The voters of California passed Prop 98 in 1988 to provide a guaranteed level of funding for education. This includes kindergarten through twelfth grade schools and the community colleges. In some years, because of budget problems, the state has not provided all the money guaranteed under Prop 98. The amount that the state owes to education is called the "maintenance factor."

There are at least three different ways of calculating this amount under Proposition 98 rules. The teachers unions and other organizations which work to protect and increase school funding have had a running dispute with Governor Schwarzenegger about how large the maintenance factor is and when it must be paid.

Proposition 1B would settle that dispute. It would provide that $9.3 billion be paid back to the schools in installments starting in the fiscal year 2011-2012. But where would that money come from?

Proposition 1A would set up a Supplemental Education Payment account as part of the Budget Stabilization fund. That means that in order for the schools to get the money promised by Proposition 1B, the voters would have to pass Proposition 1A.

It looks like Proposition 1B is a trick to get the California Teachers Association to support Proposition 1A, which it did. That is unfortunate because the CTA also supports the creation of a single payer health system and other programs which would benefit California's children and families—things that the passage of Proposition 1A will work against by limiting how much the state can spend, even when the money is there.

If Proposition 1B fails, the State of California will still owe the schools the money guaranteed by Prop 98. And if Prop 1A fails, we will have a better chance of winning the quality schools, health care, housing and environmental protection that we need.

Vote NO on 1B.

Deceptively called "The Lottery Modernization Act," this act allows the State of California to float a $5 billion loan based on hoped-for future lottery profits. Even if there are increased lottery profits in the future (a very uncertain assumption), we will pay interest on the loan. All of this will make it harder to balance future state budgets.

This act gives the lottery director more power, the power to avoid competitive bidding contracts, and lowest-bid contracts, on any contract up to $500,000. This "modernization" sounds like an invitation for fraud.

Audits of the lottery would be loosened. Yet this act would give the lottery director more power to arbitrarily award contracts.

This bill encourages greater promotion of the lottery. Lotteries are a drain on the budget of working families.

The Peace and Freedom Party proposes to balance Californias budget by closing corporate tax loopholes (many pay no income tax at all) and increasing the true tax rate on the rich (they often pay a smaller percentage of their income than people who work for a living).

Peace and Freedom Party believes that all workers should be paid good, union-level wages and should not have to gamble on the lottery to try to guarantee a decent life or a secure retirement.

So, you want to punish the legislature. Well Proposition 1F will not do it. You may get some kind of good feeling because you put them in their place along with some other office holders who have nothing to do with the budget. Ask yourself why members of both houses of the State Legislature voted 119-0 in favor of this distraction. Does it permanently abolish or even lower their salaries? No! Does it hold down increases in per diem allowances in any way? No!

What does it do? On or before June 1, the state Director of Finance would be required to notify the California Citizens Compensation Commission (which was established in 1990 to set salaries of 132 elected state officials) if the Director expects the Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties, also known as the rainy day fund, to have a negative balance of at least 1% of the state General Fund on June 30. Now that's a mouthful. It boils down to a minor state savings at best when and if the Director notifies the Commission that the state is expected to end the year with a budget deficit.

The problems with the budget run much deeper. California is one of only three states that requires a 2/3 vote to pass the budget. That means that 1/3 of either house of the State Legislature can bring the state to its knees, and the threat of not receiving a possible 3% pay raise will not deter these true believer from their core ideology to dismantle the state along with the public services it provides.