Prop 1 is simply not ready for Prime Time
Few proposals on the November ballot make as little sense as Prop 1, the so-called High Speed Rail initiative. Why is Prop 1 so bad? Let’s count the ways:
First, Prop. 1 is a boondoggle that will cost taxpayers nearly $20 billion dollars in principal and interest. Taxpayers will foot this bill – it’s not “free money.” According to the measure (Article 3, Section 2704.10) “…the full faith and credit of the state of California is hereby pledged for the punctual payment of both principal of, and interest on, the bonds….” This measure will take $20 billion dollars out of the general fund over the life of the bonds. That’s over $2,000 for an average family of four!
Second, California can’t afford higher budget deficits. With our budget crisis, billions in red ink, pending cuts to health care, the poor, parks and schools, now is not the time to add another $20 billion in state debt and interest. The state already has over $100 billion dollars in voter approved bonds and our bond rating is already among the worst in the nation and this could lower it even further.
Third, there are much better uses for taxpayer dollars. California has higher priorities than this $20 billion dollar boondoggle. What would $20 billion buy?
Voter Turnout Analysis shows that Republicans have some work to do
Datamar Surveys released an analysis of the vote in the February California Presidential Primary election. The study analyzes the total voter turnout for the election as well as a breakdown of the Hispanic and Non-Hispanic voters.
Datamar estimates that 18.8% of the voters at the election were Hispanic and they heavily favored the Democrats. Of that segment of the electorate, 63% voted Democratic and only 20% voted Republican.
In fact, the percentage of Hispanic voters who voted Democratic was higher than the percentage of Non-Partisan Non-Hispanic voters who took part in the election.
Clearly, Republicans have work to do to make inroads into the Hispanic vote to win elections in California.
Click Here to see the entire California Presidential Primary Voter Turnout Analysis.
And the Prize for Missed-Followup-Question-Opportunity-of-the-Week Goes to …
George Skelton. The LA Times columnist yesterday recounted his recent lunch with Speaker Karen Bass, who pitched her excellent idea for a tax commission by among other things stating, "I’d expect it to come up with more stable ways to generate revenue so we are not completely dependent upon the upper income brackets."
Never reticent when sensing a possible inconsistency, Skelton no doubt asked her why then has she proposed nearly $6 billion in new taxes aimed directly at upper income taxpayers, increasing even more our dependence on high earners? It’s a shame the Speaker’s response to that pointed question did not make the column’s final cut.
Kudos to Skelton for detailing the increasing dependence of the California budget on the personal income tax, especially on high earners. But in discussing the smaller role of the state sales tax, he draws the wrong conclusion: the reason the state is less dependent on the sales tax is quite simply because we’ve become more dependent on the PIT.
The mystery of Prop. 98
As a reporter on California politics and government, one becomes accustomed to wrestling with complicated laws and formulas. But nothing has been more difficult to explain to readers than Prop 98, which establishes a minimum funding guarantee for education.
I tried again in a piece that the LA Times ran on Sunday. Prop 98 is in many ways a great example of what plagues California: the education funding formula is so complicated you’d like to be able to simplify it, but the politics are too dangerous to change it. And why bother? Prop 98 does what it’s supposed to do, which is protect education. After thinking long and hard about it, I do offer one suggestion for reforming it–but the reform in question violates natural law. Enjoy.