How I’m Planning to Vote on May 19
There are five fiscal measures on the May 19 ballot. I’ve received a fair number of questions about my positions on them.
Here is how I am planning to vote:
1A – YES: This creates a real rainy day fund, and constrains the growth of state spending. Any increases above inflation and population growth have to go into the rainy day fund, until it totals 12.5% of the state budget. A minimum of 3% of the state’s revenues has to go into the fund until the 12.5% is met, once the growth in population and inflation from the previous year has been covered. This is almost as good as Prop. 76, the legislative version of which I authored, that cut spending across-the-board when revenue fell. The public employee unions defeated Prop. 76, but the Governor negotiated with them to hold off criticizing 1A; so this has a real chance of passage.
Proposition 1F: The Sure Thing That Shouldn’t Be on the Ballot
To say that Proposition1F on the May 19 Special Election ballot is popular with the voters is an understatement of Tyrannosaurus Rex proportions. The only measure on the ballot to secure over fifty percent in the recent Public Policy Institute of California poll, it rang the bell at 81% approval. But, then the measure has a punitive effect on legislators, so there’s little surprise here.
The measure would prohibit the state commission assigned to setting legislators’ salaries from authorizing a pay raise any year the state budget is in deficit. Given that the legislative approval rating in that same PPIC poll hovered a little above the floor at 11%, the voters’ affection with the measure cannot be a surprise.
But, this sure thing proposition should not even be on the ballot.
This has nothing to do with Senator Abel Maldanado, who required this law change as part of a package of measures he wanted enacted before voting for the budget bill. My problem is with the commission setting the legislative salaries in the first place.
Sell, or Lease State Properties?
Surely, the public officials who are recommending the immediate sale of such state properties as the L.A. Memorial Coliseum and San Quentin Prison are aware of the real estate bust!
Who do they think has that kind of money to buy anything these days? Couldn’t the state sell at a higher price if we waited until the market recovers in a few years? Well, the taxpayers could, but under term limits, lawmakers cannot wait. They need the money now before they are termed out of office.
Instead, the state should examine leasing these valuable assets so that long term revenue streams could provide fiscal stability and prevent lawmakers from spending all the revenues at once.