California Special Election...Tuesday May 19, 2009

So once again California is trying to stabilize its government, balance its budget, and present several key social issues and institutional reforms/augmentations. Basically, Props 1A-1F deal with budgetary issues, along with education, lottery, and childhood development/health issues that will be impacted by the subsequent decisions. Opponents of the entire special election aruge that it unnecessarily costs the state many millions of dollars, while the rest of us know that neither democracy, nor California Politics, is cheap. I'd rather pay the $$$ to know what's going on in Sacramento, because apparently our elected representatives would be otherwise less inclined to tell us. I mean face it, we're so far (as in BILLIONS) in the red that the only way to remotely try and bring the budget gap closer together is to argue, debate, and otherwise pass legislation that tries to address the issues at hand. With that said, I've decided to publicly post how I will be voting on 5/19:

Prop 1A: Changes California Budgetary Process
-->I'm voting yes. Why? Because I believe that the current tax increases are necessary to continue providing the social services that have made California the primo destination to live. Not to mention that a wealthy democracy is morally obligated to provide assistance to others who could not otherwise provide it. I'm talking about healthcare, education, etc. If you collect taxes on someone, they should be able to get benefits from that. Additionally, tax revenues would increase by ~$16 billion from 2010-11 through 2012-13. The Governor would also be given increased power/authority to cut spending, along with extending recent tax increases by up to 2 years. The downside is that both short-term and long-term effects of Prop 1A are not only difficult to ascertain, but also dependent on key variables of the overall California budgetary process. I'm voting yes because we need to change the current system, and the measures proposed in 1A seem to be in the right direction. No one can ever be enough certain of budgetary outcomes to provide a perfect solution, so no action is an unacceptable alternative. Besides, the fact that the Legislature would become more aggressive toward the Governor (due to his increased ability to cut spending), would hopefully provide more intelligent and thought out bills for the Governor to sign. Also debate on the issue would be more public, in my mind, due to the magnitude of such cuts.

Prop 1B: Education Funding/Payment Plan
-->I'm voting yes. It's a fact that the recent budget crisis and shortfall hurt schools badly. Thousands of teachers have been laid off, and added stress has been placed on the already overburdened education system. Yes on 1B would mean that the state of California would make supplemental payments to K-14, beginning in 2011-12, to initially help offset the trauma from the budget crisis. It will save us billions now, cost billions later, but replace other payments the state would otherwise have made under law. 1B would create an obligation to supplement education with $9.3 billion. These monies would be considered part of the base budget when Prop 98 is considered. Ultimately 1B would affect us depending on how one views current constitutional law, what the economic and revenue outlook happens to be, along with whether or not Prop 1A passes; if it doesn't, 1B would have no fiscal impact.

Prop 1C: Lottery Modernization Act
-->I'm voting no. The lottery was initially created to help fund schools but, as we all know, that never truly became a reality. Instead the lottery cash has been used to fund pork projects, balance the budget, and fund other programs that were not educational. Additionally, Prop 1C would release lottery funds from its obligation to schools entirely, and instead be taken from the General Fund. This is horrible not only because funding for schools will greatly suffer when the economy turns sour (like it is now), but also put major pressure on the already heavily burdened General Fund. The Lottery should be reformed in how it is managed and where the money goes.

Prop 1D: Children's Services Funding
-->I'm voting no. Taking money from early childhood development to help balance the budget is a gross sin. Early childhood development is the most crucial time in our lives, and Californian Kids deserve the best we can offer. I not only want currently voter approved funds to stay going to early childhood development programs but also increase the funding through any means practical and attainable. You must vote "no" if you want to keep the social services for children that they desperately need. The only way to really help our State and Nation is by making sure our kids grow up the right way, and with as much community support as we can provide. As the saying goes, "it takes a village to raise a child".

Prop 1E: Mental Health Funding, Temporary Reallocation
-->I'm voting no, and just as emphatically as I did above. Why? Because, as with Props C and D, taking funding from vital social services (even if temporary) is wrong. It delays benefits but also sets a dangerous precedent for the State to start moving funds to balance a budget that shouldn't require that type of activity to begin with. The services that Prop 1E would take from community mental health programs (including mental health screenings, diagnosis and treatment from children and young adults). 1E would amend the Mental Health Services Act (Prop 63 from 2004) to allow for this monstrous act. NO MORE PILLAGING SOCIAL SERVICES (EVEN IF TEMP.) TO WORK OUT AN UNECESSARY PROBLEM CREATED BY PARTISAN GREED!

Prop 1F: Elected Officials' Salaries/Prevents Pay Increases During Budget Defecit Years
-->I'm voting yes. Why? Because politicians don't deserve any pay raises when the economy is in the tank. Unlike the Democrats in Washington who have given themselves pay raises during, what Obama has called, "the worst financial crisis in 70-80 years". Congrats on raping us all Dems.

Measure A (only if you're from Sacramento)
-->I'm voting yes because I want to extend binding arbitration to resolve labor disputes

***These are my recommendations...very good ones.