Here are the Orange County Taxpayers Association’s positions on propositions on the Feb. 5 California ballot.
Proposition 91, Transportation funds: oppose
Proposition 91 would prohibit motor vehicle fuel sales and use taxes that are designated for the Transportation Investment Fund from being retained in the general fund so that they could be “borrowed” for other uses. TIF tax revenue could be borrowed only if the governor issues a proclamation and the Legislature enacts a statute by a two-thirds vote.
TIF money could be borrowed only twice in 10 consecutive fiscal years, and not until all prior borrowings have been repaid. Repayment would be required within four years. Proposition 91 also would require repayment by June 2017 of transportation funds already retained in the general fund from July 2003 to June 2008. Currently, repayment is required by June 2016.
Fiscal impact: none, because 2006’s Proposition 1A already does what Proposition 91 would do.
OCTax analysis: even Proposition 91’s authors ask for a “no” vote because the measure is redundant. While its proponents were gathering signatures to put it on the ballot, the governor and the Legislature put a similar measure, Proposition 1A, on the 2006 ballot. Voters approved Proposition 1A by 77%. Even though Proposition 1A obviates Proposition 91, the law requires that Proposition 91 be on the 2008 ballot because the requisite signatures had been gathered.
Proposition 92, community colleges funding, governance, fees: oppose
Proposition 92 would: establish in the state Constitution a system of community college districts and governors; require minimum levels of state funding for school districts and community college districts; allocate 10.5% of 1988’s Proposition 98 school funding maintenance to community colleges; set community college tuition at $15 per unit per semester; require tuition increases to be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature; and provide taxpayer funding for community colleges that would not otherwise receive general fund revenue.
Fiscal impact: increase in state spending on K-14 education from 2008 through 2010 averaging $300 million per year, with unpredictable impacts annually thereafter. Loss of student tuition of about $70 million annually.
OCTax analysis: voting rule No. 1 says that if a ballot initiative is so cryptic that a community college graduate can’t understand it, vote “no.”
A voter who hires a lawyer and an accountant to parse Proposition 92 will discover that it would increase spending without providing a source of revenue, lock new spending into the state Constitution to make it irreversible, be a “blank check” with no parameters on spending, and create a bureaucracy of community college insiders with unrestricted power to set salaries and expenses,all at a time when taxpayers are being asked to fill a $16.5 billion structural deficit.
California’s community college tuition today is $20 per unit, the lowest in the nation. Proposition 92 would lower it to $15, and require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to raise it. This would shift even more of the cost of education from students to taxpayers. According to the “Yes on 92” Web site, an associate degree adds $500,000 to a person’s lifetime earning capability. Something this valuable merits at least modest sacrifice by the student, yet the $15 cost of a unit of education would be about the cost of a pizza and a couple of Cokes in the campus cafeteria, or less than one-tenth the cost of an iPod. Many community college students pay no tuition at all. It would make more sense to raise community college tuition than to lower it.
Proposition 93, limits on legislators’ terms: oppose
Proposition 93 would: reduce the total time a person may serve in the state Legislature from 14 years to 12; allow a person to serve a total of 12 years in the Assembly, or in the Senate, or in a combination of both; and allow current members to serve a total of 12 years in the house in which they currently serve, regardless of any previous service.
Fiscal impact: none.
OCTax analysis: Proposition 93 would modify 1990’s Proposition 140, which restricts a person from serving more than three two-year terms in the Assembly plus two four-year terms in the Senate. The value of the term limits imposed by either measure is subjective. It depends on whether you personally want to 1) retain seasoned legislators, or 2) throw the bums out.
Either way, you would lose under Proposition 93. If you prefer to “retain seasoned legislators,” vote “no” on Proposition 93,it would shorten the total time limit for future legislators. If you want to “throw the bums out,” vote “no”,the measure would give 42 incumbents more years to do mischief.
Proposition 93 began as a self-serving but productive proposal: In exchange for more years in office, incumbent legislators would agree to allow an independent panel to reapportion the state’s legislative districts. Unfortunately, incumbents of both parties refused to put their safe districts at risk, so the better half of the deal (i.e., reapportionment) died.
We’re left with a ballot proposition whose sole purpose is to give incumbents a few more years of pomp under the Capitol dome.
Reed Royalty,
President,
Orange County Taxpayers Association
San Juan Capistrano
Election Day
With several caucuses and primaries in the rear view mirror now, all eyes are starting to look west to California and Feb 5.
Call me a true believer, but I have voted in every presidential election since Nixon versus McGovern in 1972.
Back then, we were asked to darken in a box or punch a hole in a ballot.
Today, I like using the computerized machines while others prefer voting absentee.
We carry out elections in every city and town in this country. Voting is not a quaint throwback to the 18th century, it is the acting out of this nation’s deepest ideals. With this thought in mind, I am happy to call myself a political dinosaur. As President Harry Truman was fond of saying, “The most valuable real estate in America is the voting booth.”
Denny Freidenrich
First Strategies LLC
Laguna Beach
