May 19 California Ballot Measures Are Scam

As a former mayor of Los Angeles wrote in LA Times back in March, if you think Bernard Madoff is the swindler of the year, think again. The Terminator governor and the California Legislature are coming down your way with disingenuously worded ballot measures due for vote on Tuesday May 19.

1A: STATE BUDGET. CHANGES CALIFORNIA BUDGET PROCESS. LIMITS STATE SPENDING. INCREASES “RAINY DAY” BUDGET STABILIZATION FUND.

(California voter information guide)
Increases size of state “rainy day” fund from 5% to 12.5% of the General Fund.
Requires additional revenue above historic trends to be deposited into state “rainy day” fund, limiting spending.

(Ballotpedia.org)
Prop 1A combines a 4-year tax hike of about $16 billion with a state spending cap

Spending cap is a sop. The main purpose is the tax hike to the tune of $16 billion.

1B: EDUCATION FUNDING. PAYMENT PLAN

(California vig)
Requires supplemental payments to local school districts and community colleges to address recent budget cuts.
Annual payments begin in 2011–12.

(Ballotpedia.org)
Modification of California Proposition 98 (1998) (which requires a minimum percentage of the state budget to be spent on K-14 education) to free up money for state's budget overruns.

On the first look, IB seems a good thing, more money for schools. The key here is that the payment won't begin till 2011. Until that time, the state can continue to raid the money meant for public schools.

1C: LOTTERY MODERNIZATION ACT

(California vig)
Allows the state lottery to be modernized to improve its performance with increased payouts, improved marketing, and effective management.
Protects funding levels for schools currently provided by lottery revenues.
Allows $5 billion of borrowing from future lottery profits to help balance the 2009–10 state budget.

(Ballotpedia.com)
Sell rights to future lottery proceeds as a way of raising some cash now for state budget.

So they want to improve marketing to sell more lottery tickets (buyers tend to be low-income working class people) and borrow against the future cash flow.

1D: PROTECTS CHILDREN’S SERVICES FUNDING. HELPS BALANCE STATE BUDGET.

(California vig)
Provides more than $600 million to protect children’s programs in difficult economic times.
Redirects existing tobacco tax money to protect health and human services for children, including services for at-risk families, services for children with disabilities, and services for foster children.

(Ballotpedia.org)
Asks voters to approve taking money from Prop 10 in 1998 (to establish early childhood development and smoking prevention programs) for purposes not allowed in that 1998 vote.

The whole point is redirection of tobacco tax money into the state's General Fund and say they want to "protect health and human services for children". They can say whatever they want to say. Money is fungible. The money thus redirected doesn't have any special characteristics that differentiates it from the money from lottery proceed, once it gets dumped into the General Fund.

1E: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FUNDING. TEMPORARY REALLOCATION. HELPS BALANCE STATE BUDGET.

(California vig)
Amends Mental Health Services Act (Proposition 63 of 2004) to transfer funds, for a two-year period, from mental health programs under that act to pay for mental health services for children and young adults.

(Ballotpedia.org)
Asks voters to take money from Prop 63 for purposes not allowed in that 2004 vote.

The same ploy as 1D. Redirects money from the specific programs approved by the voters to the state coffer and presents it as if it is furthering the program. Again, money is fungible.

1F: ELECTED OFFICIALS’ SALARIES. PREVENTS PAY INCREASES DURING BUDGET DEFICIT YEARS.

(California vig)
Encourages balanced state budgets by preventing elected Members of the Legislature and statewide constitutional officers, including the Governor, from receiving pay raises in years when the state is running a deficit.

(Ballotpedia.org)
No pay raises for state legislators in years when there is a state budget deficit.

It seems about the only one that may be worth voting yes. (I remain suspicious of any hidden message here.) However, I am sure, if passed, state legislators will find a way to circumvent it. Doubling per diem expense (currently at $170, which they receive in addition to their salaries), for example?

Polls indicate that the more voters know about the ballot, the more they are inclined to vote no to 5 out of 6 ballots. (Not very hard to guess which ones.) It will be interesting to see how many of the more informed voters show up on Tuesday.

Tweet