FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR
California’s budget slate must be defeated
The California Constitution requires that our state government’s budget be balanced every year. Having a RiNO* in the Governor’s chair and Democrats controlling the entire legislature make that a fantasy though. They spend, and spend, and when tax revenues fall, they cry about Republican failures to approve tax increases.
Thanks to the Governor and a few other turncoats, they got a sales tax increase this year, but even that’s not enough to balance the budget. So now the Democrats turn to the voters to approve of a massive shell game that will let them tax and spend without consequence. I ask Red State readers to join me in opposing the entire slate, forcing us to live within our means, and giving our Republicans in Sacramento support in fighting runaway spending.
Proposition 1A (on Ballotpedia) is being sold with the most conservative-sounding rhetoric, when it is the most unfriendly of the lot. Both Ballotpedia and the state Legislative Analyst concur that the primary effect of the measure is a $16 billion ($16,000,000,000) tax increase, which will be used to fund our current ridiculous spending levels, which are far beyond anything ever countenanced by Governor Davis.
It also calls for a token “rainy day fund,” but that rainy day fund only prevents spending of up to 3% of revenue in years with extraordinary revenue growth, and even then only after certain spending is allocated (such as the NEA’s pet Proposition 98 fund). The tax increase is what the purpose of 1A is, and so it must be defeated.
Proposition 1B (on Ballotpedia) is the first of a number of shell-game propositions on the ballot. As 1A only raises taxes in future years, spending must be shifted this year in order to pretend we’ve met our Constitutional requirement of a balanced budget. Proposition 1B moves money in future years to the Proposition 98 school budget, in exchange for money moved from it to the General Fund this year. No spending is cut or limited, and no revenue is raised. Money is shifted around. As I said, it’s just a shell game, and 1B pays off the NEA for going along with it.
Proposition 1C (on Ballotpedia) shifts more money around. This time, we borrow against projected future lottery revenue to balance this year’s budget to feed the beast of radical left-wing spending. It would also allow further borrowing in the future! Ballotpedia points out that this effectively would allow the state to deficit spend indefinitely.
Proposition 1D (on Ballotpedia) continues the shell game. It takes money to fund this year’s spending from Rob “Meathead” Reiner’s tobacco tax revenue, which ordinarily is mandated to go to county programs which serve little kids. Democrats would rather keep more union jobs alive, than help poor children whom they constantly harangue us about. It’s all about the unions in the California Legislature.
Proposition 1E (on Ballotpedia) plays the same game as 1D, only instead of taking money from little kids, it shifts money from the “millionaire’s tax” that was sold to California voters as being necessary to fund “mental health” programs. The money instead goes to a program that, surprise, is funded from the fungible General Fund.
Proposition 1F (on Ballotpedia) is the last, and least, of the six. It doesn’t do anything about taxes or spending. It just promises to prohibit automatic pay increases to state elected officials when the budget isn’t balanced. It sounds great, except that it’s only being used to sell the above scams, and the above scams would ensure that we’ll be deficit spending without technically doing so, thus defeating the measure anyway. It’s meaningless except as a propaganda tool, so I urge a vote against it.
So in conclusion, please join me in opposing this entire slate, and tell your friends and family to do the same. Especially mention to them the secret tax increases, and how the Democrats are taking money from little kids and the mentally ill in order to keep fatcat union bosses happy.
* I don’t say RiNO because the Governor is to the left of the party mainstream. He is, but I say he’s a RiNO because he joins Democrats to attack our legislative caucii, he appoints Democrats to the bench and as his Chief of Staff, and already sees himself as an independent.