dKos California Voting Guide - Ballot Initiatives

So, because I like to think that my vote will be counted, I'm going permanent absentee voter this year.  I've got my ballot in my hot little hand, and I'm all keyed up to vote and get this thing out the door.  Only problem is that I have no idea how to vote, especially on the ballot initiatives.  There won't be any discussions about this in the local papers or on "Life & Times" any time soon.  I already know not to pay any attention to the pro and con arguments that come in my voter guide.  So why not turn the quibbling over to my fellow Kossians?

Here's how it will work: I'll post a comment for each initiative that provides the summary in the sample ballot.  Then I'll enter two comments for each summary.  One will be for pro arguments, one for con.  Feel free to provide links, arguments, or tasty lo-cal chicken recipes.  If this works out, I'll do the same for the other hairy part of the ballot: judges.  Granted, that'll be local to Los Angeles, but I'm sure there are enough Angelenos here to toss in an opinion or two.

Chocks away!

•  Proposition 55

  The Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2004

  This measure allows the state to issue $12.3 billion of general obligation bonds for construction and renovation of K-12 school facilities ($10 billion) and higher education facilities ($2.3 billion).

  by RakDaddy on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 07:26:52 PM PDT

  •  Pro

    Why should I vote for Prop. 55?

    by RakDaddy on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 07:27:31 PM PDT

    •  prop 55 is what bonds are for

      unlike prop 57, prop 55 is to build things. Vote yes.

      by Mo on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 08:39:40 PM PDT

  •  Con

    Why should I vote against Prop. 55?

    by RakDaddy on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 07:28:04 PM PDT

    •  bonds

      Well, the state does pass a lot of these bonds and you do wonder about how the money is being spent. Also the state's credit rating is pretty terrible as I understand it so this is a pretty expensive way to finance this whole thing. On the other hand 55 also does fund the UCs (I think) which desperately need money schwarzie cut from them.

      by samiam on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 09:41:02 PM PDT

•  I'm going to vote against the 2 Arnold amendments

  They're 57 and 58. He's completely screwed the UC system, and deserves some pay back. Prop. 56 seems like a good Prop (makes it harder for the Republicans to prevent taxes from being raised).

  by jfern on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 07:29:16 PM PDT

•  Proposition 56

  State Budget, Related Taxes, and Reserve.  Voting Requirements.  Penalties.  Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute

  This measure permits the Legislature to pass the state budget and tax increase measures related to the budget by a 55 percent vote. Other changes to the budget process would be made.

  by RakDaddy on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 07:29:41 PM PDT

  •  Pro

    Why should I vote for Prop. 56?

    by RakDaddy on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 07:30:35 PM PDT

    •  no more budget deadlocks

      This will let the Democrats pass a budget without having to bring some Republicans on board.  This makes raising taxes possible when necessary and reduces the need to spread pork around in order to get a budget passed.  It makes the legislature accountable for the budget, whereas right now nobody is accountable because everybody needs to approve the budget.

      by CA Pol Junkie on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 08:06:45 PM PDT

      •  oink oink

        While my strong aversion to raising taxes, especially in CA that already has one of the worst business environments in the nation, there is some definite good to reducing the old 67% requirement.

        Less pork bribery, but all les regulation. Regulations are what is killing many businesses in CA. Since taxes cannot be raised to deal with problems, regulations tax the place and have been far more damaging as they hide true costs. People look at the Ca tax structure and don't see the true impact that regulation has had on killing business.

        However, the backfire is that the regulatory environment stays cripling and taxes rise too... the worst of both sides.

        Quite the situation. Overall though, probably a yes vote might be the best at least to try.

        by jjayson on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 08:31:03 PM PDT

  •  Con

    Why should I vote against Prop. 56?

    by RakDaddy on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 07:31:08 PM PDT

  •  this will give dems equal power

    if prop 56 passes and prop 57 fails, dems can pass a balanced budget that protects schools by restoring taxes on the rich. Would Arnie really veto it and proceed to gut the schools? If he does, he would pay a severe political price.

    by Mo on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 08:43:45 PM PDT

•  Proposition 57

  The Economic Bond Recovery Act

  This proposition puts before the voters authorization for the state to issue a bond of up to $15 billion to deal with its budget deficit. The bond authorized by this measure would be used in place of the deficit-financing bond authorized last year by the Legislature.

  by RakDaddy on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 07:32:12 PM PDT

  •  Pro

    Why should I vote for Prop. 57?

    by RakDaddy on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 07:32:48 PM PDT

  •  Con

    Why should I vote against Prop. 57?

    by RakDaddy on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 07:33:26 PM PDT

    •  If 15 billion bond measure wins,

      Arnold or another Republican easily gets the governorship in 2006 because they "didn't have to raise taxes" since the average voter doesn't care or think about increasing debt service as part of the federal budget.  Bond funding should be illegal in 90% of the cases.  Taxation (with higher % for higher income brackets)is the most socially responsible way to fund public spending.

      by CA JAY on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 07:46:54 PM PDT

      •  that should be state budget

        eom

        by CA JAY on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 07:48:45 PM PDT

      •  taxation

        The problem is that taxation in CA is already very high especially for those with high incomes. Millionaires have been fleeing the state for a couple years now. Just one rich millionaire leaving is worse that ten thousand low and middle income people no longer paying taxes.

        If taxes are raised in the wealthy and more of them flee, CA could find itself in a worse position leading to almost a death spiral of taxation. Another shortfall will hear more calls for higher taxes again to cover the deficit, but that will just result in more people leaving and more taxation calls.

        It's a tough position, and really tought budgetary cutbacks are not politically feasible in the state. I find it hard to see any other way.

        by jjayson on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 08:34:56 PM PDT

    •  enables the car tax reduction

      The $15 billion bond restructures the $11 in existing bonds, plus adds another $4 billion to pay for this year's car tax reductions.  The problem is, the car tax reduction bill will keep coming up every year.  If this fails, the car tax reduction will have to be cancelled because by law it can only stay if there is a funding source.  Arnold cited the fiscal recovery bond as the source for funds for the car tax reduction.  Rejecting this measure is the only way to make Arnold consider raising taxes.

      The fiscal recovery bond papers over the fundamental problems with California's tax structure and puts off actually fixing it.  They will be back again with more "fiscal recovery" bonds in future years unless the fundamental problems are fixed.

      by CA Pol Junkie on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 08:12:39 PM PDT

    •  bond measures are for building things

      not to meet payroll. Don't let the scare tactics (25% cut in schools) get to you. Borrow and Spend is bad fiscal policy. I'm a community college instructor in CA and I'm voting no.

      by Mo on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 08:46:34 PM PDT

      •  What's the difference?

        Bonds are for paying for stuff in the future that you do not have the funds to pay for today. They are a promise to furure payment.

        What is the difference between using them for services of material items. While all bond measures should have specifics attached to them and not just shoved into the general fund, in reality you cannot draw the line. Every dollar that the bond measure raises (like the school repair one) means a dollar that can be diverted elsewhere.

        by jjayson on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 09:17:57 PM PDT

        •  there is a big difference

          As an individual, I borrow money to buy a house or a car - a capital expenditure. If I borrow money to buy food or meet my monthly expenses, I am in a financial death spiral.

          As a company, I borrow money to purchase equipment or build a factory, never to meet normal bsuiness expenditures which would be a path to bankruptcy.

          In both examples, capital expenditures are amortized or depriciated over several years - and an asset is added to the balance sheet to offset the expense.

          Building a infrastructure or acquiring public parkland is an appropriate use of bond funding as it creates an asset. To float a bond to meet ordinary expenses is a recipe for disaster, like maxing out your Visa.

          by Mo on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 12:49:32 AM PDT

          •  'death spiral'

            Death spiral is a highly overused term. It dosn't just mean something bad. It implies a feedback scenario. Earilier in this diary and a different post I describe a taxation scenario where taxes are raised on high income taxpayers that causes them to move out of the state, creating an even larger deficit which causes taxes to be raised even more to meet the shortfall, causing more of the taxbase to erode, causing taxes to be raised, spiraling out of control. Unless you are trying to claim that the interest in California's BBB/Baa-rates bonds would somehow tip the state over the edge, a highly suspect claim, then it isn't quite as bleak.

            Governments are not like households. If they were then raising taxes wouldn't be an option. The only choice would be to cut spending. Are you sure you want to continue down that line of comparison?

            It isn't as easily yo isolate budgetary outlays. For every dollar than gets used financing one expense that means the dollar is open for another expense. Unless you cut all non-capital expenditures from the budget, then every dollar borrowed is a mix of a capital expenditure and non-capital expenditure. Each dollar borrowed to pay out for welfare claims or highway work is a dollar that can get shifted to education. These clean delineations you want to make don't exist. Most expenditures come from the general fund.

            While borrowing to meet some outlays isn't the optimal solution. Chasing even more wealthy taxpayers and businesses out of the state is probably a worse choice.

            The state is fucked, and budget cuts are needed. All the sob stories in the world about some mother who gets paid by the state to take care of her parapalegic child are not going to make the budget shortfall go away. All the tax raises in the world are not going to either. Tough choices need to be made, and some people are going to get hurt no matter what policy is decided on.

            by jjayson on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 02:23:12 AM PDT

    •  a really thorough discussion

      For a really thourough discussion of 57/58 (which are essentially one prop since neither goes into effect if the other fails) see the following thread.

      I'm actually still conflicted about what to do. I advocate a position in favor of 57/58 in the thread but I'm actually not sure what the right thing to do is.

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/2/6/3591/40327

      by samiam on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 09:44:43 PM PDT

•  Proposition 58

  The California Balanced Budget Act

  This proposition amends the Constitution, making changes related to (1) the enactment and maintenance of a balanced state budget, (2) the establishment of specific reserve requirements, and (3) a restriction on future deficit-related borrowing.

  by RakDaddy on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 07:34:16 PM PDT

  •  Pro

    Why should I vote for Prop. 58?

    by RakDaddy on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 07:34:58 PM PDT

  •  Con

    Why should I vote against Prop. 58?

    by RakDaddy on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 07:35:35 PM PDT

    •  this is just politics

      California is already required to balance the budget.

      Vote No.

      by Mo on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 08:47:57 PM PDT