League of Women Voters opposes 4 California budget measures

Sacramento Bee ^ | Mar 12, 2009

[John Jorsett]

The League of Women Voters, which was part of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's coalition to pass redistricting reform last year, parted company with the governor today, declaring opposition to four of the six budget-related ballot measures he wants approved at the May 19 special election.

[snip]

"... these hurriedly drafted propositions, produced at the end of a flawed process that kept both the public and most legislators in the dark, will only make our fiscal situation worse."

Proposition 1A, the linchpin of the package and Schwarzenegger's pet proposal to place a rolling limit on state spending,drew particular scorn from the organization, which said, "Proposition 1A is touted by its proponents as the way to bring stability to the budget process. But what it will really do is tie the hands of the Legislature and governor as they face changing needs for state and local government services. It will keep them from taking into account the state's changing demographics and growth in the actual cost of important services like health care."

"Although some claim there is an urgency to pass Proposition 1A to resolve our state's budget problems, we disagree," said Hirohama. "Most of its provisions will not take effect for two years--two years that we should spend hammering out real solutions to our budget and fiscal challenges."

The league opposed Propositions 1A, 1C, 1D and 1E. The latter three would authorizing borrowing against state lottery proceeds and tap money originally approved by voters for children's programs and mental health. The organization did not oppose Proposition 1B, a measure to provide additional school financing in later years, but its enactment depends on passage of Proposition 1A. And it did not take a stand on Proposition 1F, which would deny salary increases to elected officials during budget deficits.

[John Jorsett]

Sounds like the League opposes 1A because they think it would keep the legislature from increasing spending. In reality, any ‘limit’ that 1A imposes goes up if the legislature increases taxes, so 1A is a phony curb on the spending spree. In addition, if 1A passes, we get to keep the tax increases that the legislature just passed for an addition 2 years. If 1A fails, we don’t. That alone is enough reason for me to oppose it.

What we really need is a genuine cap on spending like the old Gann limit. If that were in place today, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

[Amerigomag]

"And the very interests, the far left and the far right, that prefer dysfunction over change have already launched a campaign to confuse the people and to defeat the reform,"

Yup Arnie, that League of Women of Voters is certainly on the fringe, but I can't remember if it's far left or far right.

[bill1952]

Schwarzenegger's pet proposal to place a rolling limit on state spending

That sounds suspiciously like no limit at all.

[goldstategop]

That's exactly what it is. There's a new baseline each year. So its not really a spending cap. Its so bad they should be paying Californians to vote for it!

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus