Proposition 1A
Transportation Funding Protection
Two types of gasoline taxes are levied in California: an excise tax of 18 cents per gallon and a 6 percent sales tax. The California Constitution currently requires that excise tax revenues go to the Transportation Investment Fund, which is reserved for roads, highways, and public transit, rather than the General Fund, which is used for other state services. Although Proposition 42, enacted by Californians in 2002, nominally imposes similar restrictions on revenues from the sales tax on gasoline, it contains a loophole that permits the General Fund to “borrow” sales tax revenue from the Transportation Investment Fund without paying it back.
Proposition 1A would amend the California Constitution to require that all money borrowed from the Transportation Investment Fund be paid back, with interest, within three years from when it was borrowed. In addition, the state would not be permitted to borrow from the fund more than twice in ten years or if it had not repaid previous loans. This measure is essential to ensure than the burden of financing state expenditures unrelated to transportation does not fall disproportionately on motorists, and that money is diverted from transportation only during times of true economic hardship.
Vote YES on Proposition 1A.
Proposition 1B
Transportation Bond
Proposition 1B would authorize California to sell $20 million in bonds for transportation projects, including road construction, public transportation, air-quality improvement, and transportation security. The bonds would be repaid over 30 years. Although California’s transportation infrastructure has long been neglected and is in need of maintenance and expansion, Proposition 1B is not the answer. Most of the borrowed money would go toward equipment and repairs that will be obsolete before the debt is fully repaid. A better way to finance California’s infrastructure needs is to allocate existing gas tax revenues exclusively toward transportation projects, as Proposition 1A requires, and to divert spending from unnecessary government programs to transportation.
Vote NO on Proposition 1B.
Proposition 1C
Housing Bond
Proposition 1C would direct the state to sell $2.85 billion in bonds for housing and development programs. Most of the money would go toward low-income housing developments and low-interest loans for low-income homebuyers, including financially eligible illegal aliens. While it is true that fewer and fewer Californians each year can afford the median-priced home, this is mostly due to government-imposed barriers to home construction, including high taxation, environmental regulations, and other interferences in the free market. Those who meet government-determined eligibility requirements may enjoy Proposition 1C benefits, but the many middle-income homebuyers who do not qualify will see home prices go up if money is poured into housing without reducing regulation. The best way to make California homes more affordable is to ease the government restrictions that make homeownership expensive in the first place, and to let private developers construct enough housing to meet California’s needs.
Vote NO on Proposition 1C.
Proposition 1D
Education Bond
Proposition 1D would allow California to sell $10.4 billion in bonds for K-12 and higher education facilities. The bonds would mature in 30 years, but the money raised is estimated to be spent in two years. Such borrowing will saddle California in debt that future generations will be paying back long after the school improvements the bond money is spent on have become obsolete.
California’s education budget was $50 billion last year, comprising almost 50 percent of the state budget and amounting to more than $10,000 per student. Yet California schools are no better today than they were in the past, when per capita education spending was much lower. The real solution to improving education is for local communities to assume more responsibility for funding and controlling schools, where public oversight is greater and taxpayers are likely to get more value for their money.
Vote NO on Proposition 1D.
Proposition 1E
Flood Control Bond
Proposition 1E would authorize California to sell roughly $4 billion in bonds for disaster preparedness and flood prevention programs. Most of the funds would be allocated toward the Central Valley flood control system and Delta region levee repairs. Although financing state expenditures with long-term debt is generally inadvisable, Proposition 1E funds go toward capital-improvement projects with benefits lasting for the entire 30-year payoff period. In addition, collapse of the levees could result in much loss of life, cost the state billions in taxpayer dollars, and endanger much of California’s water supply. The long-lasting prevention measures Proposition 1E provides make it a worthwhile investment.
Vote YES on Proposition 1E.
Proposition 83
Jessica’s Law
Proposition 83 — named after 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford of Florida who was brutally assaulted and buried alive by a convicted sex offender who did not report where he lived — would toughen penalties for certain sex offenses, require lifetime GPS monitoring for felony sex offenders after completing their prison terms, and ban registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. This measure would also make possession of child pornography — currently a misdemeanor — a felony. According to law enforcement professionals, convicted sexual predators are statistically highly likely to commit additional offenses, as was the case with the man who assaulted Jessica Lunsford. Proposition 83 will address this problem by keeping sex criminals in prison longer and keeping track of them once they are released.
Vote YES on Proposition 83.
Proposition 84
Park Bond
Proposition 84 would direct California to sell $5.4 billion in bonds for water projects, environmental cleanup, and park improvements. Like many of the other bond measures on the ballot, Proposition 84 borrows money for short-term programs that will be obsolete long before the state pays off the debt, making it inappropriate. This measure would give state bureaucrats wide latitude in determining how the money is spent, bypass the competitive bidding system, and be exempt from customary audits by the state controller and state auditor, resulting in a large potential for waste, fraud, and abuse. Finally, Proposition 84 would fund mostly local projects that are best funded at the local level; people in the San Francisco Bay Area should not have to pay for park improvements in the Central Valley.
Vote NO on Proposition 84.
Proposition 85
Parental Notification for Abortion
Proposition 85 would amend the California Constitution to prohibit physicians from performing an abortion on an unemancipated minor without notifying her parent or legal guardian at least 48 hours in advance. The notification requirement would not apply in medical emergencies or with a parental waiver. If passed, this measure would ensure that a pregnant minor discusses all her options with her parents. Additionally, if the minor decides to proceed with the abortion, her parents would be able to help her cope with the physical and psychological effects that ensue. Judicial bypass would be available if the minor can show that she is mature enough to decide for herself, or that notifying her parents is not in her best interest.
Vote YES on Proposition 85.
Proposition 86
Cigarette Tax Increase
Proposition 86 would raise cigarette taxes by $2.60 per pack. The proceeds would be used to pay for various health services, including hospital funding, children’s health insurance, and various health and education programs. What is most notable about the initiative is that less than 10 percent of the revenue raised goes toward smoking cessation and prevention, while 40 percent goes directly to hospital corporations, many of which funded the proposition. Most of the balance is allocated toward miscellaneous expenditures, such as obesity programs and health coverage for illegal aliens. This is unfair because it forces smokers to bear a disproportionate share of the burden of paying for programs that have nothing to do with smoking. Even if the higher tobacco tax and anti-smoking programs do help smokers quit, such activity is not a proper role of government. Each person is free to choose whether or not to smoke and is responsible for facing the consequences of that decision.
Vote NO on Proposition 86.
Proposition 87
Tax on California Oil Production
Proposition 87 would levy a tax on oil produced in California. The rate would vary from 1.5 percent of the gross value of the oil extracted to 6.0 percent, depending on the prevailing price per barrel of oil. The revenue from the tax would fund alternative-energy programs, administered by the newly created California Energy Alternatives Program Authority. The measure contains a clause “prohibiting” oil producers from passing the tax burden to consumers, which will likely be administratively unenforceable, according to California’s attorney general, since many factors determine oil prices.
While alternatives to fossil fuels may prove economically and environmentally beneficial, Proposition 87 is the wrong approach to developing these sources of energy. The initiative puts a bureaucratic agency in charge of determining how research and development dollars are spent, causing the usual financial mismanagement and inefficiency brought about by government intruding upon the realm of private enterprise. Lastly, by increasing the cost of producing oil in California, oil companies are likely to move production to other states and foreign countries, resulting in lost high-paying jobs for Californians and making us more dependent on imported oil from hostile Middle Eastern and Latin American nations.
Vote NO on Proposition 87.
Proposition 88
Parcel Tax
Proposition 88 would add to the California Constitution a provision to impose a $50 tax on each parcel of real property in California. The funds raised would go toward various K-12 education projects. Since only local governments currently levy property taxes, creating a statewide property tax would set a bad precedent. Proposition 88 would also weaken Proposition 13 protections. While the latter requires a two-thirds majority vote to increase all local property taxes, only a simple majority would be needed to raise the new parcel tax. Finally, Proposition 88 would give state bureaucrats more control of how education funds are spent, decreasing local control of education and taxpayer oversight.
Vote NO on Proposition 88.
Proposition 89
Taxpayer Financing of Election Campaigns
Proposition 89 would increase the corporate income tax rate from 8.84 percent to 9.04 percent, and the tax on financial institutions from 10.84 percent to 11.04 percent, to provide funds to the election campaigns of candidates meeting certain requirements. The measure would also lower contribution limits for candidates opting not to receive state funding and impose limits on the amount of money that corporations can spend on campaigns for or against ballot propositions.
The current corporate tax rate is already one of the highest in the nation, and many companies are fleeing to more business-friendly states. In addition, Proposition 89 is unfair because it places limits on corporate contributions to election campaigns but no limits on union contributions, which are just as influential in state politics. Moreover, Proposition 89 will make it more difficult for challengers to win elections because incumbents have various built-in advantages, such as name recognition and an easier time collecting small contributions. The final and most important reason to oppose Proposition 89 is that it forces taxpayers to pay for the campaigns of candidates whom they do not support, which is antithetical to the principle of freedom of association.
Vote NO on Proposition 89.
Proposition 90
Protection from Eminent Domain
Proposition 90 would ban state and local governments from condemning private property for private projects or uses. The ability to take private property for public use, such as for roads, schools, and parks, will not be affected as long as the government provides just compensation. The initiative would also require governments to compensate property owners for reduction in fair market value resulting from enactment of land use, environmental, and other regulations, plus costs and expenses associated with the taking of property, except when the regulations are enacted to preserve public health and safety.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled (erroneously) last year in Kelo v. New London that government has the power to seize private property to transfer it to another private owner when it can simply ascribe some hypothetical “public benefit” to the taking. Since then, numerous homeowners across the nation have been forced to abandon their long-time homes because politically connected developers have persuaded governments that their commercial projects generate more property tax revenue. Proposition 90, if passed, will prevent private property from being wrongfully seized for the private use of others and restore the Founding Fathers’ understanding of the right to private property as expressed in the Fifth Amendment — that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use without just compensation.”
Vote YES on Proposition 90.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot