Marc Choquette
Staff Writer
The ballot for the Nov. 7 election will throw a veritable laundry list of initiatives at California voters, mostly questioning voters willingness to let their government spend, spend and, well, spend.
The 13 questions facing voters involve a multitude of issues, from fiscal responsibility, to vast amounts of borrowing and spending, to new taxes and even the loaded issue of abortion.
A concern to proponents and opponents alike is the amount of money that would be spent if the propositions were approved across the board. That number would be somewhere around $46 billion, which excludes what those figures would total down the road (when the loans and interest on them would need to be paid back).
The problem that exists with this figure is that the prospect of all these propositions getting a “yes” from California voters seems dim. It was not long ago when former governor Gray Davis was ousted in a recall due to California’s budget ineptitude and massive deficit.
The approval of these propositions would also bring $84 billion in additional debt and interest to accumulate over the next 30 years, with $3 billion per year in new taxes.
Many of the measures follow the same wavelength. Those for less government spending are against most of the referenda while those whose priorities lie with improvements in education and infrastructure are for most. It is most conceivable to think that the result will fall somewhere in the middle.
The prospect of more debt and taxes – something Californians have been all too familiar with – is being used as a bargaining tool by those opposed to many of the spending initiatives. Adversaries to these questions of spending argue that Californians already pay enough taxes and the state debt should not be allowed to grow by such a margin.
Supporters have the tough task of convincing enough Californians that the spending and taxing is critical in order to attend to the crumbling infrastructure, overcrowded schools, and the many other problems facing 21st century California.
Such an undertaking proves to be difficult, in that voters seem to be more fiscally conservative than ever, following the spending disasters of the late ‘90s. Voters have also been more reluctant of late to pass similar bond proposals, as last June’s election proved. Both propositions in that election failed to pass.
Among the more controversial of these spending propositions is 84: the water and resource bond. This would set aside $5.4 billion in bonds for water quality and supply projects, flood control, park acquisition and improvements, and protecting of coastal and wildlife areas.
While there has been major support for this proposition from over 100 environmental groups, the Governor, and most cities, the Sept. 8 LA Times notes this was the sole proposition that has been losing in preliminary polls. The others all have managed to garner at least 50%, which is all that propositions need to pass.
Proposition 1, proposed by Gov. Schwarzenegger and the Legislature is also another controversial proposal, totaling $37.2 billion. The money would cover road construction, housing, improvements to schools, and flood protection.
The many proponents for this measure, including such influential groups as the California Federation of Labor and the California Teachers Association, have dumped millions into promoting this initiative, noting the many infrastructural needs of a growing population and economy. Most do not have to look far to find these problems, with chronically congested highways, port vulnerability, a lack of affordable housing, and crumbling and overcrowded schools.
Opponents are quick to point out that since all these projects would be instituted without any rise in taxes, passing this proposition means more debt would piled onto the budget for future generations. They insist the money would be used up quicker than anticipated and thus would not provide the concrete results voters are looking for.
Perhaps the most talked about proposition on the Nov. ballot is the Tobacco tax question. If passed, the measure would up the tax on cigarettes from 87 cents per pack to $3.47 per pack, along with smaller increases for other tobacco products.
Backers consider it a noble effort, in that they believe the number of smokers would decrease providing the prices of cigarettes are higher. Revenues from the tax would go to relieving swamped emergency rooms, providing health insurance for low-income children and disease research.
The opposition to this proposition, namely tobacco companies, argue that such a tax has nothing to do with stamping out smoking. Less than 10% of the tax revenue would be used for anti-smoking campaigns, while most would go towards to assisting the bottom lines of California’s hospitals.
However, not all of the propositions on this year’s ballot ask the question of whether one would be in favor of spending and taxes. The issue of abortion has found its way onto the ballot and, as always, has become a deeply controversial and explicitly partisan issue.
Proposition 85 would amend the California Constitution to require parental notification and a 48 hour waiting period for minors seeking abortion, with exceptions existing in the case of medical emergencies or if a waiver from a judge is produced.
The battle lines have been drawn as to who is in favor and who is opposed to this question, with most religious and pro-life groups backing 85, and women’s groups, Planned Parenthood, and the ACLU against such an amendment.
Proponents argue that parents have the specific right to know if their daughter is seeking an abortion. They feel that, since the ability to have “secret” abortions would be eliminated, promiscuous behavior would be avoided by teens, thus decreasing teen pregnancy and abortion rates.
Those opposed to amending the Constitution to require parental notification argue that passing laws cannot initiate family communication regarding such issues. They argue that teens will still be getting pregnant and will sidestep waivers and parental notification for riskier (and illegal) operations, or even delay their decisions until a late-term abortion is one of the few options they have.
Voters have a lot to consider with this election’s batch of propositions. The decisions made on Nov. 7 will likely shape California’s future for years to come.
2006 California Propositions (Factbox)
Proposition 1A – Further limit the conditions under which Proposition 42 transfers can be suspended. Prop 42 passed in 2002 and dedicated most of the sales tax revenue from gas to transportation uses. Any suspension would be treated as a loan and the difference would have to be paid back in full with interest within three years.
Proposition 1B – The state would sell about $20 billion in general obligation funds to improve congestion on freeways and roads, improve the movement of goods on all levels, improve air quality by reducing emissions from trucks and buses, and improve the safety and security of the transportation system.
Proposition 1C – The state would sell about $2.85 billion in general obligation funds to fund 13 new and existing housing development projects, with roughly half being allocated to new development programs.
Proposition 1D – The state would sell about $10.4 billion in general obligation bonds to K-12 school facilities and higher education facilities, mostly dealing with modernization and new construction.
Proposition 1E – The state would sell about $4.1 billion in general obligation funds to flood management programs. Most of this money would go to the Central Valley in dealing with the flooding of the San Joaquin River.
Proposition 83 – Would increase penalties for sex offenders by broadening the definition of a sex offense, providing for longer penalties, prohibiting probation in lieu of prison for some, eliminating early release credits for some, and extending parole for some.
Proposition 84 – The state would sell $5.4 in general obligation funds for safe drinking water, water quality, water supply, flood control, natural resource protection, and park improvements.
Proposition 85 – Would amend the California Constitution to require, with exceptions, a physician to notify (but not get consent from) a parent or legal guardian of a pregnant minor at least 48 hours before an abortion would be performed.
Proposition 86 – Would increase excise taxes (by roughly $2.60) on cigarettes and other tobacco products, using revenues to provide funding to hospitals for emergency services, fund programs to increase access to health insurance for children, expand nursing education, support health and education activities, and curb tobacco sales and use.
Proposition 87 – Would introduce a severance tax on oil production in California, and use the $4 billion estimate of revenues from the tax to fund alternative energy programs.
Proposition 88 – Would create a statewide parcel tax ($50 annually per land parcel) and use revenue to fund K-12 education programs. This does not apply to those who live on their land parcel or those over 65.
Proposition 89 – Makes significant changes to the campaign financing laws and state ballot measures, introducing new requirements to receive money, eligibility for public funding, and other fiscal provisions.
Proposition 90 – Would amend the California Constitution to require government to pay property owners for substantial economic loss resulting from new laws, and would limit government authority to take ownership of private property.
Source: California Legislative Analyst’s Office
11-16-2006