The Libertarian Party of California announced today that it opposes five of the six of the Propositions on the ballot for the May 19th special election. These are Props 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E. They support Proposition 1F.
Proposition 1A would create a so-called “rainy day fund.” If tax revenues are higher than expected, the extra money will be stored away in case of future lower than expected revenues.
Proposition 1B would increase the amount of money given to schools and community colleges.
Proposition 1C would allow the state to borrow $5 million for various reasons, such as balancing the budget and lottery proceeds.
Proposition 1D would let the state reduce funding for children’s programs temporarily.
Proposition 1E would temporarily cut the funding given to mental health programs.
Proposition 1F would prevent legislators from getting pay raises if the budget isn’t doing well.
You can read the whole article here. Source: Globe Newswire for the article, and Politics 2000 for the simple explainations as to what the Propositions were.
Here’s something to chew on about First 5 (Prop 1D):
Although some expenditure for evaluating programs is required by the First 5 statute, over the last 7 or so years, audited financial statements reveal that First 5 commissions have spent approximately $100 MILLION on evaluation. How can it cost that much?
Well, First 5 evaluation payments go mainly to private consulting firms like Harder and Company, not to children 0 to 5!
Based on audited financial statements and adding a standard 3% for inflation, an analysis shows that in 10 years, they are on course to spend over $300 MILLION on evaluation.
In 15 years, it will top $500 MILLION. In 25 years: $1 BILLION dollars+.
First 5 Commissioners are misspending funds: Proposition 10 was not meant to make the evaluators RICH!
Let’s put some of the money back towards helping kids and get ourselves out of this budget mess – VOTE YES on 1D!
Prop 1D does NOT ask you to pay ANY new taxes.
First 5’s have over $2 BILLION in reserve they can use over the next 5 years while they help the rest of California. It’s a total misstatement to say that those monies are already committed to certain programs because with one vote their commissions can re-direct those reserves to whatever they choose to. So, who’s to be trusted?
Well, IMO, it’s not First 5. They are run by Commissioners who vote for budgets that direct cash to their OWN departments and organizations. There are now wild exaggerations about how 1D could affect people: just not so – reserves will be used. Perhaps such claims are why Prop 1D puts an auditor on the Commission to oversee their actions.
If that does not bother you then this should: the First 5 lobbyist has received over $1 MILLION of First 5 funds & about $200K of that went straight to her pension plan – IRS Form 990s say so! Prop 1D stops her from taking any new First 5 funds!
Vote YES on 1D!
Per the original article proposition 1C is authorization for $5 billion (not million) in borrowing.
Thanks for the explanations, Seeb’s.
Susan, think of it as using one credit card to pay another’s balance. It might cover a quick shuffle but it certainly doesn’t reduce indebtedness, and will make things worse in the long haul.
Uh. Oh. Better check to make sure my car is still where I parked it 😉
Susan, think of it as using one credit card to pay another’s balance. It might cover a quick shuffle but it certainly doesn’t reduce indebtedness, and will make things worse in the long haul.
Carnival 3-card monte and shell games, Susan.
The reduction in funding in 1D and 1E is actually a shift from program-specific funds to the General Fund to create the illusion of balancing the budget. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, so to speak. Ditto for 1C, which would also cause an increase in the base funding levels of Prop 98 for public schools, which will mean even more spending on that boondoggle, and even more debt and higher taxes down the road.
And even that’s simplistic.
CA voter polling reflects the LPCA positions as well.
Upcoming article in the California Freedom on these. Email me offline if you’d like the analyses.
Politics 2000’s explanations are simple, all right, so simple it misses most of it.
What’s the basis for rejecting D and E?