Well, i don’t keep my campaign promises. I’m not going to write up the dialogue quite yet, good though it was. And i’ve learned enough to review that list of recommendations (PDF) and see patterns.
I am going to briefly share some comments from one of the “conversation starters” at the event, Larry Gerston, in reviewing two of the less “controversial” measures.
By controversial, i note that very few organizations have a mix of Y & N recommendations. By and large a group is saying either saying “Vote yes on the compromises needed for the budget” or “Vote no, on these unsatisfactory ways of getting the budget fixed,” with occasional abstentions. With the exception of only the CA Taxpayers Assoc. (and arguably the Democratic Party), the recommendation for 1C is the recommendation for the majority of the propositions. There’s a reason for that: this is the key proposition for balancing the budget.
I had been reading the Voter Information Guide as we gathered, and was puzzled by the text for 1C with the occasional mention of lottery investors. I hadn’t had long to puzzle when Larry Gerston suggested that the proposition was misnamed. He suggests it is more appropriately referred to as bond measure, borrowing $5 billion against the promise that a small bit of that borrowed money can be put into the lottery to increase the profits of the lottery. Most of that borrowed money will go to bail out a bit of the budget. Even with that $5 billion, the state budget is still in deficit more than $8 billion. As a side note, California’s bonds now rank last in in the nation.
Of all the measures, this is the one where the money is. In the overview section of the voter guide you can read that the compromise budget depends on $5.838 billion from three of the bond measures, 1C-1E. “If the voters reject these three measures, the 2009-10 budget would not be in balance under current revenue forecasts.” Ignoring the fact that there already appears to be a significant revenue shortfall, 1C is the significant chunk of change.
One could argue that if you’re worried about keeping the state from “going over the cliff,” you have to vote for 1C. That’s where the money is. Another could argue that the state, unable to raise revenues via property taxes and with comparatively high per capita income tax revenues, has kept turning and turning to loans to try to keep the state going — and it’s not a sustainable solution. Personally, i have a great distaste for the lottery. While i find appeal in Ambrose Bierce’s trenchant observation that the lottery is a tax on those bad at math, i find the idea of more effectively marketing the lottery so that more people gamble to not be in the best interests of the state.
If you only vote for one proposition, this is the one to which you should pay attention.
I suggested 1F was not controversial. It’s not the same as 1C — it does not predict the recommendations for the other propositions. Many organizations abstain from a recommendation. The only organization that recommends a vote counter to the other recommendations is the Libertarian Party (with a particularly hearty yes, i imagine).
1F has a certain type of appeal. In my irritation, it does not go far enough: where’s the proposition that They — the folks responsible for the budget — don’t get paid at all unless they balance the budget on time? On the other hand, Larry Gerston asks if this belongs in the constitution. Of course, one may reply to Professor Gerson, do any of these budget resolutions belong in a constitution? This one has a potential of saving some money, but doesn’t really affect the budget crisis.
I’m reminded by this proposition that an individual voter can abstain as well. This proposition seems to matter least except as an outlet for our anger.
People who looked at this item also looked at…
