Prop. 1A: State Finance

By Elyce Petker

The measure would:

• Cap state spending using a formula based on previous years’ revenues and changes in population and inflation. Any revenue above the cap would go to the state’s reserve fund, paying back money borrowed from schools (if Prop. 1B also passes), paying back bond debt, and eventually paying for infrastructure.
  
  
• Add money to the reserve fund each year
  
  
• Extend some recent tax increases (sales tax, vehicle license fee, personal income tax)
  
  
• Allow the governor to make mid-year budget cuts.
  
  

SUPPORTERS SAY: “The state is in a severe financial crisis. (Without this) we’ll be driving over a cliff. This will put away money for future years,” says Jose Plascencia, president of the Central California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. The measure would:

• Stop out-of-control spending
  
  
• Help protect schools, public safety, and vital services by making sure California can afford to pay for them
  
  
• Create long-term budget stability.
  
  

Supporters: CA Budget Reform Now (www.cabudgetreformnow.com), CA Teachers Association, CA State Conference of the NAACP, CA Chamber of Commerce

OPPONENTS SAY: “(The measure) caps revenue at the lowest point (and) will not allow us to restore programs and services we need for children. A lot of people are gong to fall through the cracks,” says Lillian Taiz, president of the California Faculty Association. The measure would:

• Cut vital community, health, and education programs. The spending cap would be too low to pay for current programs and services—adding to the reserve fund each year would make this worse.
  
  
• Give the governor unilateral powers to cut spending—based on estimated not actual revenues
  
  
• Not take into account the need to provide services for the growing senior population or pay for health care and other services whose costs rise faster than inflation.
  
  

Opponents: No on 1A, Health Access, CA Federation of Teachers, CA Nurses Association, CA League of Women Voters, CA Faculty Association, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME, state council)

Prop. 1B: Education Finance

By Elyce Petker

This measure would use half the state reserve funds to repay schools for money previously borrowed by the state to cover budget deficits—but only if Prop. 1A also passes. Payments would continue until schools had been paid $9.3 billion.

SUPPORTERS SAY: “This lays out a responsible timeline for paying back schools. It will do a lot to help education,” says Jose Plascencia, president of the Central California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

• The measure would repay schools for money the state borrowed
  
  
• Instead of permanently losing programs to budget cuts, programs could be reintroduced over time.
  
  

Supporters: CA Budget Reform Now (www.cabudgetreformnow.com), CA Teachers Association, CA Federation of Teachers, CA State PTA, CA State Conference of the NAACP, CA Chamber of Commerce

OPPONENTS SAY: “We support teachers and children, but Prop.1B is directly dependent on Prop. 1A—and Prop. 1A is so horribly flawed, there’s just no way we could support it,” says Bonnie Castillo, government relations director for the CA Nurses Association.

• The measure would not take effect unless Prop. 1A also passes (see above)
  
  
• The measure is the result of the state’s “inability to govern,” adds Castillo—because it wouldn’t be needed if the state hadn’t used school funds to cover previous deficits.
  
  

Opponents: California Nurses Association, AFSCME (state council)

Prop. 1C: State Lottery

By Elyce Petker

This measure would sell $5 billion in bonds to help cover the state budget deficit—and repay the bonds with future lottery proceeds. Schools would get more state funds instead of lottery proceeds. Other changes to how the lottery is managed would allow higher prizes.

SUPPORTERS SAY: “Without this step, the government will have to cut $5 billion from somewhere else,” says Jose Plascencia, president of the Central California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. The measure would:

• Protect education funding
  
  
• Help balance the state budget
  
  
• Prevent higher taxes.
  
  

Supporters: CA Budget Reform Now (www.cabudgetreformnow.com), CA State PTA, CA State Conference of the NAACP, CA Chamber of Commerce

OPPONENTS SAY: “We think the bonds are not likely to sell and would end up being very expensive to the state,” says Trudy Schafer, senior program director of the CA League of Women Voters.

• The measure assumes lottery sales will increase, despite the declining economy
  
  
• The bonds would require millions in interest payments each year for 20-30 years
  
  
• The measure would increase the tax burden of low-income Californians, the ones who mostly buy lottery tickets.
  
  

Opponents: CA League of Women Voters (www.lwvc.org), CA Federation of Teachers, CA Nurses Association, AFSCME (state council), California Tax Reform Association

Prop. 1D: Children and families trust fund

By Ellen Noyes

The measure would take $268 million each year for five years away from First 5 (Prop. 10) programs—plus $340 million in unspent funds—to pay for children’s programs now funded by the state budget. Other changes would include using First 5 funds only for “direct services.” First 5-funded programs include early care and education, health, parent education, and family support.

• A yes vote would cut First 5 funding

• A no vote would keep First 5 funding
  
  

SUPPORTERS SAY: The measure would “temporarily provide greater flexibility in funding to preserve services for young children while helping balance the state budget,” according to the California Taxpayers Association website.

• The state needs to make cuts in tough economic times.
  
  
• First 5 is sitting on unspent dollars.
  
  

Supporters: CA Budget Reform Now (www.cabudgetreformnow.com), Association of CA School Administrators, CA Latino Child Development Association, CA State Conference of the NAACP, CA Chamber of Commerce

OPPONENTS SAY:  The measure would “reduce funding for crucial children’s programs and cut children’s services,” says Anthony Wright, executive director  of Health Access. The measure would

• Take away up to 60-70% of First 5 funds—868,000 children now receive First 5-funded services each year.
  
  
• Cut California’s investment in children—though these programs save money in the long run because children do better in school, get better paying jobs, and are less likely to use welfare, foster care, or go to prison.
  
  
• Eliminate important First 5 programs that “aren’t ‘direct service’—training teachers, building preschools, children’s health initiatives. Almost no other resources (fund) this,” says Sherry Novick, executive director of the First 5 Association of CA. 
  
  
• First 5 has unspent money because it budgets for multi-year programs.
  
  

Opponents: No on 1D (www.noonproposition1d.com), Health Access, First 5 Association of CA, CAEYC, CA Federation of Teachers, CA Nurses Association, CA League of Women Voters, AFSCME (state council)

Prop. 1E: Mental health services

By Elyce Petker

This measure would take $225-$230 million each year for two years away from programs funded by the Mental Health Services Act (Prop. 63). Instead, the funds would go to the existing state Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program (a child health program). Prop. 63 now funds almost a quarter of mental health services in the state.

• A yes vote would cut mental health (Prop. 63) funding

• A no vote would keep mental health (Prop. 63) funding
  
  
  

SUPPORTERS SAY: “We believe the financial crisis is going to grow and more children’s programs will be cut. (This measure would) fund programs at risk of being cut,” says Jose Plascencia, president of the Central California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. The measure would

• Save the state money in the long run
  
  
• Help balance the budget and avoid tax increases.
  
  

Supporters: California Budget Reform Now (www.cabudgetreformnow.com), Association of CA School Administrators, CA State Conference of the NAACP, CA Chamber of Commerce

OPPONENTS SAY:  “This (would) take money away from programs that help low-income families and children. It’s a temporary solution at the expense of our mental health programs,” says CA League of Women Voters senior program director Trudy Schafer. The measure would

• Cost the state more in the long run because of the consequences of untreated mental illness—200,000 previously untreated people are now served by Prop. 63-funded programs.
  
  
• Cut mental health programs to backfill a tiny portion of the state budget—and jeopardize federal matching funds
  
  
• Be the first step to taking away all Prop. 63 mental health funds.

Opponents: No on Prop. 1E (www.noprop1e.com), Health Access California, CA Federation of Teachers, CA Nurses Association, AFSCME (state council)

More election info:

CA League of Women Voters
www.ca.lwv.org/

Key election dates

• Order Easy Voter Guide in five languages
• Nonpartisan explanations of ballot measures
• Your polling place and local election information

Voter registration deadline is May 4, 2009.

Your vote is your voice!

Extra resources from the Children’s Advocate bulletin

• California Budget Project offers in-depth, nonpartisan analyses of Propositions 1A, 1C, 1D, and 1E.
  
  
• Smart Voter, from the League of Women Voters, provides nonpartisan information on state and local ballot measures, searchable by address or zip code.
  
  

To stay informed about new and upcoming Children’s Advocate articles, related resources, and advocacy opportunities, sign up for our Children’s Advocate bulletin