 |
En español: Preguntas
en
la votación de noviembre |
This article originally appeared in the September-October 2004 issue
of the Children's Advocate, published by Action Alliance for Children.
Election 2004
Questions on the November ballot
Proposition 1A - Protection of local government revenues
This measure is the result of a budget deal between Governor Schwarzenegger
and organizations representing cities and counties. It would prohibit
the state government from taking money from local city and county funds
in an effort to balance the state budget. The state would not be able
to change the distribution of sales and property taxes, or make other
changes that would alter the budget of local governments. If this measure
is passed, it would go into effect beginning in 2006-2007.
Arguments for
"Cities need local money for services for their communities,"
says Megan Taylor of the League of California Cities, for libraries, emergency
care, parks, and law enforcement. But each year the state government collects
$1.3 billion from local governments and another $5.2 billion specifically
from local property taxes. When the state "picks the pockets of local
government, it makes it impossible to plan on expenditures for the fiscal
year."
- Local funding will remain local, to be used for community services
and infrastructure.
- This measure will not raise taxes
- "The state needs to learn some fiscal accountability," says
Taylor. Rather than treating local funds as "an ATM," the
state will only be able to borrow local money in the future.
Supporters: League of California Cities (916-658-8228), California
State Association of Counties, California Special Districts Association
Arguments against
More budget crises are likely in the future, because the state's current
sources of revenue basically don't provide enough to pay for yearly expenditures.
In future budget crises, Proposition 1A would "limit the [state's]
flexibility" with funding, says Jean Ross, director of the California
Budget Project.
- Areas of the budget that are not protected by this measure or other
measures would be cut the most. That includes many programs important
to children and families-health care, housing, child welfare, and most
social services.
- Current laws on property taxes and sales taxes give local governments
an incentive to "chase after big-box stores to boost revenues,"
rather than building needed housing, says Ross. This measure would "lock
[local governments] into a system that most observers agree doesn't
work."
NOTE: Although Ross explained why some people oppose Prop. 1A, the
California Budget Project neither supports nor opposes this measure.
Opponent: Carole Migden, chair, State Board of Equalization, 800-400-7115
-Katie Quach
Return to top
Proposition 61 - Children's Hospital Bond Act
This measure would allow the state to sell $750 million worth of bonds
to provide grants for improvements and expansions of California's children's
hospitals. Twenty percent of the funds would be made available for the
five University of California children's hospitals, while 80 percent would
be earmarked for other qualifying children's hospitals in California.
Arguments for
"There's such a need for services provided at children's hospitals,"
said Charity Bracy, vice president of the California Children's Hospital
Association. "We get the kids that are the sickest of the sick."
Supporters say:
- Children's hospitals need access to the latest medical technology
so children with life-threatening illnesses, such as cancer, leukemia,
and diabetes, can be treated effectively.
- Funds would be used to buy new medical equipment, expand children's
hospital emergency rooms, and make more room for seriously ill and injured
children.
Supporters include: California Children's Hospitals Association
(858-974-1644)
Arguments against
No organizations or individuals had filed statements of opposition to
this measure by press time. However, any opposition would probably be
based on the cost of bond measures to taxpayers. When the state sells
bonds, it's borrowing money. When the bond is due, the state has to pay
back the money--with interest--out of the general fund.
-Andrea Hernandez
Return to top
Proposition 63 - Expansion and Funding of Mental Health Services. Income
Tax on Millionaires.
This measure would provide an estimated $680 million in 2005-06, and
more in future years, to expand services for mentally ill children, as
well as adults and seniors, and to develop new prevention, early intervention,
and education programs. A new commission would oversee programs and spending.
Funds would come from an additional 1 percent tax on annual income over
$1 million.
Arguments for
Rusty Selix, executive director of the California Council of Community
Mental Health Agencies, says that for children, the current system seems
to be "fail first"--mental health services are usually available
only after children enter foster care, special education, or juvenile
detention. This initiative would provide early intervention and prevention--which
could reduce the need for more costly programs later on.
Supporters say:
- This measure would make sure that mentally ill children receive care
even if their insurance doesn't pay for it, or they have no insurance.
- Mentally ill homeless people could get off the streets and receive
treatment.
- In the 1960s, California closed mental hospitals and promised to
fund community mental health services. Proponents say the state hasn't
kept that promise.
- Because of large federal tax cuts, millionaires can afford to pay
more state taxes.
Supporters include: Campaign for Mental Health (916-557-1166),
California Psychiatric Association, California Healthcare Association,
California Teachers Association, California Police Chiefs Association,
California Council of Community Mental Health Agencies
Arguments against
"This initiative says, 'If you reside in California and you're a
millionaire, we're going to make you responsible for mental health care,'"
says Larry McCarthy, president of the California Taxpayers Association.
This is unfair to wealthy residents, who, he says, boost California's
economic activity and state revenues.
Opponents say:
- California already relies too much financially on millionaires, who
make up only a small segment of taxpayers.
- Because of high taxes on wealthy people, many are deciding to leave
for neighboring states with lower taxes.
- This tax hike would hurt entrepreneurs who are starting companies
but still filing taxes as personal income-instead, California should
be encouraging small businesses.
- Mental health care should be placed back in the hands of volunteer
church groups rather than "ineffectual" state programs, says
Church of Scientology spokesperson Edward Parkin.
Opponents include: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (916-444-9950),
California Taxpayers Association, Citizens for a Healthy California, Church
of Scientology
-Andrea Hernandez
Return to top
Proposition 66 - Limiting the "Three Strikes" Law. Harsher
Punishment for Sex Crimes
Intended to prevent crime and keep repeat offenders off the street, the
current "Three Strikes" law jails criminals for 25 years to
life after they commit three felonies. This measure would amend the current
law, giving the longer sentences only to repeat offenders whose "third
strike" is a violent or serious felony such as murder, rape, or kidnapping.
It would apply retroactively to people already sentenced under the "Three
Strikes" law. This proposition would also enforce harsher punishment
for sex crimes against children.
Arguments for
"Unfortunately the way 'Three Strikes' was designed to begin with,
it (included) a whole lot of minor crimes, especially on the 'third strike,'"
says Leo McElroy, consultant to Californians Against Violent Crime. "This
law was not intended to put people in jail for life for stealing a pizza."
Supporters say:
- People who commit minor crimes on their third offense--shoplifting
or drug possession, for example--are being unfairly imprisoned for 25
years to life. The "Three Strikes" law takes people away from
their communities and separates parents from their children for minor
crimes.
- It costs taxpayers millions of dollars to keep minor offenders behind
bars for many years.
- According to a study by the Justice Policy Institute, crime in California
counties that rarely use the "Three Strikes" law is decreasing
more than in counties that use the law frequently
- The measure would strengthen one of the original law's weak spots
by increasing penalties for sex
offenders.
Supporters include: Citizens Against Violent Crime (866-3-STRIKES),
American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, Center for Children
of Incarcerated Parents, Mental Health Association in California
Arguments against
"It's no more than a wolf in sheep's clothing," says Lance
Corcoran, executive vice president of the California Correctional Peace
Officers Association. "It's going to put about 20,000 convicted felons
on the street within approximately 120 days if the measure is successful."
Opponents say:
- The amended law will not discourage crime as well as the current
"Three Strikes" law, which has effectively kept career criminals
off the streets.
- Over 20,000 second and third strike inmates would be eligible to
be immediately released.
- Because the law is retroactive, millions of dollars would be spent
to reprocess and re-sentence offenders.
- According to FBI statistics, California's crime rate has decreased
by twice the national average since voters approved the "Three
Strikes" law in 1994.
Opponents include: California Correctional Peace Officers Association
(888-556-5150), California District Attorneys Association, Californians
United for Public Safety, Crime Victims United of California
-Andrea Hernandez
Return to top
Proposition 67 - tax for emergency health care
This measure would increase funding for emergency health care, including
improvements in paramedic and emergency room care and the 911 phone system
and pay for on-call doctors. Funds would come from a tax increase of 3
percent on all telephone use and an additional 50-cent monthly increase
on residential phone bills, as well as some funds from tobacco taxes and
from fines from criminal and traffic violations.
Arguments for
"California is approaching 7 million uninsured. The emergency room
is therefore used for primary [health] care," says Peter Warren,
spokesperson for Coalition to Preserve Emergency Care, an organization
representing firefighters, nurses, physicians, and others. "Passage
of this bill would ensure that access to high-quality care remains available."
- In the past decade, approximately 60 emergency hospital rooms have
closed due to lack of funding. This has created overcrowding and longer
wait times in other emergency rooms.
- In the current 911 system, calls made from cell phones cannot be
tracked. Improvements in this system could save lives.
- Improved emergency care is important during emergencies like earthquakes
or fires.
Supporters include: Coalition to Preserve Emergency Care (213-630-1126),
California Medical Association, California Healthcare Association, California
Primary Care Association
Arguments against
"Proposition 67 is simply a raid on a convenient taxation target
to fund services that have nothing to do with phone use," says Reed
Royalty of the Orange County Taxpayers Association. "We should not
raise our own telephone taxes to fund services that are vaguely defined."
- The amount of the tax on cell phone charges remains unclear.
- The tax rate on telephone service is already higher than taxes on
other goods and services.
- The way funds will be spent remains vague.
Opponents include: The Orange County Taxpayer's Association (949-240-6226),
telephone and cell phone companies such as Cingular, Verizon, T-Mobile
and SBC, Californians to Stop the Phone Tax, California Chamber of Commerce,
California State Sheriffs Association
-Katie Quach
Return to top
Proposition 72 - employer-paid health insurance
Last year California passed a law (known as "SB-2") requiring
medium and large employers to provide health insurance for their employees
or pay into a state fund that would insure them. By 2006, employers with
more than 200 workers would have to provide health insurance for employees
and their dependents. By 2007, employers with 50 to 199 workers would
be required to provide health insurance, but only for employees. Prop.
72 was created by people who want to repeal SB-2.
A "yes" vote means you want to keep SB-2, you want to
require employers to provide health insurance. A "no" vote
means you want to repeal SB-2, you don't want to require employers to
provide health insurance.
Arguments for
Passage of this measure would provide health insurance for 1.1 million
people. Approximately "300,000 of those who would benefit from Prop.
72 would be children," says Jessica Rothaar of the advocacy group
Health Access. With the current rise in health care costs, more people
are losing health insurance.
- Health insurance would become available to under-insured groups,
such as retail and service workers and immigrant communities.
- Coverage currently offered through employers would be protected.
- Uninsured visits to emergency rooms cost taxpayers $4.6 billion a
year. If more people have insurance, those costs will be reduced.
- We would get a "healthier, more productive, less transient workforce,"
says Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access.
Supporters include: Health Access California (510-873-8787), Latino
Issues Forum, California Medical Association, California Nurses Association,
Catholic Charities, California Labor Federation
Arguments against
"The rising number of uninsured is a problem," acknowledges
Dr. James Knight, spokesperson for the No on 72 organization and former
president of the San Diego County Medical Society. But the rising cost
of health insurance would mean businesses would have to cut back services
or lay off workers in order to afford the mandatory health insurance.
- There are no cost controls on health insurance in California, so
insurance premiums could continue to rise
dramatically.
- The cost of providing insurance might force smaller businesses, including
non-profit organizations, to lay off workers or even close.
- Companies with 200 or more employees would pay $5,718 per worker.
Mid-sized companies would pay $2,276 per worker.
Opponents include: No on 72 (916-443-3354), California Chamber
of Commerce, California Restaurant Association, California Retailers Association,
California Taxpayers Association
-Katie Quach
Return to top
|
