There's an Election Next Week?: The Appeal's Oversimplified Guide to the State Propositions

I smell a Constitution Convention for California coming soon ... hopefully before the state goes bankrupt. They should have put Proposition 1F as 1A .. the feel good measure ... and then if sticking it to the legislators by voting YES felt good, you might be compelled to keep voting YES on down the line. But, they put the most confusing ballot proposition first ... making it VERY easy for folks to vote NO all the way down ... except 1F, the cynics item.

Rita, let me begin by saying how much I love you ... and how this article made me laugh out loud, because you are truly the most hilarious political writer in San Francisco.

But seriously ... there's a lot of stuff you got WAY OFF BASE ...

PROP 1A: The formula for taking money out of the Rainy Day Fund during hard times is incredibly complicated, and nobody on this planet understands it. So we'll be putting up to 12% of the budget aside each year, when we're not sure if it will be seen again. Oh, and Prop 1A lets Arnold make unilateral budget cuts at any time he damn well pleases.

PROP 1E: You pretty much described it as the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what it is. Prop 1E actually *takes away* money for mental health funding, and throws it back into the General Fund. I believe it's criminal, because it effectively makes what Arnold has been trying to do for the last five years -- which was illegal -- perfectly legal. The voters passed Prop 63 in 2004 to get new mental health funding, with the explicit mandate that it be spent on NEW programs, and nothing else. Arnold already got sued, and busted for trying to steal the money away before ... Prop 1E would make that shoplifting legal.

Oh, and your description of PROP 1D ("Take money from kids over 5 to pay for kids under 5") is actually the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Prop 1D really does. It actually steals money from kids under 5, to kids over 5. It would be like your big brother stealing your money -- if children under 5 even had money ... Or maybe it's stealing their teddy bear.

Like I said, I still love you Rita ... you just got a few facts wrong, but know more about these Propositions than 99.9999999999999999% of California.

Brilliantly and expertly done, Rita. As always. You're the only political writer in SF who lacks self-interest and can help me make sense of what's going on.

Brava.

well, hello, Paul! You are always so kind! So.... okay, maybe I'm dense, but are you sure about those?

For 1A, sure, I agree, the dividing up of the money is screwy, I'm not even touching that. But basically, it puts a certain amount of money in a lockbox like a rainy-day fund, and in exchange, frees up a certain amount of money to balance this year's budget. I think we agree on that.

For 1D, though, the bill says it will redirect money from early education funds (which I'm calling "kids over 5" for pithiness) to fund health and human services for children 5 years old and younger. Am I missing something there?

And for 1E, the bill says it'll move money from other areas of the budget to pay for mental health services for young adults and children. Maybe the confusion we're having that some of the money they're moving is from mental health services for older people to fund mental health services for kids? Or am I missing something in the actual text of the bill? (I'm working off the summaries of the bill, because I'm too lazy to wade through the actual legislative text).

Anyways, help me out here! I'm always trying to learn!

In 1998, voters passed a cigarette tax (Prop 10) to fund the "First Five" program. While taking money out of that program and re-directing it to the General Fund (which is what Prop 1D would do) could theoretically go to health programs for OTHER children, it's still robbing Peter to pay Paul.

In 2004, voters passed an income tax on millionaires (Prop 63) to fund mental health programs. The mandate was that it be "new" programs, and the state could not just cut mental health programs elsewhere -- and then use Prop 63 money to "substitute" for mental health. Which is exactly what Arnold tried to do in 2007, but got spanked for it because it was illegal. Again, Prop 1E could re-direct Prop 63 money to fund existing mental health programs -- but it's still robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Rita, Paul pretty much has it right -- the bullet points in the Voter Information Guide are kindasorta misleading at best. Both 1D and 1E take money out of special pools we've voted on in the past. See the Legislative Analyst's bullet points under each prop and you'll see the phrase "corresponding reduction(s) in funding." Bingo. And now the shameless plug: For more on the ballot propositions, including recommendations, read Mad Props at mahnamahna.net each election. :)