Over the past few weeks, I have provided my thoughts about specific propositions. This week, I will summarize how I voted on all the propositions.
As a general note, I am inclined to vote against bond measures. The state has about $82 billion of outstanding general obligation bonds and voters have approved $44 billion which have yet to be issued. The propositions seek to add $44.65 billion to those amounts. If passed, they would be a crushing financial burden to the state.
Proposition 1: Bond issuance to fund income-qualified housing programs. This proposition would add $11.25 billion to state debt. I voted No.
Proposition 2: Budget Stabilization Account Cap Increase and Gann Limit Changes Amendment. Makes Changes to the Budget Stabilization Account (AKA “Rainy Day Fund”). This is an incredibly complex measure. I previously wrote a column with a lukewarm endorsement. However, after rereading the measure, I changed my mind and voted No because it contains a loophole that can convert the rainy day fund to a slush fund.
Proposition 3: Higher Education Funding. Makes the 10% income tax bracket permanent. I am not necessarily opposed to the tax, but I am opposed to making it permanent in this manner. This is a prime example of how temporary taxes become permanent. I voted No.
Proposition 4: Election Administration/Campaign Finance. Repeals ban on public financing of campaigns, enacted in 1988, and allows state and local governments to create programs providing eligible candidates with public funds under spending limits and eligibility rules. I do not believe that political campaigns should be taxpayer funded, so I voted No.
Proposition 5: Eliminate State Officer Recall Successor Elections Amendment. Amends the state constitution to change certain aspects of the recall process. For reasons discussed in a previous column, this is a needed reform. I voted Yes.
Proposition 37: Second Mortgage Homebuyer Program and Revenue Bond Initiative. Authorizes the state to issue $25 billion of revenue bonds to provide financing for certain qualified home buyers who lack a downpayment. As discussed in a previous column, this elaborate program will likely result in a high rate of foreclosures in the next economic downturn. I voted No.
Proposition 38: Immunology and Immunotherapy Research Funding Initiative. Authorizes the state to issue $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research. Don’t be fooled by the advertisements; the bulk of the funding will go to an organization affiliated with the billionaire sponsor of the proposition. I voted No.
Proposition 39: Voter Identification, Citizenship Verification, and Registered Voter List Administration Initiative. Requires voter identification, proof of citizenship to vote. While I am sympathetic to certain changes to the voter registration process, this proposition creates more problems than it solves. I voted No.
Proposition 40: One-Time Wealth Tax for State-Funded Healthcare, Education, and Food Assistance Programs Initiative. Imposes a “one-time” 5% tax on the accumulated wealth of taxpayers and trusts with covered assets valued over $1 billion to fund state health care programs, food assistance programs, and public education. As I wrote in a previous column, it would reduce the long term tax base, is expensive to administer, and gives the Legislature the ability to expand and continue the tax. I voted No.
Proposition 41: Prohibit Excluding New State Taxes from Spending Limit and Require Special Tax Audits Initiative.
Proposition 42: Prohibit New Taxes on Retirement Holdings, Personal Assets, and Savings and Limit Retroactive Taxes Initiative.
Proposition 43: Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Local Special Tax Initiatives and Property Tax Initiative Prohibition Amendment.
All three of these measures protect taxpayers. I voted Yes.
Proposition 44: Require community health clinics spend 90% of revenue on program services. Requires nonprofit federally qualified health centers to spend at least 90% of their annual total revenue on expenses that advance the health center’s mission. Many of these centers have uncontrollable costs exceeding 10% of revenue that do not meet the requirements of this measure. This measure would likely cause those centers to close and deprive people of needed medical services. I voted No.
Proposition 45: Expedited Environmental Review Process for Certain Projects Initiative. Expedites the environmental review process to accelerate the construction of new homes and other projects. It’s the other projects that make this proposition questionable. I do not believe that it is worth compromising environmental safeguards to allow for expedited reviews of projects that could potentially adversely affect the environment. I voted No.
Whether you agree with my views or not, it is important that you vote.
Jim de Bree is a Valencia resident.
