Hi Shwain,

I'm voting no on all the propositions. More borrowing is what got us into this mess, and won't solve anything.

If people have to be laid off, so be it.

It ain't a bed of roses in the private sector either.

Our whole government - not just calif ones - are giving us the fear mongering "sky is falling" senerios. what else is new?

Shwaine, I understand your frustration, and it can seem like this recession is just a red herring. However, Education will be decimated if it doesn't get these funds. Arnold already borrowed money from education's guaranteed budget which comes from Prop. 98. Then, after he didn't pay it back and the budget wasn't signed last year he froze 98 which allowed him to cut the budget by 10%. That is what happened coming into this present school year. Several months ago he promised an influx of cash for California's schools to make up for the deficit he put into motion last summer. Then when he realized that the Stimulus plan was going to give the State money specifically for education, he pulled the supplemental money! Prop 1B isn't going to raise money for education, it is only going to provide funds to give districts what they were previously promised by Arnold. If we do not get it, which seems to be the case because everyone is so scared and selfish, then more teachers will be laid off, more staff will be gone, sports and the arts will be eliminated in a lot of places, and class size will go up so far as to make instruction nearly impossible. We had a good system three years ago, and now it is crap because the Governor and State Legislators were too reactionary instead of being clam and rational. The long term effects of a diseased educational system are more poverty, crime, and gangs. In five years the state will be screaming for more police and prisons to control and house the junior high kids we have today. No joke. Please vote Yes on 1A and 1B

I couldnt agree more jlocke. The schools are hurting. CA needs to cut programs that arent working. Tighten up frivilous spending and focus on our education system.

The current budget situation has been building for some time in education. I saw it coming five years ago with rampant spending. At this point I have heard so much whining from educators, I am ready to accept us being "decimated." We cry wolf year after year. If it is not funding, it is testing. Frankly, the public is sick of us. We have reaped what we have sown. My last issue of some silly teacher union magazine was one long "bitch and moan" session. No help on being a better teacher, just "what I don't have."

Perhaps tearing her down is the best way to rebuild her even better. I have books, I have a white board. I can teach. Will the children suffer for it? Only if the educators can't adjust. I'm preparing for the worst conditions (which are quite coonfortable by other countries standards.)

No on all Prop 1's.

A little over half of the state budget is used for education spending.

Naturally, it’s the biggest target for budget cuts.

The only long term solution is reform of our education system, and tossing more money at the system will just delay vital reforms.

The system is far too top heavy with unneeded management. Teacher pay and benefits are out of control. The benefits and unfunded retirement liabilities have become unsustainable, and will keep the system in crisis until real reforms are put in place.

If dedicated teachers are truly concerned, a better solution is voluntary pay and benefit cuts to allow full staffing. Teacher pay and benefits have outpaced inflation for years.

Private sector unions nation wide have been making concessions on pay and benefits for years in order to preserve jobs.

It’s time the public sector did the same.

Good luck with that one. Teachers are the tighest people I've ever met. Including me. I consider myself a dedicated teacher, but I also can't afford a pay cut.

I have no problem with working harder, though.

And we haven't had a raise in some time in my district.

i tend to vote no on most propositions, reason being they will cost more money.  i was conflicted though about 1B until i read that its passage is contingent on passage of 1A

i've already decided how i'm gonna vote, so i threw out my voter information guide already, but the information on 1A said something to the effect of giving the governor  sole power to make mid-year changes as he deems them necessary.  i just do not feel comfortable with one person having that kind of power.  

so sadly, i will be voting no on 1B

and witbee is correct on teachers not getting raises.  for example:  all districts receive money from state/federal funding for COLA (cost of living adjustments)  however, in a district i used to work for, our union had to FIGHT for that money that should've rightly been our COLA.  we gave up on raises, we were just asking for the funds that had been marked for that purpose and some years we did not even get that.  i have no clue where that specific funding went.  it certainly di dnot go where iet was supposed to.

and just to throw this in:  last week most districts in this area celebrated teacher appreciation week.  so happy teacher appreciation week and thank you to all hard-working teachers! 

The whole government is hurting. If we give all this money to schools, then what about the CSU and UC (which will be hurt by these propositions since they aren't included under the education umbrella), the DMV, Health and Human Services, CalTRANS, etc, etc, etc. You can't balance a budget by robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Start cutting some administrative positions across the board since those positions tend to have higher pay and less value per dollar than the working grunts. No more 6-figure perk jobs for the likes of Parra. There's plenty of fat still to be trimmed if the administrative side bore their share of the burden instead of laying off teachers and officers or imposing furloughs. Let's take away perks like cars and housing bonuses. Let's publish how much of our education budget (at all levels from elementary up to UC) and safety budget is spent on the actual work (teachers, officers, supplies, utilities, etc) and how much is spent on administrative functions. If that ratio seems off (and I suspect it would in several agencies), then time to investigate what administrative roles are truly needed and how much they are payed.

Just look around locally and you'll find examples of possible excessive administrative costs. Does the CSUB president really need $350k a year (with all the perks included)? Why are there all these 6-figure administrative positions at CSUB? What about the head of KMC, does he really need the 300k salary TBC reported a year or so ago? Just take a look at the SacBee database of state worker salaries and you can see there's still fat to be trimmed: www.sacbee.com/statepay/

I read a mailing from Jean Fuller http://republican.assembly....  recently which contained a pie chart of the California state budget.  This chart showed that education sucked up 58.8% of the budget.  No wonder when cuts are needed the first place to look is education.   Do you suppose if employees got some kind of a reward for cutting departmental budgets they would be more apt to find areas where they could save money?

Well, KGET just had a story on the Panama-Buena Vista school district and I was suprised to hear the superintendent asked to have his salary contract reviewed. Now if only more administrators would volunteer for such a process, perhaps some fat could be trimmed. More money needs to go to direct educational costs (teachers, books, building upkeep, etc) and less to administrators.

Administration in my district certainly not a problem. Now at the state, definitely. The whole credentialing system is a sham where good tax money goes to die. Return teacher credentialing to local control and you would save much.

Also, the dirty little secret is that we spend an obscene amount of money on Special Education. Don't get yourself in a tizzy, now. If you genuinely look at the situation, there are often huge wastes of money involved supported by a multitude of laws that sounded good at the time.

Basically all responsibility to educate a student is put on the school and that is costly. Why should schools have to pay for special ed transportation by law and not the other students? Why should schools have to buy expensive equipment for a single student? WHy shouldn't the parents be responsible for getting them to school and making sure they have the necessary technology to learn? Of course, no one will even think about cutting in this area. Bad publicity......

How do you folks feel about Prop 1F? If passed it would freeze lawmakers' pay raises if budget is set for deficit.  http://www.turnto23.com/new...    http://www.turnto23.com/vid...

My vindictive side likes how 1F sounds on the surface, but one really shouldn't vote based on vindictive emotion. But I also feel 1F doesn't do enough. It doesn't provide much incentive to get the lawmakers to pass a balanced budget (or penalty for not passing a budget on time). What really is needed is to revoke the proposition that prevents lowering salaries, or at least allow a clause that they can be reduced when the state is running a deficit or when they can't pass a budget within a month of the due date.

I have done all my homework on this special election.  I have read the booklet that comes in the mail, which presents both sides of each proposition, as well as outlines what each prop will do (i dont have faith in a state-printed document for presenting ALL the facts though).  I have also searched the internet and sorted through literally thousands of of posts, websites, blogs, forums, politicians personal websites, etc.

this is what i have concluded

given the action of state run government entities, like .........(these are just examples off the top of my head)

• CARB (running businesses out of this state by the thousands with their draconian implementation of rules and regulations....bye bye business taxes)
• state and local police for not shutting our southern border down to stem the flow of illegal aliens, which to an extent larger than most would like to admit, takes money from the state in the form of social services, free schooling for their children, and is a direct recipient for all these FREE programs recently created (first 5, healthy families, etc)
• and the WORST...our lawmakers for largely ignoring a common sensical approach of budgeting, which we the people must adhere to....cutting the unnecessary items out (i have a LONG list)  from showering inmates with a lifestyle afforded by the CA taxpayers to allowing parents to NOT participate in their children's education. 

it is no wonder we are in this financial Armageddon.

I am going to personally vote NO on every PROP.  We are already the highest taxed state in the union, thanks to gross monetary mismanagement on the state level.  We dont need any more taxes.  This will send a message to our legislators that they are doing a poor job, and that more constituent input (which we give, but they just dont listen .......great example  ROY ASSBURN) is needed to guide this state out of the financial sewer.

as far as education, how education is the largest piece of the budget is beyond me, when we rank close to LAST in the country for monies per pupil in spending

I finally agree with Jlocke on something...the education system does need to be overhauled.  As it stands, it currently enables irresponsibility by not requiring parents to take an active role in their children's education.  textbooks, which now cost in the range of 100 dollars and up, arent even inventoried any more, because so many are lost.  teachers in the state of CA have been  told that lost textbooks are an "expected expense" , a "built-in loss" and to not worry about collecting for missing books.

the schools give free breakfast, free lunch, free clothes, free books, when the education is already free.  it makes no sense.  Education is supposed to teach personal responsibility.  In fact, it does just the opposite in the districts were personal responsibility needs to be taught the most.

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITIONS 1A THROUGH 1F....SELF-SUFFICIENT CALIFORNIA PEOPLE CANNOT AFFORD  THEM

and the WORST...our lawmakers for largely ignoring a common sensical approach of budgeting, 

And here's where California could be saved--by eliminating the two-thirds rule on passing a budget. 

i think the 2/3 rule is good for a budget, as it helps marginalize special interest groups, which always carry a minority voice which is usually far from mainstream.

i think the 2/3 majority is good

And therein lies the whole California budget problem:  the nutty Republicans can hold the entire state for ransom.

you mean common sense.    spending our way out of economic troubles doesnt work..we all know that.

the budget problems go much much deeper than a vote on a budget RF. 

parra and her new job

inmates living a lavish lifestyle behind bars on our dime

people who make welfare a lifestyle

free medical care for those that cannot afford it

these are probably less than 1% of the problems and poor decisions that dominate our financial ruin that lay before us.

spending our way out of economic troubles doesnt work..we all know that.

Depends on the troubles.  We all know *THAT*.

.

the budget problems go much much deeper than a vote on a budget RF. 

They all stem from that vote.

 .

inmates living a lavish lifestyle behind bars on our dime

Spent much time in state prison?  I hear they're not exactly on the Michelin guide four-star list.  The problem is not that we treat prisoners too well, it's that we put far too many people in jail in the first place.

.

people who make welfare a lifestyle

Otherwise known as "children."

.

free medical care for those that cannot afford it

Otherwise known as "children."

Wanna know where virtually every single one of California's budget problems comes from?

Proposition 13.

the budget problems have been known for years before the vote a couple of months ago.  California has been swimming in debt for the better part of this decade

this budget problem is an example of the issues that stem from groupthink (not the legislative minority group, either)

Learnen, you obviously don't follow the state budget process very closely.

Every single year the same thing happens:  irresponsibile Republicans hold the budget up for ransom, until through some accounting gimmick they "balance" things out, in a four-person meeting.  And next year they do it all again.

After Props 1a etc fail in the upcoming election, we'll push to remove the extortion power of the one-third (and shrinking) Republican minority who refuse to raise taxes on yachts to pay for education.

i do follow it ....but you have to remember.....our opinions are nowhere near being close, so how you see things isnt going to be how i see things

it the budget wasnt so out of whack thanks to the tax and spend idealistics of certain politicians, then what you speak of wouldnt be happening.

when the props fail, not only will it force the hand to closely examine all the states expenditures, line by line, but would also lend a louder voice to the constituents, who didnt get to vote on a majority of the tax and spend programs that cost our state so dearly every year...they were passed in congress, which doesnt require a super majority.

to blame this all on one group is just...well, for the fact of not wanting to offend you, i will use the word, WRONG

California is an expensive place to live and an expensive place to govern.  The Republicans don't want to pay the bills. That's fairly simple and straightforward. 

What I find absurd is that it takes a 2/3rd majority of the legislature to pass a budget but only 50%+1 majority for the voters to force some item to be in the budget (e.g. propositions that force certain spending). Talk about tying hands.

Oh, and Random, Prop 13 is not the problem. Limiting property tax growth is a good thing, because it protects home owners from a bubble market. I imagine there would have been many people locally who would have been unable to pay their property tax bill if property taxes were allowed to float up to market levels every year. Perhaps there needs to be some revision of the amount the bill can grow by (maybe 5% instead of 3%), but tying the property tax to the value when you last took out a mortgage or improved the house does make sense in a long-term perspective. It prevents spikes that might drive people out of homes they could previously afford.

Oh, and Random, Prop 13 is not the problem.

New to California, are you?

Prop 13 was a massive scam perpetrated on the people of the State of California, and it's been hurting California's budgeting process ever since.  Homeowners were *NEVER* its intended beneficiaries--corporations were.

.

What I find absurd is that it takes a 2/3rd majority of the legislature to pass a budget but only 50%+1 majority for the voters to force some item to be in the budget (e.g. propositions that force certain spending). Talk about tying hands.

Bingo.  Reverse those two things.

Oh, and Random, Prop 13 is not the problem. Limiting property tax growth is a good thing, because it protects home owners from a bubble market.

It also inhibits the state from paying its bills and makes legislators try to trick you by getting revenue from other sources (i.e. doubling DMV registration fees)

(i.e. doubling DMV registration fees)

You should research the history on that.   One of the Gropenfuehrer's first actions was to nearly double the state's deficit by *CUTTING* the VLF for his friends who own hummers and yachts.

Someone has a blog right now about their DMV fees doubling.  He could be lying but I'll take it at face value.  Perhaps he doesn't own a hummer or yacht?  I guess the fee will be added to you phone bill then.  They'll find some way to trick you, Random.

My registration fees are higher in CA than when I've lived in other states or countries.  Cost of doing business, I guess.

Everything is higher in California.  There's a state-by-state comparison somewhere but it's misleading, because other states include or leave out things that are in the CA VLF.

VLF's are roughly going back where they were before Ah-nold cut them.

That's true but I think CA has better infrastructure (roads, facilities, etc,) than most states.

Praise be to Pat Brown, the Father, and his Only-Begotten Son*.

(Who was wrong about the VLF.)

People, not just on this blog, have been saying that California spends 58% of its budget on education. If you look here; http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/p... you will see that is not the case. We have 6.5 million students in K-12 education. It takes a lot of money to teach them. I feel that quite a bit of money could be cut from Corrections an Rehabilitations. Police and Fire is under H&HS, so why not put Rehabilitation under that while putting Corrections under Judicial Services. This way prisons can be enforced by the legal system and appropriate sentencing can take place. No, I don't think prisons are enjoyable places. However I do think they do not deter criminals like they should. There should not be TV of any kind, only basic health care, and should have to work on State and Local projects six days a week. They should not work for a wage, instead that money should be "paid" to them then taxed back to the state.

All this is opinion, but the fact that we spend more money per prisoner than per student is appaling. There are fewer prisoners than students, so it will never be totally fair, but we can do a lot better. The only sure way to improve the quality of the future is to invest in education. The smarter and more capable the students are, the more likely they they will contribute to society instead of take. But cut education spending to the point of collapse? Then the future will be very bleak indeed.

"CA has better infrastructure (roads, facilities, etc,) than most states."

HA! Is that a laugh....http://www.usatoday.com/new...

Maybe once upon a time, but California's roads are regularly ranked among the top five worst nationwide. The USA Today link says California and Missouri have the worst roads. I must concur, having driven on a fair number of highways across the nation.

Our roads stink. Part of that is due to the fact that money slated for road building and repairs has regularly gotten sucked out of the budget to shore up other areas of the state.

We have worked ourselves into a situation where the state is nigh on to ungovernable. Random is right...Prop. 13 was a total unmitigated DISASTER.

And learnem, the problem with the 2/3rds majority is exactly the opposite of what you claim: it specifically allows an organized minority to hold up the process and forces untenable concessions. Have you ever stopped to think why we go through this pointless exercise every single year? Perhaps we have finally gotten to the point that we might actually have to do something about it that is constructive.

All this is opinion, but the fact that we spend more money per prisoner than per student is appaling.

Not to be flippant about it, but we could easily benefit by having more students and fewer prisoners. 

Jlocke, the figure for education includes higher education, which is how you come up with 58 percent. The proposed budget would reduce that to 54 percent. (41.6 percent for K-12, 13.0 percent for higher education). Colleges and universities are included in the total for educational spending.

Mark Twain once said in a speech dedicating a library, something about every time you close down a school you have to build a jail.

I believe it's been shown that the single best predictive factor in whether an inmate will return to jail after release is how well he reads when he leaves prison.  The worse the reading level, the bigger the chance he'll be back.

California is an expensive place to live and an expensive place to govern.  The Republicans don't want to pay the bills. That's fairly simple and straightforward. 

because our legislators made it that way...we have food grown right here in the state.......its the freekin taxes and the nazisms of groups like CARB that cost so much. 

pie in the sky ideologies when i would say close to1/3 of the state is on the gubment dole.

its not expensive to welfare recipients....which seems to the the citizens de jour that the state wants lately

I believe it's been shown that the single best predictive factor in whether an inmate will return to jail after release is how well he reads when he leaves prison.  The worse the reading level, the bigger the chance he'll be back.

well, then someone failed in their responsibility of being a parent, making sure they take advantage of the free education that is offered.........oh wait....the illegal aliens cant read...

it shouldnt be our job to educate them....if they want it bad enough, let them pay for it, not the taxpayer

Random and jlocke, if you feel corporations are getting off too easy on Prop 13, then push to have it modified for corporate property. But Prop 13 does protect the private homeowner from being priced out of their home due to a boom market and should not be repealed entirely. I know my parents could not have afforded to stay in Westchester (where they bought when prices were 60-70k) during the boom of the last few years had the property tax increased to market value. They're on a limited income and they would not have been able to pay a double or triple property tax bill brought on by a bubble in the real estate market.

Oh, and the VLF is still below the 1990s values. People complained too much about it going back to that level, so they chose a percentage between the 1990s percentage and the cut percentage. People are still complaining, but I think the thread jlocke mentions is exagerating how much the increase was to make a political point. I've already posted that thought there this morning, but have not checked back in on it yet this afternoon. I'm sure learnem disagrees with my assessment though.

The single biggest problem with Prop. 13 is it's totally divorced from reality. How many of us would like to lock in our expenses, more or less, at a level of 30 years ago? That's simply unrealistic. I thought the free market was supposed to adjust for these things. Locking in tax rates for senior citizens seems so...so...socialistic. There's that word again.

The other problem with Prop. 13 is it has forced the state to become overly reliant upon sales and income taxes for better than two-thirds of income...which are especially clobbered in a recession...which is part of why the state is in the (ahem) state it is now.

If you guys hate Prop 13 so much, go try to pay property taxes in a commonwealth state sometime. You'll then realize while Prop 13 isn't ideal, something like that is needed to protect private homeowners from an unduely large tax bill. It's great to sit up on a high horse and say "how socialistic", but the reality is that when it comes to an expense as massive as property tax, there needs to be some buffer against massive changes in it unless you want homes going up for auction left and right for failure to pay property taxes during a bubble. Oh, and people get a fixed rate mortage for 30 years, so the concept of locking in an expense for that time frame... not too wild when it comes to real estate. Reform might be needed, but to repeal Prop 13 entirely is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Now, can we stop drifting and get back to the topic of this blog: the special election propositions and how people feel about them.

(~Agrees with Shwaine~ ~Wondering why old folks should have their rent to the state double or triple because some speculators ran up the "value" of their homes?~)

"....the reality is that when it comes to an expense as massive as property tax, there needs to be some buffer against massive changes in it unless you want homes going up for auction left and right for failure to pay property taxes during a bubble."

Massive? My property tax is $200 per month. I bought my home in 1995 for $150,000. I get little value from Prop. 13.

Compared to my property tax, I pay nearly half that for Internet service and cable TV each month, and when you add in phone, electricity and water, I pay more than I pay in taxes.

Massive? What's massive when it comes to property taxes? I mean, I know it's relative, but still....

One of the problems I see with Prop. 13 is folks who've been in their houses for 25 years are less likely to have much in the way of income taxes to contribute to the pot. Chances are they're not likely to have much in the way of sales taxes, either.

Meanwhile, the folks with kids, starting out, pay far more in income taxes, sales taxes AND property taxes. Granted, they're more likely to have kids in the educational system so it's probably only fair, but I still contend the system is broken. Repealing or at least massively restructuring Prop. 13 would go a long way towards fixing this problem.

'Course, when Nancy bellyaches about that onerous $15 a month she's paying for car tags....

$200 a month is a lot to many people who do not have things like cable TV (all those ads about the digital transition aren't for the benefit of cable subscribers), cell phones, high-speed Internet access and so forth. Double that to $400 and a lot of people would be unable to pay. For most people, particularly in this area, $200 a month is a huge amount of money that they just don't have to spare simply because the market is bubbling.

Now, can we get back to the subject of the propositions?

"Massive? My property tax is $200 per month. I bought my home in 1995 for $150,000. I get little value from Prop. 13."

Without it, you would have been paying $500-$600 per month around 2006.