PD EDITORIAL: List of recommendations for May 19 election

Here is a complete list of Press Democrat editorial recommendations for the May 19 election.

Proposition 1A: Spending cap and taxes — YES

The central character in this stage production, its provisions include a two-year extension of the 1 percent sales tax increase the Legislature approved earlier this year. We’re not fans of sales tax increases, particularly during a down economy. But without those extra years of sales tax revenue, the state’s shortfall would grow by $16 billion. On the more positive side, Proposition 1A provides some necessary reforms, including a cap on spending and a rainy-day reserve fund, which should help the state get off its financial roller-coaster.

Proposition 1B: School funding guarantee — NO

This $9.3 billion pledge to schools and community colleges sounds good. But it promises money the state may not have, which perpetuates the irresponsible practice of budgeting by initiative that has contributed mightily to the state’s fiscal woes. Proposition 1B is the epitome of legislative logrolling, drafted not to balance the state budget but to ensure that the California Teachers Association didn’t devote its substantial resources to defeating Proposition 1A.

Proposition 1C: State lottery loan — YES

Given the misleading title of “Lottery Modernization Act,” this measure would authorize the state to expand the lottery and borrow $5 billion from future proceeds. It’s one of three sources of revenue — Propositions 1D and 1E represent the other two — that state officials are hoping to access to bridge the budget deficit. There are many aspects of these measures to dislike. But, in the end, voters should support them because the alternatives are far worse.

Proposition 1D: Early childhood education funds — YES

This one takes $268 million a year for five years in Proposition 10 (tobacco tax) money that had been set aside for a variety of children’s services. It also calls for taking about $300 million in reserve funds currently held by the state’s First Five commission.

Proposition 1E: Mental health funds — YES

This measure would “redirect” $226 million this year — and up to $234 million next year — in Proposition 63 revenue. Proposition 63 was approved by voters in 2004 as a surtax on millionaires in California. The temptation to vote no on each of these last three propositions — 1C, 1D and 1E — is understandable. But doing so would not be a slap at state lawmakers as some opponents contend. It would be a slap at students, the poor and those most vulnerable in our own communities who would likely be hurt through even greater cuts in state programs and services. The governor and Legislature have already slashed $15.8 billion from the budget and those reductions — including the loss of music and woodshop programs in schools — are just beginning to be felt at the local level. Another round would decimate some programs.[/FACTS_00]

Proposition 1F: Elected officials’ pay raises — YES

Proposition 1F would deny pay raises to legislators and other state elected officials for any year in which the state runs a deficit. It could be argued that lawmakers shouldn’t be forced to choose between their paychecks and their principles. However, there’s little justification for salary increases if the state is operating in the red. And it would create a link between pay and performance, something familiar to practically every other working person.