Archive - June 2006 ballot

PROP 81 - PASSED

This proposition would allow the state to issue bonds for $600 Million to provide funds for the construction and renovation of public library facilities. Local agencies that apply for funding would be required to pay 35% of the project cost. Funds may not be used for administrative or operational costs.

In 2000 voters approved a similar measure which gave $350 million to fund library projects. However, of the 105 eligible applications that were submitted, only 45 were funded. Prop 81 would grant priority to these outstanding applications.

The problems with this bond are not in the substance (everyone supports libraries), but in the process (bonds). The state simply cannot afford more debt, and general obligation bonds are the worst way to incur it. By the time it is paid off, a $600 million bond will have cost another $570 million in interest. Additionally, bonds drain money from the state's General Fund, which is already saddled with so many obligations that legislators' discretionary control of state spending is ridiculously low. We are becoming a government by referendum in which our state representatives are little more than glorified bureaucrats.

Nearly every year there is another bond measure to rebuild schools or libraries, and nearly every one passes. The state legislators do this because, as I said, everyone supports libraries (and schools). And with each bond we sink deeper in debt, and more of the General Fund is diverted. We cannot continue to borrow for what should be today's priorities. Vote NO.

Read it here.

As a side note, I want to distance myself from the main opponents to this porposition, notably the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the National Tax Limitation Committee. These people are knee-jerk opponents to any kind of public spending. But what is worse is their particular argument in this case. They repeatedly claim that the state won't spend money on libraries because it has redirected that money to "illegal alien welfare"and "reduced college tuition for illegal aliens". This argument is race-baiting and it's despicable.


PROP 82 - FAILED

Prop 82 would make public preschool available on a voluntary basis to all four year old children in CA, beginning in 2010. It would also create new curriculum standards (to be set by the state), as well as staff ratios of one credentialed teacher and one aide for every twenty students.

Teacher qualification requirements would be greatly increased under the proposal. Currently, state pre-school teachers must have at least 40 units of college (about 1.25 years) and 24 units of Early Childhood Education (ECE). If Prop 82 passes, teachers will need a college degree and full ECE certification. However, salaries and benefits for pre-school teachers would be raised to the level of teachers in the K-12 system (currently around $76,000). Collective bargaining rights would also be extended to all employees working under the new preschool program, including those working for private preschools.

The measure would be paid for by an additional tax on individual incomes above $400K (or $800K for couples). This would give California the highest state Personal Income Tax rate in the country.

The state estimates that 62% of the state's 4-year olds already attend some kind of preschool. Of those, about half are served by current state and federal programs such as CA preschool, CA General Child Care, and Federal Head Start.

This means that we would be raising about $2.5 billion per year for a program that is at least 62% redundant. And, since the program would be voluntary, the state estimates participation rates of no more than 70 percent (it estimates another 10% would stay in private preschool).

There is more than enough research to prove that preschool helps prepare children for K-12 education. It lowers drop-outs, and even reduces crime. All kids should have access to it. I really wanted to support this proposition because so many people I respect have endorsed it. In general, I support more funding for education, and I strongly believe the rich should pay more taxes than they do. But the particulars of this proposal are just wrong. Sadly, I'm voting NO.

Read the proposition for yourself.