Proposition 1c

LOTTERY MODERNIZATION ACT

• 
  Allows the state lottery to be modernized to improve its performance with increased payouts, improved marketing, and effective management.
  
• Requires the state to maintain ownership of the lottery and authorizes additional accountability measures.
  
• Protects funding levels for schools currently provided by lottery revenues.
  
• Increased lottery revenues will be used to address current budget deficit and reduce the need for additional tax increases and cuts to state programs.

Sounds good again right? Of course the state should maintain ownership, of course you want the lottery revenues to increase, of course you want to protect funding, no brainer. What? Oh there's more?

• 
  Impact on 2009–10 State Budget: Allows $5 billion of borrowing from future lottery profits to help balance the 2009–10 state budget.
  
• Impact on Future State Budgets: Debt-service payments on the lottery borrowing and higher payments to education would likely make it more difficult to balance future state budgets. This impact would be lessened by potentially higher lottery profits. Additional lottery borrowing would be allowed.

What? You wanna BORROW from the lottery fund? Wait how will that increase the payouts to the education fund? And you are admitting it will make it MORE difficult to balance a budget that the legislature of this state already cant balance in a timely manner? WTF?

Proposition 1b

"EDUCATION FUNDING. PAYMENT PLAN"

EDUCATION FUNDING. PAYMENT PLAN.

• Requires supplemental payments to local school districts and community colleges to address recent budget cuts.
  


• Annual payments begin in 2011–12.
  


• Payments are funded from the state’s Budget Stabilization Fund until the total amount has been paid.
  


• Payments to local school districts will be allocated in proportion to average daily attendance and may be used for classroom instruction, textbooks and other local educational programs.
  


• Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
  


• Fiscal impact would depend on how current constitutional provisions would otherwise be interpreted.
  


• Potential state savings of up to several billion dollars in 2009–10 and 2010–11.
  


• Potential state costs of billions of dollars annually thereafter.
  

Sounds good right? Other than the fact that it doesn't actually happen until 2011? But wait. And this part isn't even on the Secretary of States website, but according to my favorite conservative radio "shock jocks" John Kobalt and Ken Champaeu and their crayola comments (kidding!), Prob 1b can not pass if Prop 1a doesn't pass!

So what the are telling you is, you wanna give money to the schools? You want us to fund education? Then do what we tell you and no body gets hurt. Or as Arnold said in a press conference today, No body burns! As he threatened to fire fireman and put California in danger if Prop 1a didn't pass.

Moving to Las Vegs is looking better and better each day.

Proposition 1a

"STATE BUDGET. CHANGES CALIFORNIA BUDGET PROCESS. LIMITS STATE SPENDING. INCREASES “RAINY DAY” BUDGET STABILIZATION FUND. "

• 
  Increases size of state “rainy day” fund from 5% to 12.5% of the General Fund.
  
• A portion of the annual deposits into that fund would be dedicated to savings for future economic downturns, and the remainder would be available to fund education, infrastructure, and debt repayment, or for use in a declared emergency.
  
• Requires additional revenue above historic trends to be deposited into state “rainy day” fund, limiting spending.

What does that mean to you? At first glance it looks like a great idea, limiting state spending, increasing our rainy day budget. It's a no brainer right?

Wrong.

If you read farther down on the Secretary of State page you will see this:

• Higher state tax revenues of roughly $16 billion from 2010—11 through 2012—13 to help balance the state budget.
  
• In many years, increased amounts of money in state “rainy day” reserve fund.
  
• Potentially less ups and downs in state spending over time.
  
• Possible greater state spending on repaying budgetary borrowing and debt, infrastructure projects, and temporary tax relief. In some cases, this would mean less money available for ongoing spending.

Higher taxes - this is an extension of the tax hike we just got last month. This measure extends it for 2 more years.

Potentially less ups and downs? What do you mean potentially? If we are going to cut state spending let's CUT IT!

Possibly GREATER state spending.....HUH? Wha? Wait a minute, up above it said LESS state spending.

Double talk anyone?


Related articles by Zemanta
A Dialog On California State Spending (seeingtheforest.com)
CA Special Election (repost) (jeffnolan.com)