The guide kicks off the primary voting season, with ballots arriving soon.
Secretary of State Shirley Weber does a good job with the guide. It begins with the “Voter Bill of Rights,” including the qualifications for voting: Being a U.S. citizen living in California, at least 18 years old, registered at your current residence, not serving a felony prison sentence, and not found mentally ill by a court.
Proposition 1
There is only one measure on the March 5 ballot: Proposition 1. That’s because, starting in 2011, the Legislature banned initiatives by the people from appearing on primary ballots. Only the Legislature itself can do so.Conservatives preferred primary elections for their initiatives because turnout is lower, meaning voters tend to be older and more conservative than in the general election. They no longer can do that.
Prop. 1, according to the guide (which uses all capital letters), “AUTHORIZES $6.38 BILLION IN BONDS TO BUILD MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT FACILITIES FOR THOSE WITH MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE USE CHALLENGES; PROVIDES HOUSING FOR THE HOMELESS.”
That’s all most voters read. But the important part is in the summary: “Amends Mental Health Services Act to provide additional behavioral health services. Fiscal Impact: Shift roughly $140 million annually of existing tax revenue for mental health, drug, and alcohol treatment from counties to the state. Increased state bond repayment costs of $310 million annually for 30 years. Supporters: California Professional Firefighters; CA Assoc. of Veteran Service Agencies; National Alliance on Mental Illness-CA. Opponents: Mental Health America of California; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; CalVoices.”
This is why, for three decades, I’ve called bonds “delayed tax increases.” The money has to come from somewhere.
Next are the pro/con arguments (which occasionally use capitalization for emphasis). The pro argument ignores the cost of paying back the bonds: “Proposition 1 addresses California’s urgent crisis of homelessness, mental health and addiction, authorizing $6.4 billion in bonds and directing billions more annually to expand mental health and addiction services, build permanent supportive housing and help homeless veterans. Vote YES on Proposition 1. Learn more at TreatmentNotTents.com.”
Cost Summary
Further into the pamphlet is a good summary of the measure’s fiscal impact by the Legislative Analysis, along with longer pro/con arguments, followed by rebuttals. The pro section is signed by Brian K. Rice, President California Professional Firefighters; James Espinoza, MS, President The Veteran Mentor Project; and Jessica Cruz, MPA/HS, Chief Executive Officer National Alliance on Mental Illness-California.”It lists projects paid for from the bonds, including community-based services, supportive housing, treatment programs instead of incarceration, and homes for veterans.
The argument against is signed by Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones, Assemblymember Diane B. Dixon, both Republicans, and Heidi Strunk, CEO of Mental Health America of California. It begins, “Governor Newsom’s Proposition 1 is a nightmare for taxpayers, cities and counties, and people with mental illness.”
Another “against” segment reads, “PROP. 1 WILL COST TAXPAYERS MORE THAN $10 BILLION. Prop. 1 puts taxpayers on the hook for DECADES to pay back new bonds. This isn’t ‘free money!’ It’s credit card borrowing from Wall Street. According to Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, bonds are the most expensive and inefficient way to pay for a government program. And with interest rates today, it’s a VERY BAD TIME to be taking on new bond debt, adding at least 60% IN INTEREST COSTS, costing taxpayers an estimated $10.58–$12.45 billion.”
The rebuttal to that by the pro-Prop. 1 side is signed by Stephen Peck, Director California Association of Veteran Service Agencies; Jennifer Barrera, CEO California Chamber of Commerce; and Alan W. Barcelona, Chair Orange County Coalition of Police and Sheriffs (OC Cops).
Their main arguments: “Opponents of Proposition 1 want to ignore the crisis of homelessness, mental illness and substance abuse plaguing communities across California. Their position is isolated and extreme. Proposition 1 overwhelmingly passed the California Assembly and Senate with support from Democrats and Republicans because it’s based on compassion and common sense.
“Proposition 1 doesn’t raise taxes. Leading business organizations, including California Retailers Association, support Proposition 1 because it addresses the crisis for the long term without raising taxes.”
68 Pages of Legalese
The guide also helpfully includes the full text of Prop. 1. Except it runs from pages 37 to 105. It’s 68 pages of the guide’s 112 pages, or 61 percent. It’s all legalese nobody is going to read. For example, on p. 37 is this: “SEC. 94. Section 5823 is added to the Welfare and Institutions code, to read:“5892. (a) To promote efficient implementation of this act, the county shall use funds distributed from the Mental Health Services Fund as follows:
“(1) twenty percent of funds distributed to the counties pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 5891 shall be used for prevention and early intervention programs in accordance with Part 3.6 (commencing with Section 5840).”
It’s absurd to make voters try to figure out 68 pages of that.
Prop. 1 this year, and Prop. 63 before it, also are what’s called “ballot-box budgeting.” Such initiatives impose constraints on the Legislature on how it raises and spends money, the main things an elected body does. During tough economic times, it makes it harder for the Legislature to set priorities by cutting some programs in preference to others, instead all but mandating even more tax increases.
- $1 million: State Building and Constitution Trades Council
- $1 million: California Correctional Peace Officers Association (prison guards)
- $1 million: Kaiser Foundation Health Plan
- $1 million: California Hospital Committee
- $500,000: Service Employees International Union
- $275,000: SEIU Local 2015
What about those opposing Prop. 1? How much money did they raise to stop the new spending and eventual higher taxes? The FPPC site reads, “No committee opposing this ballot measure raised enough money to reach the reporting threshold for this list.”
In Sacramento parlance, it’s called “pay to play.” You “pay” for the politicians’ campaigns and projects and you get to “play” with the taxpayers’ money. No wonder California’s finances are in such a mess and taxpayers who can are headed for the exit.