In his role as Chairman of the Sonoma County Republican Party, Michael Erickson reiterates within his Chairman’s Message portion of the April 2009 Newsletter of the Sonoma County Republican Party the recent, official recommendation of his County Republican Party of a NO vote for California Propositions 1A – 1F. The text of the Chairman’s Message, which includes his own reasons for recommending a NO vote, then is as follows.
Recently, the Sonoma County Republican Party officially recommended a NO vote on all of the measures in the May Special Election. The absentee ballots will be mailed on April 20th, so I want to take this opportunity again to urge you to vote NO on Propositions 1A – 1F. Each of these measures violates a core principle of the Republican Party and actually worsens the fiscal irresponsibility that has been prevailing in Sacramento for a long time.
Proposition 1A claims that it will set up a “rainy day” fund, so that funds will be set aside when needed during economic downturns (when, as a result of a poor economy, a decline in tax revenue does not meet the budgetary projections for that fiscal year). In theory, it is a good idea, since the failure to save our tax dollars has been a chronic problem; but as is always the case, the devil is in the details. In fact, Proposition 1A increases taxes literally tens of billions of dollars, thus making California the most heavily taxed State and in time pushing more jobs and opportunities to relocate. In return for these devastating taxes, we taxpayers receive no more than a phony fund, which may be raided by such same, fiscally irresponsible legislators whenever they feel it is “necessary.”
The proof is in who is supporting Proposition 1A. Now, I support teachers and education as much as anyone else; but I know from well earned experience that the leftist California Teachers’ Association is a front for promoting Democrat machine cronyism and socialist policies, often having nothing to do with teachers and education. Thus, my concerns went up when I heard recently that the California Teachers’ Association will be spending many millions in trying to pass these measures. Do we really think this leftist union, which has been feeding at the trough of government spending in Sacramento for years, would favor Proposition 1A, if indeed Proposition 1A would actually restrain future spending?
Consider how leftist, Democrat Assemblywoman Noreen Evans recently said that, while she supported Proposition 1A, she did not consider it to be a serious spending cap. In her own words, “a hard spending cap would be completely unworkable.”
Propositions 1B – 1E are just as bad, in their own manner. Essentially, they each borrow from existing “reserved funds,” in order to mask the fact that we still do not have enough revenues to meet Democrat spending priorities. In return for short term borrowing, voters will be on the hook to replenish these “reserved funds” in a few years, thus making worse our budget situation in the near term.
Finally, there is that phony “throw the bums out” type of “reform” in Proposition 1F. On its face, it suggests that legislators’ salaries may not be increased during deficit years, as a punishment essentially for not doing their jobs in balancing the budget. Nevertheless, in fact it only requires that a civilian compensation committee recommend against the salary increase during deficit years. The legislators will remain free to increase their own pay at any time of their choosing. We should oppose Proposition 1F, because it is misleading.
We have taken the time to study these measures in detail, and we urge you to do the same as well. We are confident that, as you know more about them, you will agree with us that it is best to vote NO on Propositions 1A – 1F in the May Special Election.
