California ballot measures - update

[CARLHAYDEN]

Groups Raise $31.5 Million for Calif. Ballot Fight

Sunday, May 17, 2009 7:54 PM

This is from AP

SACRAMENTO -- The battle over six budget-related measures on Tuesday's special election ballot has generated more than $31.5 million in campaign spending, split California's labor community and created strange bedfellows on both sides.

Supporters, aided by the powerful California Teachers Association and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's business allies, have raised more than $27.6 million to back Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E and 1F.

Opponents, a collection of unions, anti-tax groups and supporters of children's and mental health programs, have raised $3.8 million.

"It's the most lopsided campaign we have been part of in many years," said Ken Burt, political director for the California Federation of Teachers, a smaller rival to the California Teachers Association. The union has chipped in more than $577,000, mostly to fight Proposition 1A.

Despite the fundraising gap, all but Proposition 1F were trailing in polls leading up to the election.

Proposition 1A, the centerpiece of efforts by the Republican governor and some lawmakers to deal with California's persistent budget deficits, would  extend a series of tax increases approved in February.

A companion measure, Proposition 1B, would give educators $9.3 billion they say they are due under Proposition 98, the 1988 initiative that set minimum funding levels for schools and community colleges. But it would delay the payments until 2011-12 and spread them out over several fiscal years. It also would not take effect unless voters approved 1A.

Proposition 1C is an attempt to attract more lottery players by boosting prizes so the state can borrow $5 billion against future increases in game revenues.

Propositions 1D and 1E would take $2.2 billion over the next five years from voter-created programs to deal with mental illness and help young children. The money would be used to help balance the state's general fund.

Proposition 1F would bar pay raises for state elected officials when California faces budget deficits.

The California Teachers Association and its national affiliate, the National Education Association, have spent $12.2 million, mostly in support of propositions 1A and 1B. But the CTA also has given nearly $2 million to a campaign committee backing all six measures.

Schwarzenegger's California Dream Team campaign committee has chipped in another $2.5 million to support the six propositions. Much of that came from insurers, investment companies, utilities, oil companies and groups representing hospitals, dentists and farmers.

One of the governor's biggest supporters, A. Jerrold Perenchio, former chairman and chief executive officer of Univision, a Spanish-language television network, has given $1.5 million to the main campaign committee supporting the six proposals.

GTECH, a casino and lottery management company, has contributed $1.2 million to the campaign for Proposition 1C. Scientific Games, another lottery supplier, has donated $325,000, and the California Democratic Party has spent $341,000 to back the measure, one of three it has endorsed. The other two are propositions 1B and 1F.

The California State Council of Service Employees, which represents more than 700,000 public employees, health care workers, nursing home employees, janitors and security guards, has given $1.1 million to support Proposition 1C.

The California Faculty Association, which represents California State University professors, librarians and coaches, has given $1.2 million and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees has contributed $465,000 to oppose 1A.

A campaign committee organized by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has raised more than $680,000 while another group, Californians Against New Taxes, has collected more than $106,000 to oppose the proposition.

If voters approve the measure, it would trigger a temporary extension of higher sales, income and vehicle taxes enacted earlier this year.

Julie Soderlund, a campaign spokeswoman for Schwarzenegger, said the measures have drawn a combination of labor and business support because of the financial hit the state will take if they don't pass.

Schwarzenegger predicted that rejection of the propositions would add nearly $6 billion to the state budget deficit in the fiscal year that starts July 1. Even if voters support them, California would face a $15.4 billion shortfall in the fiscal year starting in July.






 

[CARLHAYDEN]

May 18, 2009

Will Schwarzenegger miss Election Day in California?

Politico has an exclusive that President Barack Obama on Tuesday plans to unveil new federal tailpipe emissions standards for automobiles on par with those sought by California.

The kicker: Politico says that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to attend Obama's announcement in Washington, D.C. tomorrow.

That's Washington, D.C., as in the city more than 3,000 miles away from the state holding a special election Tuesday into which Schwarzenegger has invested most of his energy for the last two months.

Schwarzenegger press secretary Aaron McLear had no comment Monday morning about whether the governor will attend Obama's announcement.

It's not clear what arrangements Schwarzenegger would make -- for instance, he isn't an absentee voter, so he still has to cast his ballot. The governor also was scheduled to attend the California Chamber of Commerce's annual Sacramento Host Breakfast, which he has never missed.

But the governor loves Obama. And Schwarzenegger spearheaded the fight against the Bush Administration when he tried to obtain a tailpipe emissions waiver previously for California.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I've seen them try their scare tactics these past couple of weeks. Not too pleased to say the least.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Arnold loves Obama so much that he endorsed McCain. Anyways, that's surprising that Arnold isn't an absentee voter. Well, most of the Props are going to fail, anyways. A and C are going down hard. B doesn't do anything without A. F doesn't do much. D and E do a little, but are trailing, too.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Thanks for your input PiT and Jfern.

My info suggests that F will pass handily, and all the other measures (A - E) are likely to fail.

Interestingly enough, it provides another example of where money can not buy elections.

Also, I wonder if other state legislatures will will look at the results (and the mail and phone calls from their constituents), and decide not to raise taxes.

[Sam Spade]

CA is in sort of a lose-lose-lose position here.

Without previous federal help, they would have already had to default.  Tax raises will merely postpone things for a while, but when you see that CA already printed a 50% drop (yes 50% - it sounds ridiculous, but it's the real number) in sales tax revenue in April YoY, you have to wonder how long things can be postponed. 

As an aside, this is an example of why the "recovery is happening" theory is presently a load of crock.  Government can screw around with a lot of numbers, other numbers can be overhyped by certain folks wanting to hype (the "less bad" news = "good" news game), but sales tax numbers are an example of numbers very hard to play around with.  They are what they are.  When there are actually "good" numbers instead of "less bad" numbers and a lot of the numbers that are hard to play around with don't say "disaster is coming", I'll start believing in a recovery.

Anyway, cutting spending is not going to happen with the Sacramento lawmakers.  I guess they could still raise more debt - investors are still heading for the high-risk debt instruments and I still think there's a few more months of this play to continue before it rolls over.

Yes, CA is ****ed.  Long-term, short-term, whatever.  This vote is merely a speed-bump or a foot on the gas pedal

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

CA is in sort of a lose-lose-lose position here.

Without previous federal help, they would have already had to default.  Tax raises will merely postpone things for a while, but when you see that CA already printed a 50% drop (yes 50% - it sounds ridiculous, but it's the real number) in sales tax revenue in April YoY, you have to wonder how long things can be postponed. 

Raising the sales tax a full percentage point in the middle of the Great Recession was an idiotic move.  Of course people aren't spending as much on taxable items now that it went up.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's plenty of blame to go around. Sure the deadwood legislators and governor are idiotic, but a lot of idiotic Propositions have limited their options. If I was dictator of California, there'd be massive pay cuts, firing of tenured people, raising of property taxes, and so on, but that's not going to happen.

[Torie]

CA is in sort of a lose-lose-lose position here.

Without previous federal help, they would have already had to default.  Tax raises will merely postpone things for a while, but when you see that CA already printed a 50% drop (yes 50% - it sounds ridiculous, but it's the real number) in sales tax revenue in April YoY, you have to wonder how long things can be postponed. 

As an aside, this is an example of why the "recovery is happening" theory is presently a load of crock.  Government can screw around with a lot of numbers, other numbers can be overhyped by certain folks wanting to hype (the "less bad" news = "good" news game), but sales tax numbers are an example of numbers very hard to play around with.  They are what they are.  When there are actually "good" numbers instead of "less bad" numbers and a lot of the numbers that are hard to play around with don't say "disaster is coming", I'll start believing in a recovery.

Anyway, cutting spending is not going to happen with the Sacramento lawmakers.  I guess they could still raise more debt - investors are still heading for the high-risk debt instruments and I still think there's a few more months of this play to continue before it rolls over.

Yes, CA is ****ed.  Long-term, short-term, whatever.  This vote is merely a speed-bump or a foot on the gas pedal

The real estate market in California the last month has turned a bit Sam outside the toxic zones (down market exurbs and the overbuilt desert).   I think the odds of your interesting economic scenarios coming to pass are declining Sam, primarily because the economic paranoia out there, is well, getting less paranoid. In economic, paranoia is real, which is why that is one field it needs to be carefully studied and monitored. One just can't take a pill.

[Sam Spade]

The real estate market in California the last month has turned a bit Sam outside the toxic zones (down market exurbs and the overbuilt desert).   I think the odds of your interesting economic scenarios coming to pass are declining Sam, primarily because the economic paranoia out there, is well, getting less paranoid. In economic, paranoia is real, which is why that is one field it needs to be carefully studied and monitored. One just can't take a pill.

This is one area where you must be patient, Torie.  Normally, I use the phrase so much it becomes quite a caricature, but here I really mean it. 

A change in psychology does not change the underlying fundamentals *in this instance* because of what the fundamentals say and what is probably necessary to actually turn things around (I have some ideas in the back of my head - they are next to impossible, if not impossible).  Rather, the change in psychology to me sounds to me partially planned (by those in power, for obvious reasons) and functions as a sort of "denial", perhaps akin to one of the many stages of grief.  Yes, I did come close to failing psychology in college (only grade I ever had lower than a B-), this shows why I've always been so interested in the subject. 

FWIW, if, at any point, the fundamentals do change, you will see me note this.  I am not afraid to admit error when the evidence says an error has been made.  We are quite far (quite, quite far) from that.

About real estate - from what I have read about CA, the foreclosures not in the toxic zones at the lower end are selling fast.  Everything else at the lower end is pretty much no-go and the upper end is pretty stagnant (moreso than before - which would make sense) .  But the most important thing is that - these months of the year (March, April, May especially) naturally see a rise in sales, even in downturns (in comparison to the other months).  They are basically the best real estate months of the year - us real estate folks don't call it the "spring buying season" for nothing. 

Presently in the residential foreclosure area, there is a lull occurring as the last of the subprimes go under (and are either sold or become part of the silent inventory).  The next big wave in residential is the Alt-A, Option-ARMs (HELOCs too), which were sold more at the higher ends of the market and are actually much more common.  Prime (which isn't very prime according to historical standards) is also a part of this.  Default notices really shot up pretty heavy last month, and I expect that to continue as this wave starts to form. 

Actually, the best place to note these things is in the Fannie/Freddie books, where you're not being lied to *that* much and whose loan stock is of higher quality than all the other major banks in this area (e.g. Wells Fargo, Citi, BAC, etc).  They already have prime delinquencies at 3.2% for 1Q09 (up from 2.6% Q408), which was basically the worst the *stress tests* called for (<1% is normal).

And I haven't even touched yet CRE and credit cards, but that's for later.  And what the Feds are doing... (a lot in concert with banks)

Anyway, maybe you should just ignore what I'm saying.  Maybe I'm just the looney old uncle in the attic.  Maybe not.

[Lunar]

I was going to go vote on this, but the voting booth is at least two blocks away, maybe two and a half.

[Meeker]

I was going to go vote on this, but the voting booth is at least two blocks away, maybe two and a half.

Joke political junkie.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I voted no on A, and a weak yes on B-F. But yeah, I'm very unhappy about the direction that California is going in. I wasn't too happy about any of the Propositions.

[Lunar]

I was going to go vote on this, but the voting booth is at least two blocks away, maybe two and a half.

Joke political junkie.

I actually voted since I walked by the voting booth on my way to grab some pizza

[Alcon]

I was going to go vote on this, but the voting booth is at least two blocks away, maybe two and a half.

Joke political junkie.

I actually voted since I walked by the voting booth on my way to grab some pizza

The only cool votes are ACCIDENTAL VOTES

[Alcon]

First results:

1A ("Rainy Day" Budget Stabilization Fund)
No 62%
Yes 38%

1B (Education Funding. Payment Plan)
No 58%
Yes 42%

1C (Lottery Modernization Act)
No 60%
Yes 40%

1D (Children's Services Funding)
No 61%
Yes 39%

1E (Mental Health Funding)
No 61%
Yes 39%

1F (Elected Officials Salaries)
Yes 78%
No 22%

11% reporting, pretty diverse selection of counties in, turnout sucks.

[Rowan]

I voted no on A, and a weak yes on B-F. But yeah, I'm very unhappy about the direction that California is going in. I wasn't too happy about any of the Propositions.

You voted for higher taxes? Why oh why???

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I voted no on A, and a weak yes on B-F. But yeah, I'm very unhappy about the direction that California is going in. I wasn't too happy about any of the Propositions.

You voted for higher taxes? Why oh why???

Huh? I voted against Prop. 1A. The other gimmicks didn't do anything directly with taxes. Anyways, I'll be surprised if anything besides 1F passes.

[Alcon]

1A is passing San Francisco, failing the rest of the Bay Area moderately, and getting slaughtered 2-to-1 elsewhere, even Los Angeles.  It's dead.

1B is passing SF and Santa Clara, but failing Marin.  Los Angeles is over 60% no.  Rural counties are 60-70% no.  It's dead.

1C is barely passing San Francisco, barely failing Santa Clara, and dying everywhere else, Marin included.  Dead.

1D isn't even passing San Francisco.  Corpse.  Same with 1E, but worse.

1F is passing everywhere, but oddly doing massively better in north California, where virtually everything is over 80%.  Orange isn't even 2-to-1.  Ventura can't count and has its numbers reversed.

Short night.

[Torie]

That looks like a large enough margin to tank the propositions. The margin however will shrink. On this issue, the absentees should be considerably more "conservative" than those ballots from those who hauled their butts to the voting booth to vote today.

Now we wait for close to 2 hours for some more votes.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

1F is clearly winning around 3-1 for the very little effect it has on the state budget.

Of the other Props, 1B is doing the best, with 40.1%. However, it doesn't do anything without 1A. The next best any Prop is doing is 1C with 38.6%. Yeah, they're toast.

[Alcon]

buttered toast.

1A ("Rainy Day" Budget Stabilization Fund)
No 63% (+1)
Yes 37%

1B (Education Funding. Payment Plan)
No 60% (+2)
Yes 40%

1C (Lottery Modernization Act)
No 61% (+1)
Yes 39%

1D (Children's Services Funding)
No 62% (+1)
Yes 38%

1E (Mental Health Funding)
No 63% (+2)
Yes 37%

1F (Elected Officials Salaries)
Yes 76% (-2)
No 24%

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I liked how the SF Chronicle talked about Arnold's "great salesmanship". Well, I guess unlike the other special election he called, something passed this time. In 2005, we had an election where nothing or nobody (no candidates) won. 1 out of 14 for Propositions in these two special elections is the result of some amazing salesmanship. Arnold supported 12 of those.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Prop 1F only has 18% in Del Norte county. Weird.
Maybe they screwed up yes and no?

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/props/map1F.htm

[Meeker]

Prop 1F only has 18% in Del Norte county. Weird.
Maybe they screwed up yes and no?

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/props/map1F.htm

The numbers are reversed. Ventura had it switched for a while too.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I would suggest that the results of this election have several interesting facets,

First, while the Yes on A - E vastly outspent the No side, the No side met the minimum necessary to make their case.  Hence, if adequate money is available, relative ratios tend to lose their significance.

Second, once again, lower turnouts tend to favor Republicans (who constituted the backbone of the opposition to A - E).

Third, the voters are NOT enthused with increased funding for government.