CA Voters Reject Excessive Spending
Due to overspending and a structural deficit that obligates California to spend much more than it can afford, Governor Schwarzenegger and many unions pushed for a list of ballot proposals that would help narrow California’s projected $21 billion budget deficit.
California voters rejected five out of six of these budget proposals yesterday by an overwhelming margin in spite of substantial union support and supporters outspending the ballot opposition ten to one.
The powerful California Teachers Association and the National Education Association collectively spent $12.2 million in support of the propositions alone, not to mention the other 146 unions who supported the propositions.
The ballot propositions would have increased taxes $15 billion dollars, borrowed and diverted voter protected funds into the General Fund.
Californians voted no as the propositions merely maintained the status quo in terms of spending yet did nothing to decrease the size of state government.
"No more budget gimmicks, no more legislative shenanigans. Balance this budget by making the type of structural cuts you need to make," the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers' Association said.
California voters were unimpressed with an expensive marketing campaign that did nothing to address the state’s structural deficit but instead insulates the public sector from the same strains and stresses felt by families and businesses.
They realized for every threatened teacher or state employee that would be laid off there are businesses that will close and employees that will lose their jobs to pay for unsustainable levels of state spending.
Meanwhile, 75 percent of voters disapprove of the job performance of the California State Legislature.
Here’s a list of the propositions and how they fared:
California voters rejected five out of six of these budget proposals yesterday by an overwhelming margin in spite of substantial union support and supporters outspending the ballot opposition ten to one.
The powerful California Teachers Association and the National Education Association collectively spent $12.2 million in support of the propositions alone, not to mention the other 146 unions who supported the propositions.
The ballot propositions would have increased taxes $15 billion dollars, borrowed and diverted voter protected funds into the General Fund.
Californians voted no as the propositions merely maintained the status quo in terms of spending yet did nothing to decrease the size of state government.
"No more budget gimmicks, no more legislative shenanigans. Balance this budget by making the type of structural cuts you need to make," the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers' Association said.
California voters were unimpressed with an expensive marketing campaign that did nothing to address the state’s structural deficit but instead insulates the public sector from the same strains and stresses felt by families and businesses.
They realized for every threatened teacher or state employee that would be laid off there are businesses that will close and employees that will lose their jobs to pay for unsustainable levels of state spending.
Meanwhile, 75 percent of voters disapprove of the job performance of the California State Legislature.
Here’s a list of the propositions and how they fared:
- Proposition 1A would have extended tax increases on income, sales, vehicles, and gasoline to as much as 5 years. Outcome - Failed by 2:1 margin
- Proposition 1B would have agreed to pay back schools for any cuts that were made to education; a measure added to appease the California Teachers’ Union and get their support for the fixes. Outcome - Failed by 2:1 margin
- Proposition 1C would have allowed the state to bond for more than $5 billion through an enhanced Lottery. Outcome - Failed 2:1 margin
- Propositions 1D & E would have diverted dedicated money from certain state programs to pay for general government operations. Outcome – Failed 2:1 margin