>Sonora / Tuolumne News, Sports, & Weather, Angels Camp, Twain Harte, Jamestown | Union Democrat

News Classifieds Web
web powered by Web Search Powered by Google

Home arrow Opinion arrow Voters should reject Propositions 22, 24 and 26

Voters should reject Propositions 22, 24 and 26

    California’s Nov. 2 ballot, as usual, is packed with initiatives put to a vote via petition campaign. With armies of circulators stationed at shopping centers around the state, gathering the more than 400,000 signatures necessary to qualify a petition for the ballot is just not that difficult.
  

      And, as usual, many are put on the ballot by special interests looking to make an end run around Sacramento’s legislative process.
    Given the partisan gridlock that has of late paralyzed the Legislature, this is at times warranted. It certainly was in the case of recent measures aimed at reforming primary elections and the way legislative districts are drawn.
    But often such initiatives are not warranted and stretch the law beyond what is reasonable or prudent. Such is the case with the propositions below, all of which deserve rejection.
   
    Proposition 22 — It is certainly tempting to vote yes on this measure, which purports to end state “raids” on funds that have historically gone to counties, cities and other local government agencies.
    Previous ballot initiatives have restricted the state’s ability borrow cash and required repayment with interest. But Proposition 22 forbids borrowing gas tax, property taxes or redevelopment funds and, according to the nonpartisan legislative analyst, could cost the state several billion dollars annually and jeopardize needed state services.
    Along with county and city officials, we’re annoyed and disappointed that the state of California chooses to cover its budget shortfalls by “borrowing” funds from local governments. However, during this on-going recession and a time of huge state deficits, this activity is preferable to a significant tax increase or a major reduction in essential state services. Prop 22 limits the flexibility the state needs to balance its budget.
    Yes, more protection for local funding is needed, but 22 goes too far.

    Proposition 24 — Here is another measure aimed at repealing a law that has yet to take effect.
    During 2008 and 2009 negotiations, the governor and the Legislature agreed to a compromise state budget that included tax breaks for California businesses, to take effect in 2011. Given the gridlock that over the past several years has stalled our lawmakers, it’s a wonder two-thirds of them could agree on anything.
    Yet, although the recession shows few signs of easing and statewide employment is at a painful 12 percent, the California Teachers Association-sponsored Proposition 24 would eliminate the tax breaks before they are given a chance.
    While arguments can be made that the breaks are too generous (adjustments could be made legislatively), totally scrapping them could put California at a competitive disadvantage at a time when attracting new business is of paramount importance.
    Proposition 24 deserves a No vote.

     Proposition 26 — When is a government fee not a fee?
    “When it’s a tax, and virtually all fees are taxes,” is the answer this initiative would give. And because 26 would transform a myriad of state fees into taxes, a two-thirds’ vote would be needed to raise any of them or to enact new ones.
    This is proposed for what is already among the most difficult states in the union in which to levy taxes: A two-thirds’ vote of the Legislature is necessary to raise state taxes and a similar approval by local voters is needed to pass new, specific-purpose taxes.
    Now, when raising cash to balance budgets is particularly tough, 26 would change regulatory fees — such as those collected from oil companies to fund oil-collection and recycling programs and from waste disposal firms to clean up toxic sites — to taxes.
    Although lawmakers have occasionally played fast and loose with the tax-fee distinction, this overreaching measure would do more harm than good and should be rejected.


Follow UnionDemocrat.com

The Union Democrat print edition

view all The Union Democrat print publications »

The Union Democrat 05/23/15

View Paper

The Union Democrat is now online in a Replica E-edition form and publishes Tuesday through Saturday. E-Edition or Print Plus subscribers have full access.

Subscribe

If you are not a current subscriber, subscribe today for immediate access.


News
Local / Sports / Business / Stocks / News of Record / State / Nation/World / Obituaries / Submit News
Opinion
Editorials / Letters
Photos
Union Democrat Photos / Community Photos /
Classifieds
Search Classifieds / Jobs / Autos / Homes / Rentals / Place an Ad
Online Extras
Weather / Local Business Links / Community Links / Photo Reprints
Union Democrat
About / Contact / Commercial Printing / Subscriptions / Terms of Use / Site Map

© Copyright 2001 - 2015 Western Communications, Inc. All rights reserved. By Using this site you agree to our Terms of Use