HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/03/1988, C-3B - PROPOSITION 71 - APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT ADJUSTMENT il`IN��y�ll�llllll�l III MEETING DATE:
W li►�i��
city
of San tuts osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ROM: Steve Henderson, the Assistant to the City Administrative
SUBJECT:
Proposition 71 - Appropriations Limit Adjustment
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution supporting Proposition 71, the
Appropriations Limit Adjustment, and encouraging its passage
by the voters of California.
BACKGROUND:
THE SITUATION
As you are aware, Proposition 4 placed a limit on the amount of taxes
state and local government can appropriate each year. This limit is
based on the appropriations made in 1978 as adjusted for inflation
and population growth. It does not apply to nontax revenues, such as
user fees. Two propositions (Proposition 71 and Proposition 72) on
the June, 1988 ballot would amend the appropriations limit. Both
proposals will be discussed to provide a basis for comparison,
although the focus of this report is on Proposition 71.
THE PROPOSAL
PROPOSITION 71
This proposal makes several changes in how the appropriations limit
operates. First, it changes the annual inflation adjustment.
Presently, the adjustment uses the change in 1) the United States
Consumer Price Index or 2) the California per capita personal income
- whichever is lower. Prop 71 would change the adjustment to instead
reflect the hig�he_r change in either the California Consumer Price
Index or theCalifornia per capita personal income
Second, the annual population adjustment would be changed.
Presently, the adjustment is based on the change in each entity's
residential population. The adjustment for schools is based on units
of average daily attendance. Prop 71 would require that the state's
adjustment include the growth in the average daily attendance of K-12
school districts and community colleges to the extent that these
exceed the percentage growth in statewide population. Local
governments would be given the option of including the growth in the
number of persons employed within their jurisdictions in addition to
their residential population growth.
Third, the measure requires the appropriations limits for 1986-87 and
1987-88 to be recalculated to reflect the revised adjustments for
determining future spending limits.
Fourth, state tax revenues which are now dedicated for transportation
purposes would be treated as "user fees" and therefore not included
in the limitation. These revenues include the excise tax on motor
vehicle fuels, motor vehicle weight fees and vehicle registration
fees. The change represents a "transfer of financial responsibility"
''11111111III��IiIII�III city o f San Luis OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
and the measure specifies how the required adjustment to the
appropriations limit is made.
Finally, the measure requires the Commission on State Finance to
report annually to taxpayers how state revenues were spent in the
preceding fiscal year, and the amount of the state's appropriations
which is subject to the limit.
PROPOSITION 72
Proposition 72 was initiated by Paul Gann. It chances the way
certain state tax revenues are treated: transportation-related tax
revenues and sales taxes. The portion of the initiative dealing with
transportation-related tax revenues is similar to Proposition 71,
except that it further requires any increases in these "user fees" to
be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature, or by a majority of the
voters voting at a regularly scheduled statewide election.
State sales tax revenues from sales of motor vehicle fuels must be
dedicated to street, highway, and mass transit guideway purposes.
(At present they go into the General Fund for any use. ) As with
Proposition 71, these revenues would become "user fees", but this
measure prohibits adjustment to the limitation to reflect this
"transfer of financial responsibility. " The Legislature would be
prohibited from reducing the 1 1/4 percent local sales tax rate.
A new reserve within the state's General Fund would be required. It
would include an appropriation to bring it up to 3% of the total
General Fund budget. Appropriation to this reserve would not be
subject to the appropriation limit, however any use of funds from
this reserve (except those designated "urgent and unexpected") would
be subject to the limit.
SUPPORT
Californians for Quality Government is coordinating the campaign in
support of Proposition 71. A substantial number of state and local
organizations have formally declared their support. These include
The League of California Cities and the League of Women Voters as
well a numerous organizations representing firemen, police officers,
educators and health agencies. (A complete list as of 03/16/88 of
supporting agencies is attached. )
The primary argument for the adoption of Prop 71 is that the present
spending limitation has no provisions to allow for increased demands
for services over and above those required by population growth or
inflation. Major areas of concern are police and fire protection,
education and health care. Proponents state that, according to the
bipartisan Commission on State Finance, $23 billion must be cut from
the current level of health care, senior and other services over the
next decade unless the limit law is changed.
Proponents indicate that this measure will more accurately reflect
the changing needs of the state as a whole and of local communities
in particular. It will not raise taxes, but will provide necessary
flexibility in the spending limitation.
Locally, the County Board of Education has indicated its support of
the proposition. The formula used to calculate monies for schools
under the measure would be based on school enrollment, instead of a2
�' ,a-a/'
11"H1►1►1Illlll11111111���III city of san tins oBIspo
MMIUMMi COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
general population figure. The Board believes Proposition 71 will
correct the inflexibility of the present spending limits and enable
school districts to address many of their present problems such as
classroom overcrowding.
OPPOSITION
To date no organized groups have opposed Proposition 71. The
argument rebutting the proponents of Proposition 71 in the election
booklet was coauthored by Paul Gann, John Hay (Past President of the
California Chamber of Commerce) and Tom Mezger (Yolo County Taxpayers
Association) . Its primary points are that the change to the limit
would allow too much increased government sending, provide no
accountability for that spending, and that it lacks specific
dedication of increased appropriations to key areas such as police
and fire, education or health services. Further, it argues that
there are already ample funds available for necessary governmental
services, including education.
ALTERNATIVES
1. City Council may choose to adopt a resolution supporting
Proposition 71 and urging its passage by the voters.
2. Council may choose to adopt a resolution opposing Proposition 71
and urging its defeat by the voters.
3. Council may choose to take no action on Proposition 71.
FISCAL IMPACT
This measure increases the appropriations limits of all government
entities in California, allowing them to either spend or retain taxes
that would be subject to return to taxpayers under current law. The
inflation adjustment change will allow increased state appropriations
of up to $700 million in 1988-89 and increasing amounts annually
thereafter. The change in population factor will allow undetermined
increases in state appropriations.
The ability of the state to appropriate additional funds as the
result of the increased state limit is dependent upon receipt of
sufficient revenue. According to estimates in the Governor's Budget,
state revenues will not be sufficient in 1988-89 to allow increased
sending. The appropriations limits of local governments and school
districts will also be increased by undetermined but significant
amounts.. State transportation revenues will no longer be considered
taxes and the appropriation limit will be adjusted downward
accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution supporting Proposition 71, the Appropriations Limit
Adjustment, and encouraging its passage by the voters of California.
lttachments: Resolution of Support
Resolution of Opposition
Copy of proposed Initiative Ballot Measures
List of supporters from Californians for Qua 'ty Govt.
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
URGING THE PASSAGE PROPOSITION 71,
THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT ADJUSTMENT,
BY THE VOTING PUBLIC OF CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, Californians for Quality Government, is sponsoring for the
June, 1988 ballot an initiative that would modify the current Government
Spending Limitation tomore accurately reflect California's economic growth
and spiraling service populations; and
WHEREAS, the current Government Spending Limitation has threatened to
halt all real increases and force reductions in health care, education,
senior programs, public safety and other vital services; and
WHEREAS, the current government Spending Limitation restricts state
and local government spending to 1979 levels; adjusted only for population
and inflation changes; and
WHEREAS, The Commission on State Finance reports that the current
limit could force over $23 billion in cuts in critical public services
over the next decade; and
WHEREAS, the current Government Spending Limitation is inflexible and
inhibits the state's ability to use already-collected tax dollars to at
least maintain the current level of funding for critical services; and
WHEREAS, this initiative would ensure accountability to taxpayers by
requiring the existing Commission on State Finance to report annually the
manner in which state revenues are spent and the amount of state
approporations subject to limitation; and
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities, California Police Chiefs
Association, Californians for Better Transportation, California Tax Reform
Association, League of Women Voters of California, California Teachers
Association, California School Boards Association, California State PTA,
California Community College Trustees, American Association of Retired
Persons/CA, Congress of California Seniors, California Seniors Coalition,
California Correctional Peace Officers Association, California Association
of Homes for the Aging, California Association of Highway Patrolmen, Peace
Officers Research Association of California, California State Employees
Association, American Association of University Women/CA Division,
California State Council of Service Employees, California Nurses
Association, Lutheran Office of Governmental Ministry, and many others are
in full support;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo supports the "Appropriations Limit Adjustment" Proposition 71
and urges its passage by the voters of California.
On the motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day
of , 1988.
ATTEST:
C Mayor Ron Dunln y Clerk Pamela Voges � —��_
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
URGING THE DEFEAT OF PROPOSITION 71,
THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT ADJUSTMENT,
BY THE VOTING PUBLIC OF CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, Proposition 71 would modify the existing appropriations
limit to allow substantial increases .in government spending; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 71 provides no accountability to the
taxpayers by government officials for this increased spending; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 71 does not provide specific dedication of
increased appropriations to key areas such as police and fire,
education or health services; and
WHEREAS, ample funds are already available for the provision of
necessary government services;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Council of the City of
San Luis Obispo opposes the "Appropriations Limit Adjustment"
Proposition 71 and urges its defeat by the voters of California.
On the motion of , seconded
by ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT: -
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1988.
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk Pamela Voges
Approved:
<z_-� — /�< -�?
Ci y A anis ra ive Otticer City A orney
OBNAM& No job Name PAGE 1 SSSS: 11 .OUTPUT. Mon Mar 7 19:1726 1988
SLS: 862 GRP. balpam JOB: props DIV.-' )p-71
Official Title and Summary Prepared by the Attorney General
TIONS LIMIT ADJUSTMENT. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Constitution limits
tax revenues state and local governments annually appropriate for expenditure: allows "cost of living" and
"population" changes. "Cost of living" defined as lesser of change in US Consumer Price Index or per capita personal
income; measure redefines as greater of change in California Consumer Price Index or per capita personal income.
"State population"redefined: includes increases in K-12 or community college average daily attendance greater than
state population growth. Local government "population" redefined: includesincreases in residents and persons
employed. Specifies motor vehicle and fuel taxes are fees excluded from appropriations limit. Summary of Legislative
Analyst's estimate of net state and local government focal impact: Change in the appropriations limit inflation
adjustment will allow increased state appropriations of up to $700 million in 1988-89,and increasing arriounts annually
thereafter. Change in the population adjustment will allow further undetermined increase in state appropriations.
State's ability to appropriate additional funds as a result of increased state limit is dependent on receipt of sufficient
revenue. Based on estimates contained in Governor's Budget;state revenues will not be sufficient in 1988-89 to fund
any additional appropriations allowed by this measure. In future years,economy's performance will determine whether
and to what extent state revenues will be available to fund such additional appropriations. Local government and
school district appropriation limits will be increased by unknown,but significant amounts. Change in the treatment of
state transportation-related revenues would have no fiscal effect because of the limit adjustment formula.
Analysis by the Legislative Analyst
Background school districts and community colleges be included,. to
Under the California Constitution, most government the extent that these factors exceed the percentage
entities (including the state, cities, counties, schools and growth in statewide population. For the local adjustment,
special districts) have a.limit on the amount of taxes they it gives local governments the option, in addition to the
can appropriate each year.This appropriations limit does change in residential population to include the growth in
not apply to nontax revenues,such as user fees.The limit the number of persons employed within their jurisdic-
also does not apply to certain types of expenditures, such tions.
as. debt service on voter-approved general obligation Third, this measure requires the appropriations limits
bonds. for 1986-87 and 1987-M to be recalculated to reflect the
The limit is adjusted each year to reflect changes in revised cost-of:living and population changes in deter-
inflation and population. The adjustment for inflation is mining the limits for 1988-89 and future .years.
made using the.lower of the change in (1) the United Fourth, this measure changes the way'some state tax
States Consumer Price Index or (2) California per capita revenues are treated for purposes of calculating the
personal income. The adjustment for population is based appropriations limit. Specifically, state tax revenues
on the change in each entity's residential population, which are now dedicated for transportation purposes
except the adjustment for schools is made using the must be treated as "user fees"which are not subject to
change in units of average daily attendance (ADA). the limit. These revenues include- (1) the excise tax on
The limit also must be adjusted whenever the respon- motor vehicle fuels; (2) motor vehicle weight fees;. and.
sibility for providing services is shifted from one entity of (3) vehicle. registration fees. This change represents a
government to another (or to the private sector), or "transfer of financial responsibility," and the measure
when the source of funds for a program is shifted from specifies how the required adjustment to the appropria-
taxes to user fees. These shifts are known as "transfers of tions limit is made.
financial responsibility." Finally, this measure requires the Commission on State
Whenever a government entity does not appropriate Finance to report annually to taxpayers how state reve-
all of its tax revenues, these "excess revenues" must be nues were spent. in the preceding fiscal year, and the
returned to taxpayers within two years. amount of the state's appropriations which is subject to
the limit.
Proposal
This measure makes several changes in how the appro- Fiscal Effect
priations limit operates. This measure increases the appropriations limits of all
anges the annual inflation adjust- go
First; this measure changes entities in California. As a result, govern.
ment Specifically, it changes the adjustment to reflect ments may be able to spend or retain tax proceeds which
the higher of the change in (1) the California Consumer under current law could be subject to return to taxpayers.
Price Index or (2) California per capita personal income, The change in the inflation adjustment will allow
rather than the louver of the change in the United States increased state appropriations of up to 3,00 million in
Consumer Price Index or the change in California per 19889,and increasing amounts annuallv thereafter. The
capita personal income. change in the population adjustment factor will allow a
Second, this measure changes the annual population further increase in state appropriations, but the size of
adjustment. For the state's adjustment, it requires that the change cannot be determined at this time.The ability
the growth int the average daily attendance of K-12 of the state to appropriate addig' nal funds as a result of
P88 Arguments printed an this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuiaay by`afyScial aonty 1
JBNAME No Job Name PACE 2 SESS: 1 I OUTPUT: Mon Mar 7 19:17:26 1988
%S: 862 CRP: balpam JOB: props DIV: pr .71 -
D Rip
the increased state limit is dependent on the receipt of appropriations.
sufficient revenue. Based on the estimates contained in The appropriations limits of local governments and
the Governor's Budget, state revenues will not be suffi- school districts also will be increased by unknown but
tient in 1988-89 to fund any additional appropriations significant amounts.
allowed by this measure. In future years, the economy's The change in the treatment of state transportation-
performance will determine whether and to what extent related revenues would have no fiscal effect because of
state revenues will be available to fund such additional the limit adjustment formula contained in this measure.
. Text of Proposed I,aw
This initiative measure is submitted to the people is accordance with I gibers Stats of California as reported by the Division of Labor Statistics
the provisions of Article IL Section 8 of the Constitution. and Research or successor agency of the Untied States Gevernrne*e
This irdbative measure amends the Constitution by ant inding and State of Calijam :provided however,that for purposes of Section 1,
adding sections thereto: therefore, eitisting provisions proposed to be the change in the can of living from the preceding year shall in no event
m s
deleted are printed in striYeeua type and new provisions proposed to be from
bis leer than the change in California per capita personal income
inserted or added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are from said preceding year.
SECTION 4. Article XIIIB,Section 8(f) of the California Constitu•
new. tion is amended to read:
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE XIII B SEC. 8(f) "Po lation-of any entity of government,other than a
school district, shall be determined by a method prescribed b.' the
SECTION 1. This amendment shall be known as the"Covernment Legislature, provided that such determination shall be revised. as
Spending Limitation and Accountability Act" necessary,to reflect the periodic census conducted by the United States
SECTION 2 The People of the State of California find and declare Department of Commerce-, or successor agency of the United States
that: CovernmenL The population of any school district shall be such school
(1) A strong and effective constitutional limitation on government district's average daily attendance as determined by a method pre-
spending is necessary to guarantee accountability to taxpayers and scribed by the Legislature t.In addition,for the stare:population snail
forts the politicians to set priorities and manage our tax dollars include any increases in average daily attendance for the K-13 or
ejftciently. community college systrm which are in excess of the percentage grou:li
(2) The state and local government spending limitation contained in state population.!n the case of local governments other than schools.
in the California Constitution it out of date and no longer provider such determimtian shall consider increases in the number of persons
taspaye►s smth an effesrive too!for conholling government spending employed as wall as residing within the jurisdiction
(3) Since itr adoption in 19755 the Cuu limit has failed to ssflse! SECTION S. Section 12 is hereby added to Article XIIIB of the
chs many changes in Californias economy. As a ssuult already- California Constitution
collected tax revenues cannot be used to maintain the cu level of SEC7I0N 12 The Commission on State Finance shall reporr as
education, crime prevention, public safety. and other vital public ally to the,torpayers hots state revenues received during.the prc`a:. ,;
go '?I, fiscal year are spent and the amount of the state's appropridtions
(i) The current limit also has jailed to reflect the changing and subject to limitation under the provisions of this Article.
growing needs of California taxpayers. With 1og000 new children. SECTION & Section 13 is hereby added to Article XIIIB of the
entering our schools each year,enrollments are increasing much faster California Constitution
than the overall growth in populatian. SECTION 12 Changes to Suction 8 adopted at the time this section
(5) Adoption of this act will not increase state or local taxes or is added to the Constitution shall be considered effective commencing
remove any funds`ram existing programs, including education, lata with the 1�7 fiiil year for purposes of calculating the appropno-
enforcement health con and senior services tions limit of each entity of government for the 1988••89 fiscal year and
r6) Current las; assuring that the spending limit may be changed each year thenni
only by a vote of the people, is retained and if the voter do mise the SECTION T. Section 14 is hereby added to Article XIIIB of the
spending limit that change must be voted on every jourqguasi California Constitution:
(7) As tarpayem tie should be told the manner in which govern- SECTION 14 (a) For purposes of this Article. taxes and fees
meet is spending our hard-earned dollars Ti guarantee accountability imposed on motor vehicles and motor vehicle fuels to the extent they are
to taxpayers the existing Commission on State Finance shall report appropriated for the purposes specified in Article XIX shall be deemed
annually to the taxpayers. how state revenues arespentand the amount US" leiof the state appropriations subject to limitation Such .Ports can be { ) Commencing with the 1988-0 fiscal year, the appropriations
prepared at minimal cost using existing information, and •can be limit for each fua year shall be reduced by an amount equal w :he
mailed to taxpayers along with other tax information. amount of moenues which but for subdivision (a) «cold be classified
(8) Taxes and fees on motor vehicle fuels ars currently earniarked as proceeds Of taxes
for transportation purposes and should be treated as user fess This as (c) In computing the appropriations limit for this 15189-90 fiscal year
properly treats there as user fats subject to the taxpayer protections and succeeding fiscal years the appropriations limit for the immedi-
provided by Proposition 12 without adversely affecting other public ately prior festal year shall be determined to be the amount of the
Wipes, appropriations limit prior to the redaction made in subdivision bi.
(9) Adjustments are necessary to update the existing spending (d) Forpurposerofthisswrion, 'revenues which butforsubdicisron
limitation to reflect the real growth of California s economy and the (a) would be clacefned as proceeds of taxes" includes only those
needs of in citizens.and enable taxpayers to hold government aecaunt- revenues which would have been generate
d by loris in effect at the time
able or the proper enforcement of chit act this mesion becomes effective.
S>fCTION 3. Article XIIIB,Section 8(e) of the California Canstitu- SECTION 3 !f any moon part elanre or phrase in this Article it
tion is amended to read: for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional the remaining porrionr
SEC. 8(e) "Cost of living"shall mean the Consumer Price Inde: of this Article shall not be affected but shall remain in full force and
for the 1;rrited States as repeeeed by the United Skim Pepart•nenI of effect
C _3pV s
2 Arguments printed an this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency P88
j VdNAtrie: No J013 nvame rAkir: s btu: ,11 UU irU t;: Nvton NrL&r i l.4.1J A 1-4m
CLS: 862 CRP: balpam JOB: props DIV- ---op-71
U
Argument in Favor of Proposition 71
There are two issues on which most Californians agree: Californians, NOT JUST ONE SPECIAL INTEREST.
(1) Government spending should be restricted by • Provide the flexibility necessary to keep up with
strong, workable limits: and California's economy and population—the fastest
(2) The existing state and local government spending growing in the nation.
limit, passed in. 1979, MUST BE UPDATED. Proposition 71 makes these fair, common-sense
The only question: How to update the outmoded limit? changes:
Here's the problem: • It requires the limit reflect our growing school
CALIFORNIA HAS CHANGED DRAMATICALLY IN population. With 140,000 new children entering our
THE PAST DECADE Our state's economy has grown. schools every year Proposition 71 is necessary for
More than 140,000 new children enter our schools each schools to keep up.
year. Our senior population has almost doubled. More • It uses the CALIFORNIA Consumer Price Index
criminals are behind bars. Traffic has increased. Many (CPI), not the National CPI, to determine annual
new, unanticipated problems such as AIDS and toxic adjustments and requires the limit keep pace with
waste threaten our citizens. our economy. OUR limit should reflect CALIFOR-
The existing limit, tied to national inflation NOT NIA, NOT other states.
California's economy, doesn't allow us to spend already- • It requires an annual report by the Commission on
collected taxes on current problems It's unworkable and State Finance to the taxpayers ori what the spending
ineffective. It has become a shell game for politicians and limit is and HOW OUR TAX DOLLARS ARE SPENY:
is full of loopholes for clever bureaucrats. Government must be accountable to the people.
Unless we update the limit: according to the Commis- The current limit is outdated. Proposition 71 is reces-
sion on State Finance, even though funds will be avail- sary if we expect government to deal with new problems
able, 323 BILLION LV CUTS WILL BE MADE FROM such as AIDS and toric waste disposal.
CURRENT SERVICE LEVELS--cuts in education, law Proposition 71 is well balanced and fair. It FAVORS NO
enforcement,senior services and health care—in the next SPECIAL INTERESTS. The needs of schools, law en-
10 vears. forcement,seniors,fire protection,health care,and trans-
Here's the sensible solution: portation are all treated in an evenhanded manner. It
We need a common-sense limit. Proposition 71 makes makes the system more accountable and IT WILL NOT
reasonable changes allowing us to meet present needs RAISE TAXES
and future challenges while keeping firm limits on the 'That's why citizens from all walks of life and over 100
politicians. IT DOES NOT RAISE STATE OR LOCAL major statewide organizations representing over 5 AIIL-
TAXES• LION TAXPAYERS are
It will: sponsoring Proposition 71.
VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 71.
• Allow us to use already-collected taxes to deal with
critical problems thereby avoiding the need for BILL SOIYIG
future tax increases. Stare Superintendent of Public!>,arrue:toss
• Retain im rtant provisions of the existinglimit,such CAROL 4 LeaguFEDEe
of W
as the requiremnt that the limit maONLY be JOSEM '�"D. °j women voters of California
CHANGED BY A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE Jo erican s o anon of R
American Association of Retired Persons/California
• Update the limit in a manner that benefits ALL (AARP)
Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 71
They're at it again, folks. approximately twice the rate of the present "Cann
This time they want to increase government spending Limit." If Proposition 71 had been in effect since 1979,
some 6.1 billion dollars over the next 4 years. state government spending would have been allowed to
And the people who stand to gain the most are leading grow $6.3 billion more than it has. In the next 4 years,
the effort: state spending could go up an extra $6.1 billion more if
• Giant public employee unions. you allow Proposition 71 to pass.
• Powerful special interests. Where will that$6 billion come from? Proposition 71 is
• Ambitious politicians. very silent about this point, but government gets its
Together they are out to destroy the "Cann Spending money from taxing people. So much for Proposition 71's
Limit," which voters approved in 1979 with 74.3% of the claim to limit government spending.
vote. Next,let's look at Proposition 71's "accountability." We
They have used, a very misleading title for their Find no accountability whatsoever.
initiative: "Government Spending Limitation and Ac- It doesn't guarantee that education will get even a
countability Act." dollar of these new funds, and the same for roads, flood
First, let's look at the "limitation" part of their Propo- control; and other essential needs such as fire and police
sition: It will allow government spending to increase at protection. 0_349_4
P88 Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency 3
BNAME. No job Name PAGE 4 SESS: 11 OUTPUT. Mon Mar 7 19:17:26 1
':;S: 8% GRP alpam JOB: props DIV: prop 71
ED
R �% Fy
What it does do is give the Legislature a blank check to California's climate for new jobs and businesses Y
spend billions of dollars any way it wants—more welfare, unproved dramatically
more boondoggle, more bureaucrats and higher salaries. . Under the"Gann Limit,"government spending cannot
Just last year, for example, we retired a member of the ncrease any faster than the rise in population and
State Board of Equalization with a guaranteed annual inflation, thus preventing wild spending sprees by politi-
pension of over 5190,000 a year. Sad to say that's the kind clans—unless the people vote for an increase.
of accountability we have come to expect from our
Now along comes Proposition 71, which would effec-
lively wipe out the "Gann Limit" and open the door to
Legislature. So much for the"accountability"of Proposi-
tion 71. huge tax increases.
The real effect of Proposition 71 is to ensure that
We truly believe that if the public employee unions government in California will never again be "troubled"
ultimately have their way, and Proposition 71 is passed, by any limit on its spending. Without the accountability
larger salaries and pensions will become the first order of of the current Gann Limit, you—the taxpayer—will end
the day. up paying the bills.
The "Gann Limit" (Proposition 4) was specifically Give the politicians a budget, not a blank check. vote
designed to stop runaway government spending and NO on Proposition 71.
taxation. PAUL GANN
The "Cann Limit" has served the people of California Pr'o"nAd of"Cann Spending Limit"
well. Government spending has been brought under Post RAY
Past President, California Chamber of Commerce
control, there have been no general tax increases, and TOM MEZGER
Yolo County Taxpayers Association
Argument Against Proposition 71
Why change the Gann spending limit? So the politi. certainty and peace of mind to everyone,including senior
cians, bureaucrats and special interests can spend more, citizens on fixed incomes
of course. And spending more means taxing more. Say . Our schools have been amply funded, including pro
goodbye to future tax rebates and hello to tax hikes. sion for new students with over 50% of the state gene.
Through this initiative, public employee unions and fund going to education. Expenditures have risen from
welfare rights groups seek to repeal the Gann limit. But $3•000 to over $4200 per pupil in five years. Bill Honig
Californians like the limit So promoters of this initiative acknowledges that education is receiving its "fair share."
have disguised the repeal,calling it an"adjustment" But Extra funnia teachers are 4th highest paid is the nation.
Su p g � Extra Rinds have gone to current teachers rather than
if their limit had been in effect since 1979, California hiring new teachers to bring down class size.
governments could have spent 515 billion more last year Keep our Gann spending limit working for the taxpay-
alone and 556 billion more since 1979 than under the ers of California. Say NO to the politicians and special
Cann limit. interests who want spending unlimited
The Cann limit is flexible, but firm. Spending may LEWIS g,UO-ER
increase annually reflecting California's economic and Ca-Chairman, Californians Against Higher Taxe+,
population growth (including school enrollment). and Presiden4.vational Tax Limitation Committee
Proposition 13 and the Cann limit together have WM.CRAIG STUBBLEBINE
Von Tobel Professor of Economic
restored power to the taxpayers.'These limits provide Claremont McRenna College
4 Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency P38
LOBNAME. No Job Name PAGE: 1 SFS: 9 OUTPUT: Mon Mar 7 19:17:34 1988
CLS: 862,GRP: bbaallpam JOB: props DI% op-72
DDS
Official Title and Summary Prepared by the Attomey General
EMERGENCY RESERVE.DEDICATION.OF CERTAIN TAXES TO TRANSPORTATION.APPROPRIATION LIMIT
CHANGE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Requires three percent of total state General Fund
budget be included in reserve for emergencies and economic uncertainties. Provides net revenues derived from state
sales and use taxes on motor vehicle fuels be used only for public streets, highways, and mass transit guideways.
(Three-year phase-in.) Requires two-thirds vote of Legislature or majority vote of voters before taxes on motor vehicle
fuels may be raised. Reserve and fuel tax revenues excluded from appropriation limit. Prohibits Legislature from
lowering local sales tax rates in effect January 1, 1987. Summary of Legislative Analyst's estimate of net state and local
government fiscal impact:Measure has two major fiscal effects. First, changes in state's appropriation limit will result
in increased state appropriations authority of up to $1.6 billion in 1988-89, $1.5 billion in 1989-90, and slightly larger
amounts in future years. As a result, the state may be able to spend or retain tax proceeds which otherwise would be
returned to the taxpayers.State's ability to appropriate additional funds as a result of increased state limit is dependent
on receipt of sufficient .revenue. Based on estimates contained in Covernor's Budget, state revenues will not be
.sufficient in 1988-89 to fund any additional appropriations allowed by this measure. In future years, economy's
performance will determine whether and to what extent state. revenues will be available to fund such additional
appropriations. Second, the requirement that certain sales tax revenues be expended only for transportation purposes
results in an increase in the amount of revenues available for transportation purposes while reducing the amount
available for education, health, .welfare and other General Fund expenditures. This shift in funding will amount to
about$200 million in 19889, about$4.30 million in 1989-90,and about $725 million in 1990-91, and increasing amounts
thereafter.
Analysis by the Legislative analyst
Background reserve has amounted to between 1'/2 percent and 3
Under the California Constitution, most government percent of General Fund expenditures. The appropria-
entities (including the state, cities, counties, schools and tion of tax revenues to the reserve fund is subject to the
special districts) have a.limit.on the amount of taxes they limit, but the subsequent expenditure of funds from the
can appropriate each year.This appropriations limit does SFEU is exempt.
not apply to nontax revenues,such as user fees.The limit Proposal
also does not apply to certain types of expenditures,such
as debt service on voter-approved general obligation This measure makes several changes in how the appro-
bonds. priations limit operates.
The limit must be adjusted whenever the responsibility • First, it changes the way certain state tax revenues
for providing services is shifted from one entity of are treated for purposes of the limit.
government to another (or to the private sector), or a Second,it requires the state to use revenues from the
when the source of funds for a program is shifted from sales tax on motor vehicle fuels only for street,
taxes to user fees. These shifts are known as "transfers of highway and mass transit guideway purposes.
financial responsibility." a Finally, it requires the state to begin each Fiscal year
Whenever a government entity does not appropriate with a reserve equal to 3 percent of General Fund
all of its tax revenues, these "excess revenues" must be expenditures.
returned to taxpayers within two years. Transportation-Related Tax Revenue Changes. This
The California Constitution requires that revenues measure changes the way some state tax revenues are
from certain state taxes unposed on motor vehicles and treated for purposes of the appropriations limit. Sbecifi-
motor vehicle fuels (for example, the 9-cents-per-gallon callv, state tax revenues which are now dedicated for
tax on gasoline) be used solely for transportation purpos- transportation purposes must be treated as "user Fees"
es. Revenues collected from the state's 4%-percent sales which are not subject to the limit. These revenues
tax on motor vehicle fuels are not subject to this require- include: (1) the 9-cents-per-gallon excise tax on motor
ment. Currently, these sales tax revenues go to the state's vehicle fuels, (2) motor vehicle weight fees; and (3)
General Fund,which is used to support education,health, vehicle registration fees.This change represents a-trans-
welfare and other state programs. fer of financial responsibility," and this measure specifies
The Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax how the required adjustment to the appropriations limit
Law allows local governments to impose a E/.-percent is made. Further, this measure requires that any increase
local sales tax. The state collects these revenues and in these "user fees" be approved by two-thirds -of the
returns them to cities and counties. Legislature, or by a majority of the voters voting at a
Finallv, the state maintairfs a reserve fund known as the regularly scheduled statewide election.
Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties (SFEU). This This measure also requires the Governor to report to
reserve provides a source of funds to pay for unexpected the Legislature on February 1 of each year on the next
costs. The amount. of funds allocated to this reserve is year's appropriations limit and appropriations subject to
determined by the Legislature and the Governor each the limit.
year as part of the budget.process. In recent years, this Sales Tax Changes. This m e es t}ras the
P88 Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for :Z; y 0 icmal aggency 1
. A_Je UV" vnr: uaipatu lvo. props tut. prop_iL
V
state (but not the local) sales tax revenues from sales of appropriations to and from this reserve; and (b) declare
motor vehicle fuels be used only for street,highway, and state.sales tax revenues from motor vehicle fuels ' e
mast transit guideway purposes. This requirement is "user fees,"without making a corresponding reductiu....n
phased in over a three-year period. Under current law, the appropriations limit These two increases are partially
these revenues are deposited in the General Fund and offset by net decreases inappropriations authority result-
can be used for any state purpose. ing from the change in treatment of other motor vehicle-
This measure specifies that these revenues also must be related revenues.
treated as "user fees" which are not subject to the Based on the estimates contained in the Governor's
appropriations limit. However,the measure specifies that Budget, the state will not have sufficient revenue in
no reduction in the state's limit may be made to reflect 1988--89 to fund any additional appropriations allowed by
this "transfer of financial responsibility." Because the this measure.In future years,the economy's performance
sales tax revenues would be excluded, there would be will determine whether and to what extent state reve-
extra room within the states limit to make appropria- nues will be available to fund such additional appropria-
tions. tions.
Finally, this measure prohibits the Legislature from Second, the requirement that certain state sales tax
reducing the IV4 percent local sales tax rate. revenues be spent only for street, highway and mass
New General Fund Reserve. This measure requires transit guideway purposes results in an increase in the
that a new reserve be created within the state's General amount of revenues available for those purposes. Howev-
Fund. Each annual state budget must include an appro- er, it also reduces the amount of revenues available for
priation to this reserve to bring it up to 3 percent of the education, health, welfare and all other General Fund
total General Fund budget. In addition, it transfers the expenditures. This shift of funding from general state
balance in the SFEU as of June 30, 1988, to the new purposes to transportation purposes, to be phased in over
reserve. three years, will amount to about $200 million in 1988--99.
This measure also specifies that any appropriation about $430 million in 1989-90, about 5725 million in
made to this new reserve fund is not subject to the state's 1990-91, and increasing amounts annually thereafter. To
appropriations limit. However, an appropriation made the extent that revenues are not available to pay for
from this new reserve is subject to the limit, unless it is additional appropriations, as indicated above, this shift of
designated as a special appropriation for "urgent and general purpose revenues to street, highway and mass
unexpected" needs. The measure limits the amount of transit guideway purposes will require.a.correspond^¢
special appropriations which can be made in any year to reduction in expenditures for other General Fund
2 percent of total General Fund expenditures. This grams
exempt treatment of special appropriations would be In summary,the approval of this measure by the voters
repealed immediately upon the effective date of any will have the following state fiscal effects.
future constitutional amendment which changes certain In the 19889 fiscal year:
provisions of the appropriations limit, including the def- a The state government's appropriations limit will be
initions of "proceeds of taxes" and the annual "cost-of- increased by up to $1.6 billion. If the Governor's
living" adjustment Budget estimates prove to be correct, revenues will
Fiscal Effect be insufficient to fund any of this additional appro-
priation authority; and
This measure has two major fiscal effects. 0 $200 million of existing state sales tax revenues %ill
First, the changes to the state's appropriations limit will be shifted from General Fund programs to street,
allow increased state appropriations of up to $1.6 billion highway and mass transit guideway purposes.
in 1988-89; S1.3 billion in 1989-90, and slightly larger In subsequent fiscal years, the economy's performance
amounts in future years.As a result,the state may be able will determine whether and to what extent revenues are
to spend or retain tax proceeds which otherwise could be available to:
subject to return to taxpayers. a Offset the General Fund revenue loss from the shift
The bulk of this additional appropriations authority in sales tax revenues, and
results from the provisions of this measure which: (a) a Fund additional appropriations authorized by this
require a new reserve and specify the treatment of measure.
Text of Proposed Law
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with tiled as the "Paxil Cann Spending Limit.lmprovement and Enforce.
the provisions of Article II.Section 8 of the Constitution ment Act of 19M
This initiative measure amends the Constitution by amending and PREAMBLE
sections thereto: therefdre, existing provisions proposed to be
deleted are printed in sip k6etsi i"m and new provisions proposed to be Seco7ld-7he People of California find and declare that-
inserted or added are panted in italic type to indicate that they are The current constitutional-limit on state and !oral gooemm,-
new. spending known as the "Cann Limit-it essential in order to for
oovernment to set priorities for spendinngg within fiscally respons.
PROPOSED AMENDMEM TO AEMCLFS XIII,XIII B AND XIX lggimits and to hold good nrnent acwuntable to taslta eisL In addit,n,
the Cann Limit should be imprei ed and moderntzed at follcrar
First—Short Title. This Amendment shall be known and may be (a) .State goventment sho::c
e�/q _'d to In .12
a Perm>nent
2 Arguments punted on this page page athe opinions of the authors and have not
-been checked for >"l�ty anyy officQl7gen e�/ P88
JOBNAME No Job Name .PAGE 3 SF°t: 9 OUTPUT. Mon Mar 7 19:17:34 1988 '
CIS: 862 GRP: balpam JOB: props DR op-72
DIR I
emergenaj reserve fund To encourage funding fo► such a reserve during any Jtsml year such special appropriations from the reserve for
appropriations to the reserve should not be considered"appropriation* urgent and ung ted needs may not in the aggregate exceed ttaa
subject to limitaticia." In addition, under urgent and unexpected penzrtt(296)oft)hue total general fund budget This subdivision shall be
dmtmstonar; limited withdrawals from the reserve should not be ^waled immadto:V star the effective dots of any amendment to
f the Governor and two-thirds o the Section 8 o this Article
subject to limitation r approved by f F on 12 shall be added to Article XIII B as follows:
Legislature SEC 11 (a) The Gooerno►shall calculate and report to the Legis-
(b) Local governments should be able to depend on their share of lature on February i?leach year the amount of state "appropriations
sales tax revenues; and the intent of this amendment is to secure those subject to limitation' and the state "appropriations limit"for the
funds against manuevering by the Legislature sucueding jasaal year,
(c) Motorists consider the tater and fees on motor vehicle fuels to be (b) Any California taxpayer shall have thenght m enforce any
user fee;and the Cann Limit should be clarifted to rwognim them as provision of this Article by bringing an action in t/ur to
court in
such and to earmark them for road construction and transportation accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure
purpews. The Would give the cssrrent system of highways a needed Sixth--That Section 7 of Article XIX of the California Constitution
/artq tesit commitment of funds fjoorr both new construction and repairs, shall be amended to read:
without increasing any taxes Sat programs remaining under the SEG 7. ;N9 allele(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b). this
Cann Limit should!x protected against any loss in spending authority Article shall not affect or apply to fees or taxes imposed pursuant to the
due to this recognition o{um Feex Sales and Use Tax Law or the Vehicle license Fee Law, and all
(d) Taxpayers should be able o enforce the Cann Limit at the state amendments and additions now or hereafter made to such statutes.
and local levels.Further,it is the intent of the people that the Governor (b) Revenues derived from taxes imposed by the State pursuant to
be responsible for calculation of the state spending limit the Sales and Use Tax Law on motor vehicle fuels for use in motor
(e) Passage of this amendment will not increase Lazet vehicles upon public stress and highways,over and about the costs of
Third—That Section 29 of Article XIII thereof be amended to read collection and any refunds authorized y last shall be used for the
SEG 29. (a) The Legislaure may authorize counties, cities and purposes spedfwd in Section I of this article subject to the following
counties,and cities to enter into contracts to apportion between them limitations•.
the revenue derived from anv sales or use tax imposed by them which (1) From the revenues received in the 19889 fiscal year,an amount
is collected for them by the State state. Before any such contract equal to one-third o the revenues received in the /987-8 fiscal year
becomes operative,it shall be authorized by a majority of those voting shall be expended for those purposes.
on the question in each jurisdiction at a general or direct primary (2) From the revenuer received in the 1999-90frscal year,an amount
election. equal to two-thirds of the revenues received in the 19889 fiscal year
(G) The Legislature shall not reduce the rate in effect onJanuary 1, shall be expended for those purposes.
194..for taxes intlxued yursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Seventh—Section 10 shall be added to Article XLR as follows:
Sales and Use Tax Law. SEC is (a) Commencing on that July i following adoption if
Fourth—Section 3.1 shall be added to Article XIII B as follows: this section, for purposes of Article X111 A revenues subject to this
SEC 11. (a) T)rem shall be maintained within the state general article shall be deemed user fees in determining the amount of
fund a reserve fo►emergencies and economic uncertainties, and each appropriations subject to limitattom
annual budget of the stale shall include a s appropriation in the budget (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article XIII B,
bill to such reserve to the extent necessary to maintain a reserve of three the appropriations limit of the state or any other entity of government
percent Q%) of the total general fund budgget Any revenues appropn- for the 1948.89 fiscal year shall be deceased from what it would hate
ated to or retained in such reserveshall not be subject to Section 2 of this been in the absence of the transfer caused by subdivision (a) of this
Article .Notwithstanding Section S of this Article appropriations to &action only by an amount equal to the revenues subject to Sections I
such reserve shall not constitute appropriations subject to limitation and 2 of this Article received in the 1987-88 fiscal year
and withdrawals from such reserve and expenditures of(or authorira- (c) Any act enacted for the purpose of increasing state revenues
tions to expend) such withdrawals shall constitute appropriations subject to this Article whether by increased rates or changes in methods
subject to limitation. of computation, shall be passed by not less than two-thirds of all
(b) Any fund., remaining on hand on June 30. 1948. in the Special members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature orshall be
Fund for Economic Uncertainties described in Chapter 1= Section approved bg a majority of the voters voting at a regularly scheduled
!2' of the Budget Act of July 7. 1947,shall be tronrfered to the reserve stattrunde election.
established by subdivision tat, and such transfer shall not constitute Eighth—Severability. If any provision of these amendments :o
appropriations subject to limitation Stenion 29 of(Article XIII,or to Section 7of,ofArricle XIX;or the addition
(e) :Notwithstanding subdivision(a).withdrawalsfrom such reserve of Section fl or Section 12 to Arricle XII!$or Section 10 to Article XIX
and expenditures of.ntch withdrawals shall not constitute appropria- or an application of such provisions to any person orcircumstance
tions subject to limitation if they are separate-IV designated in the shall bis adjudged declared or held invalid, the remaining provisions
budget bill or any appropriations bill as a special appropriation from and applications shall not be affected thereby, and are therefore
the reserve for urgent and unexpected needy provided however, that severable.
C? V
P88 Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency 3
IUbNAMt.: :Vo jou Name eAiat.: 4 U=. y ,Ulairlrt: ,cion .ridt i 1-1KIL J4 lyoo
.GIS: 862 CRP: balpam JOB: props DIV: protL_72
HAFT
Argument in Favor of Proposition 72
California can have safer roads and better schools two-thirds vote of the Legislature and approv6 y
without higher taxes and unlimited government spend- the Governor will be required before any emer-
ing , , . gency reserve money can be spent.
. . . if you vote YES on Proposition 72. Californians now spend some 300,000 hours a day in
In 1979, Californians wisely placed a limit on excessive traffic jams. By the year 2000, we can look forward to
government spending. Known as the "Cann Limit;' this roads carrying an additional 15 million can and trucks
limit permits the state budget to grow at the same rate as with an estimated 150% increase in personal and business
our population and inflation. travel.
Under the Cann Limit, California has prospered and But California's highway construction programs have
there have been no general tax increases. declined 96% in the last 20 years.
Proposition 72 has been carefully written to maintain Unless we act now, the future economic health of
California will be severely threatened, together with the
the original Gann Limit formula while providing state
government more flexibility to solve the highway grid- safety of everyone who drives on our roads.
urgent and unexpected needs. Proposition 72 offer a balanced and moderate ap-
lock crisis and meet other ur
g � praach to the many problems Eating California.
Proposition 72 with Under Proposition 72, taxes currently being collected
1. Dedicate the 700-million-dollar-per-year sales tax on from those who use our highways will be used for road
gasoline and diesel fuel to the building and mainte- and freeway improvements. There will be no tax in-
nance of highways, roads and mass transit guide- creases or additional taxes as a result of Proposition 72.
ways. Under current law,this money is placed in the Proposition 72 will keep the original Gann Limit
State General Fund,and only a fraction of it is used formula intact and continue protecting taxpayers from
for transportation. The taxes you pay at the pumps huge increases in taxes and government spending.
should be used for highways The same taxpaver organizations which brought you
2. Allow expected state surpluses to be used to protect Proposition 13 and the Gann Limit are leading the
schools, law enforcement and other important state campaign for Proposition 72 and urge you to vote—Vote
programs from any loss of funding when the gasoline YES.
and diesel fuel sales tax is dedicated to transporta- PAUL CANN
tion. President,People's Advocate
3. Establish a permanent emergency reserve fund JOE,FOX
which may be used by the Legislature for urgent and pyevidmq Howard Jarvis'California Tax Reduction Move-
unexpected needs of our schools, public health pro- merit
grams,senior citizens and others.This fund will have DORIS ALLEN
EN
tough controls to prevent wasteful spending. A Member of the Assembly, 71st District
Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 72'h'-
It's disheartening to see Paul Cann being used so result of the gasoline sales tax. That's right! Now the
shamelessly by the big land developers promoting Prop- developers want to DOUBLE-DIP and take another 5700
osition 72 million.
Because anyway you look at it, this is a SPECIAL We say: "DONT TAKE IT FROM OUR KIDS!"
INTEREST initiative signaling disaster for schools and Shame on the greedy developers for shortchanging our
taxpayers! schools and other vital services!
Incredibly, its promoters are attempting to sell Propo- The developers, hiding behind the recognized need to
sition 72 by claiming it will lead to better schools! change the spending limit, want to save themselves
No one has ever argued—not until now—that TAKING millions at the expense of schoolchildren and taxpavers.
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AWA YFROM SCHOOLS will What's more, Proposition 72 would give the GOVER-
improve them! Sounds like the new math! NOR EXCLUSIVE POWER to CALCULATE THE LIMIT,
But that's exactly what Proposition 72 would do—take and ENCOURAGE POLI77CIANS to PLAY GA.VES with
5700 million directly away from schools, law enforce- the LIMIT and RAISE IT BY BILLIONS!
ment, seniors and others and give it to transportation. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 72!
Check for yourself! Read the impartial analysis in this
Voters' Pamphlet. ED FOGLIA
We all want better highways, but at WHOSE expense? Preiden4 California Teachers Amociation
Proposition 72's promoters—THE STATE'S WEALTH- RICHARD PETTMON
IEST DEVELOPERS—want new highways NOW and President, California Fire Ch/eft Association
don't care WHERE the money comes from. MARY ANNE HOUR
CaliforniaSchool Boards Association
�'Furthermore, transit ALREADY gets $700 million as a Prwidcn4 __�
4 Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked far accuracy by any official agency P88
OBNAME: No job Name PAGE. 5 SF"'' 9 OUTPUT: Mon Mar 7 19:17:54 1988
`.LS:862 GRP: balpam JOB: props DIV. )p_72
D d
Argument Against Proposition 72
Proposition 72 benefits only two groups of Californians: could quickly become a political tool of the Governor.
big developers and Sacramento politicians. For CALI- Third, despite the promoters' professed intentions
FORNI.A TAXPAYERS and SCHOOLCHILDREN it about maintaining a state reserve fund, Proposition 72
uwuld be disastrous would do the very opposite. It clearly ENCOURAGES
Proposition 72 would: THE POLI17CIANS TO USE UP THE STATES RESER VE
• Take away over $700 MILLION FROM our IN ORDER TO RAISE THE LIMIT—an incentive for;
SCHOOLS Law Enforcement, Health Care and unsound and imprudent spending of taxpayer dollars.
Seniorsl According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst, Propo-
• Provide a TAXPAYER-FUNDED BONANZA for sition 72 could increase the limit BY$1.4 BILLION when
PRIVATE DEVELOPERSI it bec.omes fully effective and larger amounts thereafter!
• GIVE this GOVERNOR, and any future Governor, Proposition 72 is helpful in ONLY one way: It demon-
the EXCLUSIVE POWER TO SET a new spending strates that virtually EVERYONE recognizes that changes
g are necessary in the existing government spending
LIMIT every year. No one individual should be limit—EVEN its original author,Paul Cann. Unfortunate-
given that sole authority! ly, PROPOSITION 72 proposes to make exactly the
• Allow the POLITICIANS to PLAY even more WRONG changes in the spending law! It MAKES
GAMES with the state's SPENDING LIMIT and even THINGS WORSE FOR OUR SCHOOLS and DOES
RAISE IT BY BILLIONS of dollars! NOTHING TO HELP OUR HARD-PRESSED LOCAL
Strong claims? Let's take a look at the facts. GOVERNMENTS!
First, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst, Instead of properly addressing the concerns of ALL
Proposition 72 would remove over$700 million in sales tax Californians, Proposition 72 is an unconscionable attempt
revenues on gasoline each year from the state's General by certain SPECIAL INTERESTS to SA VE 7HEMSEL VES
Fund—currently spent on education, health care, law UNTOLD MILLIONS at the expense of everyone else.
enforcement, fire protection, senior and other services— These private developers want taxpavers to foot the bill
and use it solely for transportation purposes for the road construction necessaryto support THEIR
We agree that transportation is an important need in new subdivisions.
California. But WHY SHOULD THE HIGHWAYLOBBY The choice is clear: When it comes to EDUCATTNC
BE PERMITTED TO BUILD ROADS AT THE EXPENSE CHILDREN OR HELPING DEVELOPERS, common
OF SCHOOLCHILDREN, seniors, law enforcement and sense says:
others? "DONT CHEAT THE KIDS!"
The bottom line is that the PROMOTERS OF PROPO- Don't let the developers get away with it!
SITION 72—a group of BIG DEVELOPERS and allied VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 721
SPECIAL INTERESTS led by a wealthy Orange County
developer, one of the state's LARGEST OWNERS OF BILL HONIG
UNDEVELOPED LAND—want lots of money in a hurry HEIJsmu EN IL
of Public tnrrrncr;on
and apparently don't care WHO they take it from. Prwider A. Lnvnnia
PP Y Ptesiden; California sear•PTA _
Second, Proposition 72 would give the Governor, who- TOM NOBLE
ever he or she might be,the exclusive power to calculate Prwiden; California Association of
the spending limit every year. The state spending limit Hr6h.aay Patrairnen (CHP)
P88 arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency 5
JOBNAME.No Job Name PAGE: 6 SESS: 9 OUTPUT: Mon Mar 7 19.17:54 1988
CLS 862 CRP: balpam JOB: props DIV: I 72
[D) D d
Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 72
I have four children, eleven grandchildren and two the people opposing Proposition 72 are aware of that fact.
great-grandchildren. Education is the key to their future The opponents of Proposition 72 include the same
and I would never do anything to damage the quality of public employee unions and big-spending politicians who
our schools. fight every reasonable attempt to reduce taxes and
I also authored Proposition 8,the Victims'Bill of Rights, control government spending.
and was a leader in the campaign to unseat former Chief THE SPONSORS OF PROPOSITION 72 ARE THE
Justice Rose Bird. law enforcement leaders know that TWO LARGEST TAXPAYER ORGANIZATIONS IN
Pm on their side in the war on crime. CALIFORNIA. We have never "developed" anything
Proposition 72 was carefully written to protect schools, other than a well-deserved reputation for saving taxpay-
law enforcement and other vital services from loss of ers billions of dollars. I have never campaigned to benefit
funds when the gasoline sales tax is used to provide better any corporation or special interest and I never will.
and safer roads. Proposition 72 will enable California to finance im-
UNDER PROPOSITION 72, EVERY DOLLAR RE- provements in our transportation system and necessary
MOVED FROM THE GENERAL FUND WILL BE services without raising taxes or adding to our multi-
REPLACED BY SURPLUS TAX REVENUES. billion-dollar debt.
If the surplus isn't big enough, we give the Legislature Please vote YES on Proposition 72.
and Governor authority to make up the difference! And PAUL GANN
C —31?'ls0000r
6 Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency P88
CALIF( TANS luc QUALITY GOVERNME
ENDORSEMENT LISTING as of 03/ 16/68
Statewide Organizations
Advisory Cummission on Special Education
Alliance of Trades and Maintenance
American Association of University Women
American Association of Retired Persons - CA
American Federation of State County. & Municipal Employees
Assn. for the Improvement of Secondary Education
Assn. of CA State Attorneys and Administrative Law Judges
Assn. of Motor Carrier Operations Specialists
Assn. of Municipal Court Clerks
Assn. of Special Agents-DOJ
Associated CA Health Centers. Inc. /Primary Care Clinics
Associated General Contractors of California
Association of CA Urban School Districts
Association of California School Administrators
Association of California Community College Admins .
Association of Conservation Employees
Association of Motor Vehicle Investigators of CA
Black American Political Association of California
CA Assn. of Health Svcs. at Home
CA Assn. of Psychiatric Technicians
CA Assn. of Public Hospitals
CA Assn. of Regional Occupational Cntrs. & Programs
CA Assn. of Regulatory Investigators and Inspectors
CA Assn. of School Business Officers
CA Association of County Veterans Service Officers
CA Association of Vocational Administrators
CA Catholic Conference of Bishops
CA County Librarians Assn.
CA District Attorneys Association
California Assn. for the Education of Young Children
California Association for Counseling and Development
California Association for Alcohol /Drug Educators
California Association of Interns and Residents
California Association of Professional Scientists
California Association of Homes for the Aging
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California Association of County Data Processors
California Association of Special Investigators
*California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems
California Association of Area Agencies on Aging
California Association of Food and Drug Officials
California Coalition of Law Enforcement Assn.
California Commission on Aging
California Common Cause
California Community College Trustees
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
California Council of Churches
California Democratic Party
California Dental Association
California. Department of Forestry Employees Association
California Faculty Association
California Federation of Teachers
California Fire Chiefs Association
California Independent Public Employees Legislative Council
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California League of Senior Citizens
California Medical Transportation Association
California Medical Association
California Movement for Educational Reform
California NOW
California Nurses Association
California Peace Officers Association -
*California Pharmacists Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California Probation. Parole, and Correctional Association
California Public Defenders Association
California Retired Teachers Association
Pa Fie -
CALIFORNIANS fuc QUALITY GOVERNMENT
ENDORSEMENT LISTING as of 03/1G/88
Statewide Organizations ( co,it. )
California School Boards Association
California School Employees Association
California School Food Service Association
California Seniors Coalition
California Special Districts Association
California Speech - Language - Hearing Association
California State Board of Education
California State Coroner ' s Association
California State Council of Service Employees
California State Employees Association
California State Firemen' s Association
California State PTA
California State Sheriffs Association
California Tax Reform Association
California Teachers Association
California Transit League
California Union of Safety Employees
Californians for Better Transportation
Catholic Charities of CA
Chancellor ' s Advisory Comte on Child Dev. . Instr . , & Svcs.
Chief Probation Officers of California
Citizens for Education
Congress of California Seniors
*Council of U.C . Faculty Associations
County Administrative Officers Association of California
County Alcohol Program Administrators Assn. of CA
County Clerks Association of California
County Engineers Assoc. of CA
County Park and Recreation Directors Association
County Personnel Administrators Assoc. of CA
County Recorders' Association of California
County Supervisors Assn. of California
Educational Congress of California
Faculty Association of California Community Colleges
Fire Districts Association of California
Fire Marshals amd Emergency Services Association
Health Access Coalition of California
Hospital Police Assn. of CA
` Judges. Marshals & Constables Association of California
League of California Cities
League of Women Voters of California
Lutheran Office of Government Ministry - California
Mexican-American Political Association
National Association of Social Workers - California Chapter
*National Lawyers Guild Economic Rights Task Force
Peace Officers Research Association of California
People for the American Way
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association
Planning and Conservation League of California
Professional Engineers of California Government
Retired Chapter - CA Correct. Peace Officers Assn.
Retired Public Employees Association of California
Small School Districts' Association
*Society for Public Health Education
State Association of County Auditors
State Employed Fire Fighters Association
State-Employed Physicians Association
Superintendent of Public Instruction Bill Honig
Toxics Coordinating Project
Regional Organizations
*Area 4 Agency on Aging Advisory Council
Automobile Club of Southern California
Central Coast Commission for Senior Citizens
Congress of California Seniors. Region IV - A
*Public Employees Union. Local One
Southern CA Transportation Action Committee �U
Stanislaus & Tuolumne Cnties. Cntrl . Labor Council -AFL-CIO
W7
CALI FCR' I ANS 1 wr QUAL I T% GCNERNMENT
Local Organizations
Advisory Cncl . of the Cntrl . Cst . Commies . for Sr . Citizens
Affiliated Committees on Aging of Los Angeles County
Alameda Health Consortium
Area 1 - Agency on Aging Board of Directors
#Assn. of Governt ' 1 Commissions and Cncls. on Aging in L. A .
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Berkeley Gray Panthers
Childcare Resource Service
0e1 Norte County Long Term Care Task Force
Humboldt Del Norte Senior Legislative Action Council
Kern Citizen for Effective Local Government
L. A. Co. Area Agency on Agency Advisory Council
L. A. Co. Federation of Community Coordinating Cnels .
Los Angeles AIDS Hospice Committee
Los Angeles Health Access Coalition
Los Angeles Homeless Health Care Project
Older Women' s League
Orange County Employees Association
Oxnard Peace Officers Association
Public Emp. Assn. of Riverside County. Inc.
SEIU Local 535-American Federation of Nurses
San Bernardino L Rialto Fire Fighters. Local 89
Santa Barbara County Employees Assn.
*Santa Cruz County Seniors Council
united Firefighters of L. A. City. Local 113. AFL-CIO
United Teachers Los Angeles
Westchester/LAX Chamber of Commerce