SACRAMENTO\u00a0\u2014\u00a0You haven\u2019t voted yet because the state propositions are too bewildering? I\u2019m with you. There are too many for normal human consumption. But I\u2019ve figured them all out at last.<\/p>\n
I\u2019ve concocted my own personal voter information guide that I\u2019ll share here. Heads up: I\u2019m negative on most measures, including some expected to pass.<\/p>\n
Anyway, here\u2019s my thinking:<\/p>\n
Proposition 1: Affordable housing bond<\/p>\n
The state would borrow $11.25 billion for affordable housing programs<\/a>, mainly to provide below-market rentals for poor people. Students and farmworkers also would benefit minimally. So would military veterans through the CalVet program. The proposal is packed with goodies aimed at drawing broad political support. Which it has.<\/p>\n But it\u2019s an expensive item \u2014 costing the state at least $500 million annually for 25 years. Taxpayers already are paying about $6 billion annually to retire $80 billion in bond debt.<\/p>\n This measure is too costly given our fragile, chaotic state budget. There should have been more prioritizing. I\u2019m a \u201cno\u201d vote.<\/p>\n Proposition 2: Doubles the state\u2019s \u2018rainy day\u2019 fund<\/p>\n It requires the Legislature to pour money into the state savings account<\/a> until it reaches 20% of general fund tax revenue, rather than the current 10%. The fund can be tapped when the economy sours and revenue falls.<\/p>\n Sure, save away if you can. Yes.<\/p>\n Proposition 3: Makes high tax rates permanent<\/p>\n This would cement the nation\u2019s highest state income tax rates<\/a> into the California Constitution \u2014 up to 12.3%, affecting the top 2% of earners with incomes above $371,000 for single filers and $743,000 for married couples. (Million-dollar earners pay an added 1%.) The money helps fund schools, healthcare and other state programs.<\/p>\n The high rates were sold to voters as temporary in 2012. Later, voters extended them until 2031.<\/p>\n My hesitancy: Tax rates should not be embedded in the constitution where they can only be altered by voters. The governor and legislators should do their jobs and update our volatile state tax system. Moreover, \u201ctemporary\u201d shouldn\u2019t be translated into \u201cpermanent.\u201d And there\u2019s no rush. The rates don\u2019t expire for five years. No.<\/p>\n You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter <\/p>\n Expert columnists cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know. <\/p>\n By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service<\/a>, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy<\/a> such as personalizing your experience and ads. <\/p>\n Proposition 4: Repeals ban on public financing of election campaigns<\/p>\n This would allow the state and local governments to create partial public financing systems for political candidates. <\/a>\u201cCharter\u201d cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco already can.<\/p>\n Look, either wealthy donors and special interests buy the politicians or the public does. Anyway, if a few major cities are permitted to enact public financing, all cities should be. Yes.<\/p>\n Proposition 5: Changes recall elections<\/p>\n Currently, voters decide two questions in a state recall election: 1. Should the official be recalled? 2. Who should be the replacement? Under this proposal,<\/a> only the first question would be asked. Any replacement would be determined by the normal non-recall process. Depending on the office, that usually ends up in a special election.<\/p>\n This makes lots of sense. Too many shabby games have been played with the present bifurcated system. Yes<\/p>\n Proposition 37: Down payment loans for home buyers<\/p>\n Middle-income buyers<\/a> could take out a second mortgage to cover most of their 20% down payment on a newly constructed home. They\u2019d need to dig up only 3% in cash. The program would be financed by a $25-billion state revenue bond, repaid by home buyers. Lending institutions would qualify the borrowers and take the risk, costing the state zilch.<\/p>\n This makes sense. Easy yes.<\/p>\n Proposition 38: Medical research bond<\/p>\n The state would borrow $8.4 billion to fund research<\/a> into cures for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer\u2019s and other ailments. The state cost: at least $500 million annually for 20 years.<\/p>\n My hang-up is that the measure was crafted to assure that half the money goes to one institute, whose billionaire founder is the proposition\u2019s chief backer. State money should be available to all potential bidders. No.<\/p>\n Proposition 39: Voter ID<\/p>\n This would force everyone to show a government ID before being allowed to vote<\/a>. Those casting mail ballots would need to write a four-digit PIN on the back of the return envelope.<\/p>\n There\u2019s simply no evidence of widespread voter cheating anywhere. This measure is unneeded and would just hassle voters and slow the vote count. Flat no.<\/p>\n Proposition 40: The billionaire tax<\/p>\n It would impose a one-time 5% tax on billionaires\u2019 worth<\/a>, probably raising tens of billions of dollars. Ninety percent would go to healthcare to replace federal funding cutbacks.<\/p>\n This is nutty. There\u2019s no such thing as a temporary tax. Proposition 3 is an example. We shouldn\u2019t have a one-time tax anyway. It\u2019s like a sugar high that quickly wears off. Then what? Who\u2019s next to have their wealth taxed? Want a wealth tax? Make it national to keep billionaires from fleeing California with their riches for more friendly states. No way.<\/p>\n Proposition 41 and Proposition 42: Twin poison pills<\/p>\n Ignore their superficial intents, the sole purpose of both measures is to invalidate the billionaires tax.<\/a><\/p>\n I don\u2019t like Proposition 40, but I also detest deceptive games-playing <\/a>with ballot initiatives. They should be discouraged. No.<\/p>\n Proposition 43: Raises vote requirement for local tax hikes<\/p>\n Currently, special tax increases placed on a local ballot by citizen signature-collecting require only a simple majority vote. This measure would increase the threshold to two-thirds<\/a>, the same as if proposed by a city council or county supervisors board.<\/p>\n It\u2019s ridiculously confusing. But I don\u2019t like two-thirds requirements for taxes because a minority of voters can overrule the majority. That\u2019s undemocratic. No.<\/p>\n The low-profile measure <\/a>would require local nonprofit clinics caring for poor people to spend 90% of their funds on health services.<\/p>\n This smacks of a failed negotiating tactic by the union sponsor of the billionaires tax. Many clinics say they\u2019d need to close shop. No.<\/p>\n Proposition 45: Regulatory streamlining for building projects<\/p>\n This would substantially overhaul the environmental protection act <\/a>that has kept California less polluted from development projects. The act also has been sorely abused and used as a tool to stop projects, particularly housing. This measure would make it easier to build, not just housing but many things, such as water facilities, clean energy, giant warehouses and freeway expansions.<\/p>\n It goes too far, enabling sprawl and leaving citizens with fewer weapons to fight projects. The Legislature has been trimming home building regulations and should continue. No on 45.<\/p>\n Happy voting. I\u2019m glad I didn\u2019t vote early so there\u2019d be time to bone up on this hodgepodge.<\/p>\n What else you should be reading<\/p>\n The must-read: \u201cA butter knife against a nuclear arsenal<\/a>\u201d: Tech billionaires vastly outspend wealth-tax supporters<\/a> Until next week,
Against the wind:<\/a> Hope and despair simmer among California Republicans ahead of election day<\/a>
CA vs. Trump: \u2018This is not normal\u2019: Feds demand California counties set aside \u2018likely\u2019 noncitizen ballots<\/a><\/p>\n
George Skelton<\/p>\n