ballot propositions

| | | | |

Will the UCLA Hotel Pass the Sniff Test in November?

Byuclafaculty

We noted in a blog posting yesterday that the UCLA proposal for a 250-room hotel/conference center is back on the Regents’ July agenda.  Also on the agenda is discussion of the recently-enacted state budget and the governor’s November tax initiative.  The Regents are likely to endorse the ballot initiative which, as prior posts have noted, is not polling as well as it should at this stage. So an interesting question for the Regents is whether the hotel passes the sniff test for wise spending of UC (and UCLA) resources.  Given all the fiscal difficulties UC has faced in recent years,…

| |

A Guide for the Perplexed Voter

Byuclafaculty

If you are wondering what statewide ballot propositions will be on the ballot in November, here is the complete list (below).  The numbering and ordering of the propositions has yet to occur.  The legislature passed a bill that would put the governor’s tax initiative as the first one.  That action is currently being litigated by Molly Munger, wealthy sponsor of a rival tax initiative.  The legislature removed a water bond from the November ballot that would otherwise have appeared.  In some cases below, yours truly has added some editorial comments in italics.  Text below is from the California Secretary of…

| | |

Poll Shows Narrow (Maybe Too Narrow) Support for Governor’s Tax Initiative

Byuclafaculty

Above is an excerpt from a Field Poll released today that indicates 54% support for the governor’s tax initiative.  The Munger initiative (a different tax increase for schools) and the Steyer tax initiative (close corporate loophole) are losing.  Although 54% is sufficient to pass an initiative, the campaign pro and con has yet to begin.  Folk wisdom is that a controversial initiative should start with at least 60% support since some support will erode as the anti-initiative campaign develops.  So 54% at this time may not be enough in November.  If the initiative doesn’t pass, there will be trigger cuts…

| |

Prop 13 Challenge by Former Chancellor UCLA Charles Young

Byuclafaculty

Most readers of this blog will know that Proposition 13, an initiative sponsored by Howard Jarvis (shown in the picture on the cover of Time) and Paul Gann, drastically cut local property taxes in 1978.  However, another feature of Prop 13 was adding a requirement that taxes could not be raised without a 2/3 vote of the legislature.  The 2/3 tax provision of Prop 13 was added to the Depression-era requirement for a 2/3 vote for the budget itself.   Voters in 2010 removed the 2/3 for budgets but not the 2/3 for taxes.  Indeed, they strengthened the 2/3 for…

| |

When It Comes to November Ballot Initiatives, the More the Merrier

Byuclafaculty

Yet another initiative has qualified for the crowded November ballot.  This one is a do-good budget reform with various features including a move to two-year budgets rather than one-year.  California had two-year budgets back in Great Depression times.  No miracles resulted from budgets based on the Earth cycling around the Sun twice rather than once back then.  It is odd to think that such miracles will occur now.  Budgets are based on forecasts of revenues and to some extent on spending. When the January budget proposal is made, the governor forecasts a period ranging from 6 to 18 months ahead.  With…

|

Up in Smoke: The Tobacco Tax Proposition

Byuclafaculty

The AP is now reporting that the tobacco tax that was on the June ballot is officially defeated.  On election night, it appeared to have been narrowly defeated but there were various uncounted ballots which apparently in the end did not make enough of a difference to reverse the preliminary outcome. As prior posts have noted, the tobacco tax – had it passed – would not directly have contributed to the state’s budget or UC (except that some tobacco research dollars might have flowed to UC).  However, failure of the tax to pass will be seen as voter unwillingness to…

| | |

Close But No Tobacco Tax

Byuclafaculty

The proposed tobacco tax was narrowly defeated, 49.8% to 50.2% in yesterday’s voting.  As a prior post on this blog noted, the tax would not have gone into the general fund and thus would not have directly aided the UC budget. However, defeat of the tax – as also noted in the prior post – could be taken as an omen of resistance to tax hikes more generally, and therefore not a good sign for the prospect of the governor’s proposed tax initiative for November, which would go into the general fund. Yes, there was heavy anti-tobacco tax advertising by…

| | | |

November Tax Could Go Up in Smoke in June

Byuclafaculty

You probably know that Governor Brown has now filed his tax initiative for the November ballot.  He will be unveiling his May Revise 2012-13 budget proposal this coming Monday and it is likely to be unpleasant since state tax revenues are coming in below forecast levels for this year.  Exactly how UC will fare in the new proposal is unknown but it was the target of trigger cuts in the January version; the trigger would be pulled if voters do not pass the governor’s tax initiative.  (Ultimately, of course, the budget and any triggers must be enacted by the legislature;…

| |

Gov. Brown: “Vote for the Tax. Suck it In.”

Byuclafaculty

There probably have been more enticing campaign slogans for ballot initiatives.  But Governor Brown seems to have come up with one that is, well, quotable for the November ballot initiative campaign.  He does appear to have gathered the necessary signatures to get the tax initiative on the ballot, despite a very short timeline for doing so.  UC is likely to endorse the initiative in one way or another.  Details athttp://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/05/jerry-brown-says-tax-signatures-in-hand.html

| | | | |

No Way (for UC), San Jose

Byuclafaculty

As previous blog posts have noted, Governor Brown has proposed a statewide pension plan that would override the Regents’ changes to the UC pension and would require a “hybrid” plan with defined benefit and defined contribution components, a 75% cap, etc.  UC’s official position is that it shouldn’t be included.  However, the governor has not acquiesced. The legislature’s majority Democrats have been reluctant to consider the governor’s plan and have been considering alternatives.  Brown has warned public sector unions that local governments will be putting plans on the ballot and adopting pension plans that are more stringent than his proposal…