In Case You Missed It: San Gabriel Valley Tribune, Pasadena Star News, Whittier Daily News,Santa Maria Times and Lompoc Record Urge Yes on Proposition 22
For Immediate Release:
October 4, 2010
Contact: Kathy Fairbanks
(916) 443-0872
Sacramento, CA – Over the weekend, the three papers in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune Newsgroup (Pasadena Star News, Whittier Daily News and San Gabriel Valley Tribune, along with the Santa Maria Times and Lompoc Record urged readers to vote Yes on Proposition 22. These papers joins the growing list of other newspapers, police and fire representatives, local government, transit, transportation, business, labor, taxpayer and community groups supporting Proposition 22.
The complete editorials are below. Following are excerpts.
San Gabriel Valley Tribune, Editorial, October 3, 2010 “Our View: Yes on Prop. 22 for local control”
(Also ran in Pasadena Star News and Whittier Daily News)
• When [Sacramento’s] overspending continues to make their bottom line bleed red, stealing is just what lawmakers do to taxes and fees that were designed to fund our local government rather than the entire state.
• Only they don't call it stealing - they call it shifting, borrowing, restricting the use of or even taking local property, hotel, parcel, utility and sales taxes.
• It's plainly among the most nefarious of ways to balance a budget. It's the tactic of a bully. But Sacramento continues to do it.
• Meanwhile, in order to keep the taxes we pay for locally working for us locally, vote "yes" on Prop. 22 Nov. 2.
Santa Maria Times, Editorial, October 2, 2010 *Also ran in Lompoc Record “Facing pain with Prop. 22”
• The state has a history of borrowing local tax revenues when there are fiscal problems at the state level, which is just about always. These raids come at inopportune times for local governments, in essence leaving local officials not being able to keep promises to constituents and local taxpayers.
• Our state government is in serious need of restructuring, and passage of Prop. 22 is one way to begin the process.
• We recommend a “yes” vote on Proposition 22.
Complete editorial follows
San Gabriel Valley Tribune, Editorial, October 3, 2010
http://www.sgvtribune.com/opinions/ci_16242449#ixzz11PIlt5C2
Our View: Yes on Prop. 22 for local control
Note: LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa strongly supports Prop. 22.
We all love our state, and we all hate our state government's dysfunctional failure to ever come up with a spending plan in a timely manner.
But sensible Californians draw the line in several places at revenue-side solutions to the yearly budget debacle - not only at unwarranted higher taxes and fees, but at Sacramento stealing from local governments to balance its own books.
When their overspending continues to make their bottom line bleed red, stealing is just what lawmakers do to taxes and fees that were designed to fund our local government rather than the entire state.
Only they don't call it stealing - they call it shifting, borrowing, restricting the use of or even taking local property, hotel, parcel, utility and sales taxes.
It's plainly among the most nefarious of ways to balance a budget. It's the tactic of a bully. But Sacramento continues to do it.
That's why the League of California Cities has crafted the constitutional amendment appearing as Proposition 22 on the Nov. 2 ballot to prohibit the state from taking funds designated for local government.
Every one of our local mayors and city councils we've talked with is in full support of this well-written measure that establishes a permanent lock box around our cities' monies. El Monte Mayor Andre Quintero and Pasadena Mayor Bill Bogaard, whose cities don't have much in common other than being the largest in the San Gabriel Valley, both came out to meet with our editorial board to state their strongest support for the proposition. In fact, the only California mayor we've heard of to not support it - he's taking a "no position" stance - is Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. That's because he's a former legislator, and buys into the bogus line that the proposition is another example of "ballot-box budgeting," along the lines of Proposition 98, which mandates the percentage of the budget spent on education. But how is simply preventing highway robbery by Sacramento an onerous restriction on our state government?
Last year, it was a whopping $5 billion that the state raided from city, county, transit, redevelopment and special district funds. Since 1992, the total take has been $11.2 billion.
It's not as if we approve wholeheartedly of all the spending done on the local level - not that it's somehow purer than spending generated from our state Capitol. In fact, the taxing-and-spending scandals journalists are uncovering in California city halls show that local pols and municipal administrators are top-notch scam artists indeed. But citizens are rising up against that institutional corruption, and will clean house.
Meanwhile, in order to keep the taxes we pay for locally working for us locally, vote "yes" on Prop. 22 Nov. 2.
Santa Maria Times, Editorial, October 2, 2010 *Also ran in Lompoc Record
http://www.santamariatimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/commentary/article_643f50d2-cdb7-11df-8ecd-001cc4c03286.html
Facing pain with Prop. 22
California voters have a dilemma with Proposition 22. No matter how they decide to vote, someone is going to get hurt.
Prop. 22 would amend the California Constitution to prohibit the state from borrowing or limiting the use of local tax revenues dedicated by law to fund local government services, community redevelopment projects or transportation projects and services. It also prohibits the state from delaying the distribution of tax revenues for these purposes, even when the state is suffering severe fiscal hardship.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office reckons passage of Prop. 22 would cost the state at least $1 billion a year in lost general revenues, and possibly much more.
That sounds catastrophic — until you look at the flip side of the issue, which is that local governments would, theoretically, gain whatever amount the state loses.
State programs would, undoubtedly, suffer. But at the same time, local programs would flourish.
The question for voters then becomes, which is more important, state programs or local programs?
The state has a history of borrowing local tax revenues when there are fiscal problems at the state level, which is just about always. These raids come at inopportune times for local governments, in essence leaving local officials not being able to keep promises to constituents and local taxpayers.
The main argument against Prop. 22 is that the timing is not right, with the state being $19 billion in the hole on this budget cycle. But when is the time right? Can you remember when the state wasn’t swimming in red ink?
Our state government is in serious need of restructuring, and passage of Prop. 22 is one way to begin the process. It’s painful, but necessary — and inevitable.
We recommend a “yes” vote on Proposition 22.