A California Republican

It wasn’tso long ago that voters approved a millionares tax to be spent on mental health programs. It also wasn’t that long ago the voters approved an additional cigarette tax in order to raise money for the First Five program: it helps children get preschool education and access to educational experiences that they might not otherwise get (that’s the goal, there are some abuses of the program, but a laudable goal). When those measures came to the voters, they passed. Now the Legislature wants a do-over.

Those two programs bring in a ton of money, and the money is dedicated to the various programs that it supports - First Five and mental health programs. No one argues that there is a HUGE need for mental health services in the low-income and homeless populations.. In fact, most of those people could probably use a little counseling. Even if it is only a shoulder to unload on so that someone, other than themselves, can hear their problems. However, they don’t have access to what they need, and the millionares tax was supposed to fund programs to provide mental health care. If there is a huge need, and people need these services, why are the voters being asked to remove money from the programs and give it to the General Fund?

The truth is that the Legislature has other priorities. They see these programs as eraseable. They want the money from these programs in the General Fund. After all, won’t the politicians in Sacramento know what mental health needs the homeless community in Merced has, better than the local Merced organizations and government? Why do they want the money? So they don’t have to make other difficult decisions.

The legislators want a do-over onthe vote, they want voters to go to the ballot box and say that they were wrong, lets give the $2 billion to the General Fund.

Legislators spend, but so do voters. Voters have approved enough bonds in the past few years to take the debt ratio to about 6% of the General Fund income. That means 6% of the money is tied up in bond payments, and that amount will only get higher as voters continue to spend and approve more bonds.

Lets all agree that they money stays where it is. Legislators need to make decisions based on reality, not decisions about how to alter their reality to make it easier to do their job.

But voters also need to take some responsibility and stop voting for bonds that do nothing but limit the state’s ability to spend the money elsewhere.

Everyone, voters and legislators, need to stop spending.

When a president is elected with a large percentage of the vote, and not just the vote in the electoral college, he is said to have a mandate. In the 2008 elections, President Obama won with a large percentage of the vote, and claims a mandate fo change.

The mandate he got was for change. It is for change from Bush to someone else. It is unclear if the mandate goes any further. The uproar over the bank bailouts, the homeowner bailouts, and the increase in government spending makes it clear that the mandate he received wasn’t for socialist-leaning policies. The mandate didn’t include a change to support those who made bad, individual decision. However, he is going to have to learn this the hard way. Evidently the backlash against the federal spending hasn’t hit Washington yet, but when it does, it will be something to behold.

Another mandate for change should be given to the California politicians. There is a call for a constitutional convention. This may not be the right way to go. California politics are so divided, that it will be impossible to get the required number of votes to re-write the state constitution. Everyone is going to want their pet project in the constitution, or their pet group protected, and it will fail to win the support of the voters.

But a mandate can be given at the ballot box this May. On May 19 California voters are being asked to vote on ballot propositions that can change the way the government works. Proposition 1A will place a spending limit on the government. Yes, it will lengthen the sales tax increase, but it will change the way the government does budgets. It is a good thing. It stinks that it is paired with the sales tax increase, and for that reason alone many people want to vote it down. But think of the change that can occur with a spending limit. In order to government to do more intrusion in to our lives, they would have to look at the programs they already have and decide what is effective, what isn’t, and cut money from the less effective programs to create new programs, or give more money to effective programs. As the state grows, so will the spending limit. This is a good idea.

Vote down the rest of the propositions, all they are is the same old borowing schemes. If you vote for the other propositions, be aware that you are not giving a mandate for change to the California politicians - you are saying that they can do the same old borowing scheme and you are okay with it.

Give a mandate for change, vote yes on Prop. 1A