Public Comment

The Green Party of Alameda County urges you to vote no on all items on the ballot in the May 19 special election. We are opposed, of course, to the cuts in transportation, education, social services, and the rest, that are part of the budget deal which led to this special election. We oppose this deal even though the politicians tell us that great hardship will result if they don’t get their rotten deal passed. And it may even be true. But we are even more opposed to the process which concluded by offering us the “choice” of being shot in the leg or shot in the arm but did not offer us the choice of using our collective wealth to meet human needs.  

Proposition 1A is a constitutional amendment which was part of the budget agreement but parts of it go far beyond the current agreement. Ironically, per the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the provisions of 1A have no effect on the current budget. Rather, bringing this measure before the voters was the price agreed to by the Democrats to get the Republican votes needed for the budget deal. 

Prop. 1A provides that “unanticipated revenues” (revenues in excess of the 10-year average) would be saved in a Budget Stabilization Fund (“rainy day fund”) for future years in which they could be spent for the Proposition 98 K-14 educational spending mandate or (if 1B fails, for example) to pay off various loans and bonds. Opponents say this measure is unclear, not transparent, doesn’t do what it claims to do, and creates new problems.  

Prop. 1A asks us to accept a permanent spending cap (a zero growth budget) as the price the legislature insists on to raise some taxes temporarily. If such a spending cap had been in effect this year, billions of dollars in additional cuts would have been mandated. 

State spending on education, health care, the safety net for low-income people, and other essential services has been inadequate up to now. So freezing the state budget (except for population growth and inflation) means that the inadequate spending levels could never be raised. In addition, population growth does not reflect the different needs that different people have. One example we all have come to understand is that children whose families recently immigrated to the US and who do not speak English at home require more spending on school services, at least for a few years. Another example would be that as California’s population ages, more per capita spending for health care and social services will be required. 

Although the budget battle was mainly portrayed by the mainstream media as Democrats (tax, cut, and borrow) vs Republicans (cut, cut, and cut), there were some parts of the deal that even some Democrats could not bring themselves to support. District 16 Assembly member Sandre Swanson, for example, voted against 1A (and several other budget cuts), and was stripped of a committee chairmanship by the Democratic Speaker of the Assembly, Karen Bass.  

For more on why we oppose all six measures, please see our Voter Guide, on our website at www.acgreens.org. 

Janet Arnold is an Oakland resident.