Note: While I am an officer of the Republican Party of Los Angeles County the following recommendations and opinions are mine personally and are not necessarily official recommendations of the Republican Party, although some may also be.
Further, I want to preface my recommendations with the understanding that I am opposed to all bond issues, no matter how well-intended they are. California currently has outstanding about $83 Billion in general fund bond debt financing. A bond is a promissory note which has to be repaid, with interest. The interest and principal of those bonds currently outstanding is an obligation of the General Fund, which means it is paid by California taxpayers. Taxpayers are currently paying interest and principal of approximately $6 Billion per year from the General Fund. Issuing more bonds will increase that number.
At some point, and we may already be there, the State will not have enough revenue to pay the principal and interest on its outstanding bonds (and its unfunded pension liabilities). We don’t need to increase these obligations and pass on to the next couple of generations the burden of repayment of this debt. If all the bond issues on this ballot pass it will increase the payments from the General Fund by about $650 Million per year (an 11% increase).
If there are expenditures that need to be made by the State, such as the bond issues in Propositions 1, 3 & 4, they can find the source of funding within the General Fund by reducing expenditures for other purposes. Since the average voter doesn’t understand that the repayment of principal and interest on these bonds are paid for by increased taxes, they are probably going to vote for them as they do for most bond issues, which is one reason we are so far in debt. Voters will vote the State into bankruptcy because they are ignorant of what voting for a bond issue means. The amount of waste, abuse, and fraud in the California State budget is enormous. Therefore, I will not recommend any bond issues.
I encourage everyone to read the arguments for and against each of these propositions in the Official California Voter Guide and come to your own conclusions.
Gary Aminoff
info@larepublicans.org
Note: You can download this in a pdf form by clicking here.
| PROPOSITION | EXPLANATION | RECOMMENDATION |
1 |
Would allow the State to borrow $4 Billion for affordable housing and veteran home loans. Those funds can be provided out of the current budget. The State doesn’t need to incur additional long-term debt obligations to pay for this. |
NO |
2 |
Would allow the State to use up to $2 Billion in revenue bond funds to provide housing for the homeless and mentally ill. These funds would be repaid by revenues already set aside for mental health programs, not from the General Fund. I originally recommended a Yes vote. I have since changed to a recommended NO vote. Here’s why. |
NO |
3 |
Would allow the State to borrow $8.9 Billion for water and other environmental projects. The cost to taxpayers would be $430 Million a year for 40 years. The proponents of this bond issue say that this will solve California’s water shortage issues. It won’t. Read the analysis and the arguments carefully in the Official California Voter Guide. It is a foolish expenditure. |
NO |
4 |
Would allow the State to borrow $1.5 Billion to be used to fund “not-for-profit” hospitals that treat children. Sounds like something good, so it will probably pass. But the estimated cost to taxpayers will be $84 Million a year for the next 35 years. |
NO |
5 |
Proposition 5 would allow homeowners age 55 and older to sell their current homes, purchase a replacement property anywhere in the state and transfer the property tax assessment from the home they sold to the home they bought. This measure would remove restrictions in existing law that limit these transfers by putting conditions on the price and location of the replacement property. It would also allow older homeowners to transfer their base-year property tax assessment more than once. It would have the benefit of allowing more homes to come on the market, which will have the effect of increasing property tax revenue. |
YES |
6 |
This proposition does two things. One, it repeals the gas tax assessed by the State legislature. Two, it requires the State legislature to bring any tax increase on gas or diesel fuel, or tax on the privilege of driving a vehicle on public roads to the voters for approval. |
YES |
7 |
Proposition 7 allows the Legislature with a two-thirds vote to change Daylight Savings Time (such as by remaining on DST year-round), as long as the change is allowed under federal law. Until any such change, California would maintain the current DST period. |
YES |
8 |
Would allow the State to regulate dialysis clinics. Would effectively put dialysis clinics out of business by limiting what they can charge and who they can serve. |
NO |
10 |
Repeals current State law that controls rent control. Allows local jurisdictions to have their own rent control laws, including not allowing rents to go to market when vacated, and putting single-family residences under rent control. Would have the effect of significantly reducing new housing construction and increasing the number of homeless. This is a bad initiative for everyone. Proposition 10 will actually harm renters. For more on Proposition 10 go here and here. |
NO |
11 |
Requires Private-Sector Emergency Ambulance Employees to Remain on Call During Work Breaks. Changes Other Conditions of Employment. Initiative Statute. |
YES |
12 |
Establishes New Standards for Confinement of Certain Farm Animals; Bans Sale of Certain Non-Complying Products. |
NO |
| LOS ANGELES CITY CHARTER AMENDMENTS | ||
B |
Allows Los Angeles City to establish a City Bank |
NO |
E |
Realigns City and State Election Dates |
YES |
EE |
Realigns LAUSD and State Election Dates |
YES |
| LOS ANGELES COUNTY MEASURES | ||
W |
Establishes a new tax of approximately $300 Million per year on real estate to pay to improve water quality in LA County. This tax will be passed along to renters and consumers. It will also cause some property owners to lose their property. Lastly, it is an attempt to get around Prop. 13. The County can reallocate funds in its budget to improve water quality. |
NO |
If you have any questions relating to the Proposition recommendations, contact Gary Aminoff.
Email: gary@larepublicans.org.
BEAR TO THE RIGHT 