CDCAN Advocacy Without Borders :: One Community

ACTIONS MEAN SOMETHING: VOTE NO ON PROPOSITIONS 1A, 1D, 1E

SACRAMENTO - Words mean something. And so does a promise. Actions, the old saying goes, speak louder than words.

May 19th – today - is a special election. Decisions are made by those who show up – and are also made because of the people who don’t. Show up today – and vote.

Make your action of voting speak louder than the words of what I think are some pretty bad proposals.

Consider voting no on the propositions that I believe will break a promise and a commitment that is replaced by yet more promises and commitments that in the end, only will mean that there is none at all.

It is one thing for the Legislature and Governor to propose measures that have the impact of breaking a promise to hundreds of thousands of children, families and friends with disabilities, mental health needs, and seniors. It is quite another thing for us to actually participate in breaking those promises by voting for it, or standing by and letting it happen.

We are part of the policymaking too – and we can help shape and make decisions too. If we show up.

Our vote can be a message to the Governor and Legislature: Try another way. Don’t threaten us with cuts if these propositions do not pass or that these ballot measures are the only choices to make things right.

So our actions today – and in the coming weeks and months – need to be louder than those words on the ballot and other words contained in bad proposals that the Legislature will consider.

Our vote and presence at the polls today – but also at hearings in the coming weeks, and constant contacts with our legislators and policymakers - need to say to give the single absolute message: Enough.

Enough of bad policy making and decisions. Enough of bad proposals that harm infants, children, adults with disabilities, mental health needs, the blind, seniors and low income families and workers.

Enough.

There are other ways.

Some in the Capitol will turn the question back to the people that elected them. What are the solutions?

Most elected officials spent hundreds of thousands – in some cases millions of dollars to get the office they are now in – or some office they wish to move up to.

Many there are good and decent people – including the staff. But if they find that it is too difficult to find other solutions and somehow think that it is our job to come up with solutions if we don’t like what they came up with - then leave. Right now. Not tomorrow. Right now. It is not too late to resign and let someone else take your place with someone who won’t blame or threaten their own constituents.

Some in Sacramento and elsewhere will say, that they (the policymakers) had to do this or that the State has no other choices, or that things are so bad that we have to pass these measures or else more spending cuts and reductions will happen.

Well, it is possible I suppose for something worthwhile and deliberative to come out behind closed doors by one or a handful of good people. Moses and those tablets come to mind.

These specific ballot measures (at least Propositions 1A, 1D and 1E) came as a result of closed door budget deals – done with good intentions, but behind closed doors. I don’t believe there was any deliberate attempt to harm or be bad – but it certainly was not a deliberative process.

But if people are going to argue that these are well thought out propositions – and that how it came about is the preferred or best way to decision making, then let us put on the ballot instead a measure that really gets to the heart of decision making: get rid of the 120 member legislature, reduce it to the five legislative leaders, who can then make policy decisions with the Governor.

Not sure if that makes any sense – but from my view, no more or less than the measures on the ballot today.

Somehow there is an impression made that if we as voters – or as stakeholders in meetings – don’t agree to the type of cuts being proposed that we are not being realistic or willing to compromise.

Well, sometimes that can be true. We should always question each other and ourselves on what we do. But in this instance, with these ballot measures (Propositions 1A, 1D, 1E at least), the Governor and Legislature are wrong.

There are other ways – and one only has to look at the changes in Washington (whether one agrees with those changes or not) – there has been such a change of such a magnitude, and such different ideas and proposals – that most would have thought to be impossible to happen a year ago or even six months ago.

But even if that is not true – there comes a time when we have to be true to ourselves. We have to remember what this State should stand for.

There comes a time when we have to ask ourselves the question: when does it become wrong to take money from someone else in order to save our own?

I am not waiting for the State to answer that question. No one should. We know what the answer is: it is always wrong.

Today, let us as voters, remember that and make California keep the promise it has made and should never break.

MY RECOMMENDATIONS ON TODAY’S BALLOT MEASURES

PROPOSITION 1A: SPENDING CAP – RAINY DAY FUND – EXTENSION OF SOME TAX INCREASES

MY RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO

NOTE: this is a hard spending cap – though some will argue not hard enough, that also includes a rainy day fund and a provision that extends by 1 to 2 years, some of the temporary tax increases included in the 2009-2010 State Budget passed in February.

The spending cap is troubling because it could have the dramatic impact of limiting even further needed funding for critical services and supports for children and adults with disabilities, mental health needs, seniors and low income families and workers. My recommendation to policymakers – try a hard spending cap on yourselves first and let us know how it works.

PROPOSITION 1B EDUCATION FUNDING

MY RECOMMENDATION: well, vote yes or no, this one only goes into effect if 1A passes.

PROPOSITION 1C – LOTTERY MODERNIZATION ACT

MY RECOMMENDATION: YES

NOTE: This measure proposes to make changes to the state lottery, including borrowing $5 billion to help balance the 2009-2010 State budget and is supposed to maintain the same level of funding for schools, though in a different way. This measure has the single greatest impact on the 2009-2010 State Budget and is trailing badly in the polls.

PROPOSITION 1D - SHIFT OF FUNDING FROM PROPOSITION 10 CALIFORNIA CHILDRENS AND FAMILIES ACT

MY RECOMMENDATION: NO

NOTE: This has big impact on the 2009-2010 State Budget reducing funding from the California Children’s and Families Act (Proposition 10 passed by voters in 1998) and moving those funds to other programs not funded by that act, dealing with children (including early intervention). Proposition 1D goes under the heading “the ends justifies the means” or something like that. It means well, but well, it really ends up being mean.

PROPOSITION 1E – MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ACT (PROPOSITION 63) CHANGE: TRANSFER FUNDING TO GENERAL FUND FOR 2 YEARS

MY RECOMMENDATION: NO

NOTE: This measure proposes to take money from the Mental Health Services Act and shift it to the State general fund to help close the budget shortfall, in 2009-2010 and in 2010-2011.

And while people can make an argument – like for Proposition 1D, that it is going to similar programs and that such a fund shift (or reduction) is needed to avoid further cuts – one fact is clear: it is fundamentally wrong for us to participate in breaking a promise that California has made to hundreds of thousands of children and adults with mental health needs. Or in the case of Proposition 1E – to the families and children of California.

The State has failed over and over, year after year, decade after decade, to keep its word and commitment to those in our community who have mental health needs. In 2004, Proposition 63 was placed on the ballot – and passed by voters – to ensure funding for certain types of community programs to serve people with mental health needs – funding that the state has failed over the years to make.

PROPOSITION 1F – STATE ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARIES – PREVENTS PAY INCREASES DURING BUDGET DEFICIT YEARS

MY RECOMMENDATION: YES

NOTE: Well, yes, this was placed on the ballot to get Senator Maldonado’s vote and one can argue that it’s simply a political effort to help further his career and also to make it easier for him to vote for a budget that included tax increases – an argument that some would say justifies a “no” vote.

That argument would hold some proverbial water IF the other 119 members of the Legislature and Governor never did anything based on politics or never take policy positions to further their careers, or insulate themselves from the consequences of a vote.