If voters rely solely on ballot arguments when deciding in May whether to pass a constitutional limit on state spending, they will miss the fact that the measure also would extend higher sales, vehicle and income taxes by up to two more years.
Legislative leaders so far have successfully omitted the fact that Proposition 1A will essentially trigger up to $14 billion in additional taxes from July 2011 to June 2013.
Although Republican legislators submitted ballot arguments against the proposal emphasizing billions of dollars in tax increases, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, chose a Democratic legislator to pen the opposing ballot statement, which ignores the tax hikes.
Campaign strategists said this month that the additional taxes are the measure's greatest vulnerability.
Under election law, Steinberg and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, are allowed to pick which legislators write opposing arguments. Steinberg chose Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, while Bass did not designate anyone, according to Nicole Winger, a spokeswoman for the secretary of state's office.
Hancock ceded her right to three groups, the Congress of California Seniors, the California Faculty Association and the Consumer Federation of California. Their argument, backed by Hancock, emphasizes that the bill was "hastily drafted behind closed doors" and that a spending limit would hurt state services, but it does not mention any of the tax extensions.
"I think everyone will make the arguments that resonate with them," Hancock said.
Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, and Sen. Bob Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga, submitted a ballot argument explaining that the proposal allows tax increases to continue for up to two more years. Because of how the budget was written, Proposition 1A enables a 1-cent sales tax hike to continue through 2012 and higher income and vehicle taxes to last through 2013.
"We have concerns about this whole thing being a setup, quite frankly," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, who signed the argument with Dutton and DeVore that was not selected.
Through a budget bill, lawmakers classified Proposition 1A only as a "Budget Stabilization Fund" meant to limit future deficits, keeping the tax implications in a separate bill. That makes it unclear whether the legislative analyst's ballot review will mention the taxes.
"Our concern is that all of the ballot material will say nothing about the taxes," Coupal said.
Call Kevin Yamamura, Bee Capitol Bureau, (916) 326-5548.
About Comments
Reader comments on Sacbee.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Sacramento Bee. If you see an objectionable comment, click the "report abuse" button below it. We will delete comments containing inappropriate links, obscenities, hate speech, and personal attacks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. See more about comments here.