Field Poll: California voters oppose five of six May 19 ballot measures
By Peter Hecht
phecht@sacbee.com
Published: Wednesday, Apr. 29, 2009
Voters strongly oppose five special election measures being sold as a budget-reform elixir for California’s burgeoning $40 billion deficit.
But voters in a new Field Poll overwhelmingly support a measure to bar legislators and state officers from getting a pay raise when there is a budget deficit.
And with heightened surliness, they’re telling Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature that they’re fed up with more government spending and higher taxes.
If there is a message in the latest poll on May 19 special election measures 1A through 1F, it may be that voters want their political leaders to solve California’s fiscal crisis and stop passing the buck through ballot measures.
“The majority of voters just doesn’t believe what is being sold to them,” said Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo. “The skepticism extends up and down the ballot.
“Voters feel the Legislature isn’t doing its job, hasn’t been able to work with the governor and is just passing these things on to them.”
Voter Barbara Dale, a Republican from Red Bluff, said she will be happy to vote in the special election because she is convinced that lawmakers can’t do their job themselves.
“I don’t like a lot of the things that they’re doing,” said Dale, who plans to vote “no” on Proposition 1A, which seeks to impose state spending restrictions but would trigger $16 billion in extended tax hikes.
“They’re just pushing things through,” Dale complained of lawmakers. “They’re spending too much money, they’re raising taxes, and they’re chasing businesses out of California.”
But Dale particularly wants to vote “yes” on Proposition 1F – the measure to deny elected officials pay raises when there is a state general fund deficit.
So does Democrat Vincent Anderson, an American River College student in Sacramento County.
“Why would we pay them more money when it seems that they’re never doing their job?” Anderson asked. “Their job is to run the state.”
Anderson, who opposes most of the budget reform measures, said he is offended the initiatives are even on the ballot.
“They’re just passing the buck,” he said. “California has been in debt for a while. Why is this (special election) so important now?”
In the poll conducted April 16-26, likely voters were roundly rejecting Proposition 1C – a measure calling for borrowing $5 billion from a revamped state lottery.
While likely voters opposed the lottery measure by 59 percent to 32 percent, they were against Proposition 1A by 49 percent to 40 percent.
Voters, by similar margins, are also rejecting special election initiatives on education funding (Proposition 1B) and on temporary shifts in voter-approved funds for early childhood development (Proposition 1D) and mental health programs (Proposition 1E) to pay for other programs instead.
The strong “no” sentiment on the budget measures comes despite the fact that a slight plurality of voters – 47 percent to 41 percent – said they believe the state’s fiscal problems and the deficit will worsen if the initiatives are defeated.
The poll found a greater proportion of Republicans opposed to the measures than Democrats. More than three-fifths of Republicans oppose the fund shifts proposed in Propositions 1D and 1E, even though both ideas originated with GOP members of the Legislature.
But healthy majorities of both parties – 72 percent overall – answered “yes” when pollsters asked if voting down the measures “would send a message to the governor and the state Legislature that voters are tired of more government spending and higher taxes.”
“When it becomes a message election, it doesn’t have to be rational anymore,” DiCamillo said. “The voters are just very upset with the performance of the Legislature and the governor. They’re not very enthusiastic to be voting (in a special election). And those who are, are voting ‘no.’ ”
http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/1818253.html
Popular Comment from the Sac Bee report.
Voters must remember that the legislature proposed Measure 1F & vote accordingly. Voters must vote NO on Measure 1F, as well, because it’s a smoke screen. The fact is that legislators realize that they have no constitutional right to be paid anything at all for time they put in working on the budget after the June deadline. Accordingly, voters should be voting on a measure to deny legislators all pay and per diem for any time they put in on the budget after the June deadline for getting the budget out. After all, if you are paid to get a job done within a certain period of time, would you get paid more if it took you longer to do it? No! Then why should the legislature get paid much more for not getting the budget out on time? If we can’t trust the legislature relative to the first five measures, isn’t it a little insane to trust them relative to the 6th one? We should VOTE NO ON ALL MEASURES!!!!!!!!!!! — hpbromine
Gilbert note: The Field Poll telephone survey was conducted between April 16-26 in English and Spanish, of 422 California likely to vote in the May 19 special election.
*We are still voting Yes on “F”!
Here’s a one shot summary of everything that is 100% verifiably TRUE about First 5 and Prop 1D (from IRS docs, state audited financials and the First 5 databases)
For starters:
First 5 has $2 BILLION+ ONLY because it took 2 years+ for most of them to do their strategic plan AND they were not allowed to spend the funds coming in until they did.
It was NOT due to good planning, they was forced to save it! There is no impact because they will use what they have in the bank to fund the 5 years of temporary sharing that they are being asked to do.
So, who can a person believe at FIRST 5 ?
1. Not First 5 commissioners, since IMO they “self deal”. For a clear example, check out Riverside First 5, whose Commissioners raked in 75%+ of all program funds in FY 07/08 – at least one resigned – and they had to restructure! See http://www.pe.com for more info. Julia Glick was the reporter.
2. Not the First 5 lobbyist, Sherry Novick. She received over $1 MILLION of First 5 funds – $200K of which went into her pension account – IRS Form 990s say so! If Prop 1D passes, it cuts off any new funds going to her personally!
ALSO – First 5 does NOT spend responsibly!
1. First 5 spent over $100 MILLION on private evaluation consultants!
They are on track to spend $500 MILLION on evaluation within 15 years
And $1 BILLION+ within 25 years!
Even WORSE:
First 5 spent $500 MILLION+ on ADULTS in a program called CARES.
They gave Master’s degree holders up to $5,000 just to stay in their jobs!
Not a documented penny went to children 0 to 5!
Gubbernor Arnold….is good at getting elected,
but has a real tough time with Initiatives…
seemingly….the Gub..needs to explain…one by
one why they are so needed. He didn’t do that when he suggested the first Magnificent Seven….that all went down to defeat…and he
is doing the exact same thing with A thru F…
rw
If the polls say it is 40 percent YES and 49 percent NO and only 20 percent VOTE.
Then the purchasers of this election only need to convince about 2 percent of the undecided to swing to YES to win. The mailings and TV and radio ads are designed to push a 3 to 5 percent towards the yes, almost double what is needed.
And the YES crowd will have minions, with-in the 100 foot limit, passing out YES cards to the uninformed.
And the NO crowd will say home and yell expletives at the TV while listening Jerk and Twin on KFI bay like buffoons.
I am going to take one of the old political signs from elections past, turn it inside out, and print VOTE NO. and stick it in my yard, and another one hundred and five feet from the polling place election day.
And if many would post NO signs, on election day near their polling place (must be 105 feet away), maybe just maybe, that will cancel out the 3 to 5 percent purchase the big money boys are going for.
*We are still voting Yes on “F”!
Notwithstanding offensive language in your “F” statement….. you are both fools Ron & Anna Winship.
The Maldonado’s Proposition 1F – the measure to deny elected officials pay raises when there is a state general fund deficit…… is a bluff
Since the California budget must be balanced by the law — the 1F is moot.
Only a fool can vote for something what does not exist or is not possible to happen.
You are voting on Maldonado’s bluff.
The problem the governorand the legislature face are that in about 90% of the budget they are either mandated by previous propositions to spend certain percentages of the total budget for specific items, education,healthcare and certain amounts for varios programs that voters previously approved. Add the federal mandates and you have no real options.
A proposition that would wipe out all previous mandated spending levels by previous propositions is the only real way to give Sacramento the flexabity to make real Budget decisions, currently they do not have the power.