LA WATCHDOG - My recommendations are influenced by the need for truly balanced budgets, fiscal responsibility, long term financial plans, transparency, and accountability. I hate budget deficits, structural deficits, deferred maintenance, unfunded pension liabilities, excessive debt, and bloated bureaucracies. I support public safety, the maintenance and repair of our infrastructure, proper planning, and the efficient delivery of services. I am concerned about the impact of burdensome regulations and taxes on our economy and businesses who employ millions of Angelenos and Californians. I do not trust our elected officials, especially when it comes to budgets and financial issues, government bureaucracies, or politically powerful public sector unions.
STATE BALLOT MEASURES
There are 14 propositions on the State ballot. I am concerned about the State’s level of debt and other long-term obligations that exceed over $250 billion. These include general obligation and revenue bonds, unfunded pension and other retirement liabilities, the underfunded unemployment insurance fund, and deferred maintenance. I am concerned about budget gimmickry and the failure to develop an adequate reserve fund despite a 75% increase in revenues over the last eight years. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. We are also experiencing the weaponization of the initiative process by the self-serving public sector unions.
State Measure 1. No. Authorizes the issuance of $11.25 billion of bonds to build affordable housing. There is already too much debt and long-term liabilities. It will only create more bureaucracy and overhead and further concentrate power in dysfunctional Sacramento. Affordable housing should be addressed at the local level.
State Measure 2. No. While the increase in the Rainy Day Fund sounds good, it is really a way to circumvent the Gann Amendment that limits growth in spending to the increase in population plus inflation. This is not a true Rainy Day Fund used for emergencies. More like a working capital fund to plug holes in the budget. This year the Rainy Day Fund was raided for $25 billion to balance the budget. The current fund balance is $4.5 billion, less than 2% of General Fund revenue of over $250 billion, substantially below the recommended level of 15%.
State Measure 3. No. This measure would make temporary income tax increases permanent. Since these “temporary” taxes were approved, state revenues have almost tripled, indicating that the State has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. It is time for Sacramento to learn fiscal discipline and make California more affordable and less business unfriendly. This is an example of the weaponization of the initiative process by the self-serving public sector unions.
State Measure 4. No. This measure would allow local governments to finance campaigns. But it would also permit the state to finance political campaigns, an expensive proposition because of our profligate politicians who occupy the State House. Los Angeles already allows for the public financing of political campaigns by providing matching dollars.
State Measure 5. Yes. Provides for a subsequent special election if an officer holder is recalled. The recalled official would be able to participate in the subsequent election. In the case of the recall of Governor Gray Davis, we voted to recall Davis and, at the same time, elected Arnold.
State Measure 37. No. Authorizes $25 billion in revenue bonds to provide second mortgages to lower middle income buyers of newly constructed homes. The bonds would be paid off by mortgage payments. But the State already has too much debt. And a 3% downpayment is a recipe for disaster as witnessed by the 2008 mortgage meltdown.
State Measure 38. No. Authorizes $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds to finance immunology research. Previous medical research bonds have not paid for themselves. This bond measure was financed by the self-serving backer of this initiative, who is also the main beneficiary. Research should be funded by the private sector, not taxpayers.
State Measure 39. Yes. Requires that voters provide identification when voting and require voting officials to maintain accurate voting registration lists. While over 1.3 million people signed the initiative petition, the Attorney General flipped the wording to encourage a no vote.
State Measure 40. No. The Billionaire Tax, if approved, would create an adverse business environment and drive even more businesses and jobs out of California. While the State’s health care system would benefit, the State would lose significant General Fund income tax revenues every year, hurting other departments. Charitable giving would also suffer as foundations and their billions would depart along with their benefactors. This is a classic example of the weaponization of the initiative process by a self-serving public sector union. [Note: I wish I had this problem.]
State Measure 41. Yes. Requires an audit of proposed new taxes to increase transparency and accountability. Requires on going audits every four years to determine performance. New revenues would be subject to the Gann Amendment that limits the growth in State spending to the increase (decrease) in population plus inflation. Would negate the Billionaire Tax if it received more votes than the Billionaire Tax.
State Measure 42. Yes. Prohibits taxes on personal property and retroactive taxes. Would negate the Billionaire Tax if it received more votes than the Billionaire Tax.
State Measure 43. Yes. Closes a loophole to Proposition 13 and requires that special taxes be approved by two-thirds of the voters, including those initiated or supported by the self-serving public sector unions and those dependent on the public purse.
State Measure 44. No. Imposes penalties on community clinics that do not spend 90% of their revenue on program services. An attempt by a self-serving public sector union to micromanage operations. Another example of public sector unions weaponizing the initiative process.
State Measure 45. Yes. Amends the California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA, enacted in 1970, has been weaponized by activists and labor unions, hindering reasonable developments. Not perfect, but better than the existing system.
CITY BALLOT MEASURES
These measures derive from the recommendations of the Charter Reform Commission, a flawed effort to reform the City Charter. The politically appointed commissioners did not have the expertise or adequate time and resources.
While these measures on the surface appear to be reasonable reforms, there are skunks in the wood pile that warrant no votes. We cannot trust the City Council to be honest brokers. They are too clever for their own good.
Measure TE. Yes. Exempts Palisades property owners victimized by the fire from the Mansion Tax for five years.
Measure LA. No. While the idea of two-year budgets and a capital infrastructure plan are constructive, they are offset by the proposal to allow the City to engage in business enterprises and mortgage city properties. This is part of the effort to establish a municipally owned bank, a proposition rejected by voters in 2018 and described by The Los Angeles Times as “one of the most ill-conceived, half-baked ballot measures to come out of City Hall in years, and that’s saying something.” Vote No on Charter Amendment LA.
Measure PL. No. While the planning process needs to be reformed, this measure concentrates even more power in the not to be trusted Planning Department, permits the floor area ratio to be modified by ordinance (corruption alert!), and is poorly drafted, creating legal ambiguities.
Measure EE. No. EE increases the authority of Police Department Inspector General and the Fire Department Independent Assessor to conduct investigations and audits, limits Ethics Commissioners from running for elected office for five years, and also provides for modest increases in penalties for campaign finance violations. These are more than offset by reducing the number of meetings of the City Council to once a week, thereby reducing transparency. EE also increases the number of signatures required to place a referendum on the ballot from 10% to 15% of those voting in the last mayoral election, limiting the power of the voters.
Measure PRK. Yes. Doubles charter mandated assessment over the next ten years. It is designed to offset the “full cost recovery” program implemented in 2010 that negatively impacted the Rec & Parks budget and the maintenance of our parks. This is not a tax increase, but a reallocation of resources to our parks. Re-fund Rec & Parks
Measure PRT. Yes. There is no impact on the City’s budget. Permits the Port to allocate funds for waterfront development. It increases local representation on the Board of Airport Commissioners.
Measure FD. No. The half cent increase in our sales tax to 10¾% to fund the LAFD is regressive and creates an unaffordable burden on all Angelenos. LAFD should be funded from the General Fund. It neglects the needs of other departments, which is why the police union and others are opposed. 10¾% is too damn high, especially when it was 8¼% in 2008. Vote NO on the Highly Regressive 10¾% Sales Tax.
Measure S. Yes. The Los Angeles Board of Education will be able to adjust campaign finance rules without a ballot measure.
COUNTY BALLOT MEASURES
County Measure A. No. Calls for binding arbitration in labor disputes with public safety employees. The unions love it, but it is fiscally “reckless” because it tends to result in higher compensation levels compared to direct negotiations and often fails to recognize competing budget needs.
County Measure E. No. Calls for greater independence of the Ethics Commission, but locks in the mandated spending requirements of Measure J that calls for "community investment and alternatives to incarceration." This is essentially two unrelated ballot measures rolled into one and does not deserve our vote.
LOCAL CANDIDATES
Mayor. Karen Bass. While Bass has been fiscally irresponsible and an ineffective administrator, Nithya Raman’s socialist agenda would require massive financing requirements. Raman and her allies support the defunding of the LAPD. Bass is the lesser of two evils.
City Attorney. John McKinney. He has thirty years of experience. His opponent, Marissa Roy, has had little experience, embellished her resume, and is endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America (“DSA”), an organization that wants to defund the LAPD and is soft on crime.
Council District 3. Tim Gaspar. The City Council needs his private sector experience. His opponent is DSA lite.
Council District 9. Jose Ugarte. He knows the district, having served as Chief of Staff to Councilman Curren Price. Democratic Socialists of America have endorsed his opponent.
Sheriff. Robert Luna.
State Senate 24. Brian Goldsmith.
State Senate 26. Sara Hernandez
State Assembly 51. Rick Chavez Zbur
Los Angeles Community College District 2. Kristina Irwin
Los Angeles Community College District 4. Elaine Alaniz
Los Angeles Community College District 6. Randall Winston
STATE CANDIDATES
Governor. Steve Hilton. A protest vote against Sacramento. He has run an energetic campaign, raising many issues that should be front and center. He has a snowball’s chance in hell.
Lieutenant Governor. No recommendation.
Secretary of State. No recommendation.
Controller. No recommendation.
Treasurer. Eleni Kounalakis.
Attorney General. No recommendation.
Insurance Commissioner. Ben Allen. He has done a credible job of representing his Southern California district. His opponent is a far-left San Francisco progressive, is endorsed by Bernie Sanders, and wants to have the State operate and manage the insurance industry, a scary thought.
Board of Equalization. No recommendation.
JUDGES
Judge of Superior Court 64. Maria Ghobadi
Judge of Superior Court 65. Anna Slotky Reitano
Judge of Superior Court 87. Davod Dejute
Judge of Superior Court 131. Donna Tryfman
State Judicial Judges. Yes, on all 18.
