California residents voted Tuesday, faced with a decision on statewide propositions 1A through 1F, which, if all had passed, would have helped close the state budget gap and potentially mitigate cuts made to the UC system.
Proposition 1A, which was rejected by voters according to early returns, would have provided the state $16 billion in extra revenue through an extension of various tax increases, fees and sales taxes passed by the legislature from two to four fiscal years, said Daniel Mitchell, a professor-emeritus at the UCLA School of Public Affairs.
The proposition would have also mandated a cap on government spending and a “rainy day fund,” he added. This fund would have acted as a reserve that put aside money for times when the economy went down, giving the state breathing room.
The UC Board of Regents endorsed 1A because the proposition would have provided extra tax revenue that could possibly have been used to fund the UC system, Mitchell said.
UCLA itself did not release a position on the propositions, although the chancellor encouraged students to vote in an e-mail sent on Monday.
UCLA representatives nevertheless understand there are serious implications facing the UC system as a result of the budget crisis, regardless of how people feel about the propositions, said Phil Hampton, a UCLA spokesman.
The propositions were designed to stabilize the state budget, said Ricardo Vasquez, a spokesman for the UC Office of the President.
The governor laid out two proposals that listed a course of action should the propositions pass or fail, Vasquez added. Since most of the propositions failed, the UC system will likely face a $322 million cut for the 2009-2010 academic year.
Speaking before the results were announced, David Kline, the communications director of the California Taxpayers’ Association, said he believed that if Proposition 1A passed, it would stabilize the state budget by restricting spending and forcing the state to store its surplus and save it for times of budget crises.
Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer’s Association, which opposes tax increases, said before the results were announced that he believed Proposition 1A would be ineffective.
He said his group projected that Proposition 1A would have cost the average family $1,100 a year and that the governor and legislature were being dishonest as by calling it a spending cap because the amount they can spend can go up every time they raise taxes.
He said that California already has the highest tax burden of all 50 states and highest paid public employees, and thus does not need the tax increases.
Mitchell said that, regardless of whether the propositions passed, there is a huge budget crisis and the state is likely to run out of money sometime over the summer.