SaveCalifornia.com Recommendations on 14 California Ballot Propositions
NO Prop. 1: Would borrow and spend at least $13.75 BILLION (in loan and interest payments) for "affordable housing" projects. A bond is always more expensive than a tax. If the Democrat Party politicians who put this on the ballot really cared about our housing crisis, they'd repeal all the rules, regulations, and policies that suppress developers and jack up costs.
NO Prop. 2: Would create a "slush fund" for more big-government spending by California's Democrat-Party-controlled State Legislature (which deceptively calls Prop. 2 a "rainy day fund"). This bad idea eliminates the current state spending limit and functionally denies taxpayers future tax rebates.
NO Prop. 3: Would extend the highest-in-the-nation personal income tax, which has been hurting the economy, the state budget, personal responsibility, and individual merit. These higher taxes would unjustly punish a single filer with a marginal income tax rate of $361,000 and up (remember, these are the job providers), without any requirement to improve school performance. California's economy and job situation could improve if Prop. 3 is defeated.
NO Prop. 4: Would permit state and local governments to provide candidates with taxpayer funds "under spending limits and eligibility rules." In addition to creating bigger and worse government, it opens the door to fraud. New York State's experiment with government-funded candidacies has been a failure. As NY election law expert Joseph T. Burns wrote last year, "Programs that funnel taxpayer dollars into political campaigns invite abuse, and scandals are not anomalies—they are the norm...For statewide campaigns, the amounts at stake will be exponentially higher, increasing the temptation for abuse. It is difficult to imagine that the system will not continue to attract candidates and operatives willing to game its rules for financial gain."
NO Prop. 5: Would eliminate the successor election when a state officer is recalled, letting the governor decide. No, we want the people to decide who replaces the politician they just recalled. As Election Integrity Project California observes, "On the rare occasion when a recall of a sitting state Governor is qualified, it is the people's right not only to vote to oust the person in question, but to choose a replacement."
NO Prop. 37: Would create a government-run, second-mortgage homebuyer program for qualified homebuyers to buy new construction or first sale of converted nonresidential property, priced below about $1 million–$1.5 million. The proposal would issue $25 BILLION IN bonds, which will purportedly be repaid by the homeowners' mortgage payments (but if they default, California taxpayers must pay the difference. Prop. 37 also establishes a cushy relationship with the Legislature and Governor, permitting them to amend the proposition in the future in ways that "are consistent with and further the purposes of" it. What's more, saying Prop. 37 solves California's housing crisis is like putting a band-aid on cancer. Instead, the elected officials backing Prop. 37 should support a) lower caps on what cities and counties can "charge" developers, b) eliminating environmental lawsuits against new housing, c) expelling illegal aliens, who are inflating house costs, and d) allowing logging to lower the price of lumber (and to prevent "monster" fires from developing and spreading).
NO Prop. 38: Proposes a bond of at least $11 BILLION (loan plus interest) for "immunology and immunotherapy research." While this type of cutting-edge research is a worthy goal for treating cancer and other diseases, Prop. 38 deserves your opposition. Because it's another expensive, deceptive bond, which is always more expensive than a direct tax. What's more, it's unlikely that the grant recipients can generate enough economic returns to offset billions of dollars in bond repayments. And Prop. 38 is replete with unfair favoritism, giving more than half of the funds to the University of California. Listen to Dr. Robert Kaplan, a senior scholar at the Clinical Excellence Research Center at the Stanford School of Medicine, who opposes the initiative: "As written, Proposition 38 is deceptive. It will funnel billions of dollars to benefit its billionaire donor. Voters should reject a measure that channels half of the state funds to one institution based on arbitrary criteria chosen by the proposition authors. Grants for medical research should be awarded through a competitive process that gives all competitors an equal chance."
YES Prop. 39: Promotes election integrity by requiring voters to provide some form of identification to vote, something that is sorely lacking in California. The voter must choose among thirty “proofs of identity” that California recognizes; that “identity” must go on the voter registration form; then that must match the identification the voter presents when voting in person or by mail. Plus, it's a constitutional amendment, which is above the Legislature. And where the proposition text is specific, it could even be upheld by the corrupt California Supreme Court. So, where Prop. 39 has specific mandates, it will likely increase election integrity in California.
NO Prop. 40: Proposes to levy a one-time 5% tax on the accumulated wealth of taxpayers and trusts with covered assets valued over $1 BILLION, purportedly to "fund state health care programs, food assistance programs, and public education." This foolish proposition would eviscerate the state budget. Because approximately half of California's budget is funded by personal income taxes from top earners, including billionaires (expect a new exodus if Prop. 40 passes). For this reason, even liberals should oppose Prop. 40. Yet everyone with a moral conscience should oppose it because Prop. 40 is against equal opportunity, against personal merit, and is blatant theft of other people's money.
YES Prop. 41: Would require pre-election audits for ballot initiatives proposing special taxes. As CalMatters explains, "This proposition would make it harder to pass new special taxes by requiring the state auditor to review any special tax proposal before it goes to voters. The auditor would assess whether the program that would receive funding could cut spending by at least 10% annually. Any new special tax approved by voters would count toward California’s spending limit, potentially triggering automatic refunds that reduce funding for other state programs." Prop. 41 should be supported by anyone who wants government efficiency and transparency. As Robert Gutierrez, president of CalTax, explains, "The Transparency Act gives voters the chance to have a transparent, unbiased analysis of a proposed tax and the programs it would support, ensuring a clear understanding of how that program will benefit communities before they cast their vote. And the public audits that follow will ensure continued oversight -- so that tax dollars will be spent efficiently and as intended on programs that are meant to provide essential support to children, families and vulnerable communities across the state."
YES Prop. 42: Would prohibit the enactment of new taxes after January 1, 2026 on ownership or accumulation of retirement holdings, individually-owned assets, and other forms of personal savings. In other words, Prop. 42 will protect your savings and assets from money grabs by a covetous state government. Taxpayer advocate Tom Hudson, explains: "It’s not surprising that voters support protecting their retirement and savings from new taxes. History shows that taxes sold as narrow taxes on the wealthy often end up reaching working and middle-class families. Californians want our state to do better with the money they already have. They shouldn’t get to take more money from Californians if they saved responsibly."
YES Prop. 43: Would require "a two-thirds vote by the electorate to enact, extend, or increase local special tax initiatives and prohibit local governments and ballot initiatives from enacting ad valorem property taxes except those authorized elsewhere in the state constitution" (source: Ballotpedia). Prop. 43 is supported by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, despite it not being as tough as their original initiative. As HJTA president Jon Coupal said on June 25, "Today the Legislature voted to make it harder to raise taxes by advancing a constitutional amendment, ACA 22, to close a loophole that had allowed some special taxes to pass with less than the two-thirds vote required by Proposition 13."
NO Prop. 44: Would prohibit federally-qualified health centers and related organizations from spending less than 90% of their annual revenue on mission-related purposes. Specifically, Prop. 44 "imposes penalties on nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers (community clinics providing primary care to medically underserved areas and populations) that spend less than 90% of revenue on "program services" advancing their charitable purpose, including but not limited to patient services" (source: Prop. 44 ballot summary). This seems unfair and unrealistic. Because what if, to be effective, 12% or 15% needs to be spent on "non-program items"? Spending standards are good, but Prop. 44 seems like overkill, and could result in the closure of some clinics that can't both operate and pay penalties.
YES Prop. 45: Would restrict environmental wacko group lawsuit power that drags out reviews of housing and other infrastructure projects. This anti-people agenda is empowered by California’s environmental review law (CEQA), which is in sore need of reform. As Ballotpedia explains, "The initiative would make changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) as it relates to essential projects. Essential projects would include the following list of projects and associated infrastructure: housing, water systems (excluding Delta conveyance facilities), clean energy, medical treatment facilities, public safety (including first responder facilities and wildfire risk reduction; excluding jails or prisons), broadband internet access, education facilities, and transportation (excluding high-speed rail)...The initiative would set a 30-day time limit for lead or responsible agencies to determine whether an essential project application is complete. This would apply to projects needing local general plan or zoning changes. If the lead or responsible agency does not make a determination within 30 days, the application is automatically considered complete." | 
