When the California Legislature passed a budget for the state in February, a key component of its passage was adding a slate of propositions to the May 19 special election designed to raise taxes and redistribute funds in order to bring the budget into balance. 

Proponents of Propositions 1A-1F say the measures are vital to avoid massive chaos, layoffs and deeper debt for California. Those lining up to fight them, however, find the measures incomplete and say the threat of chaos isn't enough to pass them.

"This doomsday scenario is spin from the proponents," said Mike Roth, a spokesperson for Vote No on 1A, a group working to stop passage of the centerpiece of the package. "It's to put fear into voters that the state will come to a halt or further cuts will be had if prop 1A doesn't pass, and that is just not the case."

Proposition 1A headlines the financial plan that will be voted on Tuesday. It is intended to increase state revenue, while at the same time impose future budget restrictions. 1A would extend sales, use, income and vehicle tax increases for an additional two years, which were agreed upon in the 2009-2010 budget. It would also restrict spending and force legislature to put 12.5 percent of the state revenue into a "rainy day fund." Proposition 1B is directly tied to 1A and will only be executed if both propositions pass. 1B is meant to clarify the amount of state revenue spent on education. 

Roth said 1A would "cement into our constitution these rigid fixed formulas that will force budget cuts even in the good times." 

While 1A and 1B are the focus of most the campaigning, the other measures would play an important role in allowing the legislature to lessen the budget deficit.  

Propositions 1C-1E are designed to redefine fund designation. 1C in particular would restructure how California spends revenue generated from the lottery and would allow that money to be borrowed upon. If passed, 1C would immediately add $5 billion of borrowed money to the budget. 

Proposition 1F would stop salary increases for the governor, other top state officials and members of the California State Legislature if the state General Fund ends the year with a deficit.

The package was formed out of what Robert M. Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, called a "kind of unholy alliance" between Republicans and Democrats. 

"There is a lot of compromise," said Stern, "but it minimizes the deficit and minimizes the efforts needed to close the deficit." 

Facing a $42 billion budget shortfall, the Legislature's plan tries to minimize cuts while generating more revenue.

"It's difficult because you have to make cuts to cover a gap that is essential to have the state budget," said Julie Soderlaund, spokesperson for Budget Reform Now, the organization driving the efforts to pass all six measures. 

Soderlaund said passing the propositions is the only way to avoid deeper cuts to education, public safety and health care programs. The state of the economy necessitates cuts, she said. "But if props 1A-1F don't pass those cuts will be much more severe."

Even if the measures pass, Soderlaund said there would still be around an $8 billion gap left in the budget. She then emphasized that if they don't pass, the state will be in an even direr situation. 

"Over the next couple of years we are looking at a $23 billion gap in the state budget should these measures not pass," she said, "and that translates into real impacts on Californians."

Roth disagreed that propositions are the best way to go about fixing the budget problem. "The measure does absolutely nothing to solve our immediate budget crisis," he said in regards to 1A. "It doesn't bring in one red cent to the state's coffers over the next two years."

The California Nurses Association, which opposes all six measures, has a different take on the propositions' deficiencies. Bonnie Castillo, the association's director of government relations, said if passed, the measures would balance the budget on some of the state's most helpless residents.

"We see this as a 'takeaway budget' and it is a takeaway from our most vulnerable and our most fragile," Castillo said. "1A imposes a spending cap and it has drastic cuts for social services that will continue to perpetuity." 

Such cuts in social services also concern the CA Federation of Teachers, which opposes all measures, except Proposition 1B. 

Education funding not only comes through Proposition 98, a measure passed in 1988 that requires the state to provide a minimum level of funding each year for K-12 education and community colleges, but also from programs that would be cut if the other measures were to pass, said CA Federation of Teachers communication director, Fred Glass. 

"Education funding also includes programs that keep kids healthy and fed and Prop 1A is going to cut the programs that do that," Glass said. "We can't educate children when they come to our classrooms sick and hungry." 

Prop 1B would not add anything new to the education budget, it would simply seek to restore, on a guaranteed schedule, money that was cut over the last two years, said Glass. 

"That would be the legislature doing what it is supposed to do and if it fails to do that, then we would explore the possibility of a lawsuit against the state to restore that money," Glass said. 

Soderland said that while opponents claim the spending cap will destroy programs, the legislature believes that it will even out the economic roller coaster -- with high revenues increases and deep deficits -- the state faces ever few years. 

"We can calculate that we know based on the history how much state revenue goes up," she said. "And it says to the legislature, you cannot spend more than what that average trend line is in any given year when we have revenues above and beyond that trend line."

By smoothing the revenue cycle, proponents hope they can save the state from heavy cuts in lean years and overspending in plentiful ones.

Opponents also voiced their displeasure with how the financial package was constructed. They claim it was written hastily in a closed room with no outside contribution or oversight. 

"We really had no ability to respond and give our input, which quite frankly is very insulting that the governor choose to block public participation," Castillo said. "Essentially our input was censored and I think that's really the frustration of so many." 

Castillo said the budget was presented as non-negotiable and the only answer to overcoming the state's deficit. 

Roth also blasted 1A for what he said would "give this governor, really what he's been fighting for for quite some time, which is unilateral cut authority with no checks and balances."

The Public Policy Institute of California released a statement that showed the financial package didn't yet have the peoples support, and supporters had a long road ahead if they wanted it to pass. The hard road is why opponents feel the Governor and other supporters are using scare tactics to get people on their side.

  

"They resulted to fear-mongering and trying to scare people, into 'oh if this doesn't pass it is only going to get worse,' " said Castillo, echoing Roth's sentiments. "Well the fact of the matter is, this was a bad deal they negotiated and quite frankly, with the input of the public and the representatives of our communities, we would have been much more helpful."

Dan Schnur, Director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California, said the outcome of the passage of the proposition is still unclear. However he said, "The one sure thing that is certain is that a defeat of these initiatives will mean the states budget crisis gets several billion dollars worse."

Recent polling suggests waning support for five of the six measures, including 1A.

The proposal isn't perfect said Soderlaund, but would go a long way to dealing with the crisis.

"We are facing the worst economic recession since the great depression," she said. "These are unprecedented times for our generation and that is something that requires leadership and compromise to deal with and shared sacrifice at the end of the day."

If the budget doesn't pass, Schnur said the legislature would have to rework the plan for next year's budget, which would probably include even more cuts and tax hikes.

 

"If these initiatives fail the state is going to have an even bigger budget problem than we already do," said Schnur. "If they pass it's either going to even out the boom and bust spending cycles that have plagued us in the past, or alternatively it's going to impose draconian cuts and increased taxes." 

He then paused for a moment and said, "The honest answer is that no one knows."