Ballot Proposition Analysis proposition 1F
The proposition in other words sort to eliminate the impact of pay rise during deficit years, of which would be passed over to the common citizens through additional taxes. History The struggle for maintaining manageable budget allocation in California is an issue which can be traced back to 1970s. In 1974 November, proposition 4 which was all about appropriation limit, was passed by the voters of California. The limit was meant to restrict and highlight the amount of money the government could spend annually throughout the state of California, at each level of government. However, the initiative went through a series of modification, including proposition 111 of 1990, all in the name of cutting down government expenditures, and dealing with issues of budget deficit (Legislative Analyst’s Office pp1).
As a result, it was a heated battle and a costly win for governor Schwarzenegger, whom ascended to power in the midst of 2003 budget crisis, partly by promising never to increase taxes ever again (Steinhauer pp9-15). Description • The proposition proposed a constitutional amendment, which could prohibit salary increment of the elected members or officials, especially during the year in which the state is running a deficit. • The measure father sought for a constitutional authority which could enable prevention of Compensation Commission from raising salaries for the elected figures, particularly during the time in which the Economic Uncertainty funds of the states reads negative with an amount equivalent to, or more than 1% of the total general funds (California Voter Foundation pp1).
• In addition, the proposition also sought to give the state’s finance director the responsibility of evaluating, determining, and declaring a deficit year, in order to create awareness of the same. In other words, the proposition presented a sustainability facilitation framework, through which excessive tax increment could be eliminated for the sake of tax payers at large. In other words, democrats decided to take supportive position in attempts to find a solution to the burning problem of Budget deficit, which had prompted all sorts of tax increment within the states, and therefore was about to get out of hands. A state-wide poll performed by Public-Policy Institute in March 2009 indicated that 81 percent of the potential voters would vote in support of the proposition (PPIC pp2).
This actually illustrate that the proposition received an overwhelming support from the public, the same support that reflected even on the actual ballot, having been received majority of the votes out the total votes from the California voters. Most of the local residents were quite concerned about economic condition of their state. However, some of the potential solutions presented by the state officials, such as tax increments could not go well with their needs, hence they found proposition 1F a little bit favourable and somehow effective altogether. 2012, www. sfgate. com/bayarea/article/Prop-1F-would-bar-raises-if-state-has-deficit-3243600. php. California Voter Foundation. gov/ballot/2009/090778. aspx. PPIC. “Five Budget Measures Losing: Interest in May Election Ballot Increases and So Does Opposition. ” Public Policy Institute of California, 2009, www.
From $10 to earn access
Only on Studyloop