Trigger May Limit Appeal of Governor's Tax Initiative

There could be as many as three tax initiatives on the November ballot.  The Field Poll just released posed all three to registered voters and reported the results.  One of the three is sponsored by Governor Brown.  Another is sponsored by the California Federation of Teachers - CFT.  (CFT is the smaller of the two teacher unions in California.)  A third is sponsored by Molly Munger, a wealthy individual.  The sponsors of all three have the financial resources to get pay signature-gathering firms to get their initiatives on the ballot.

Brown is convinced from focus groups and polling that his initiative has the best chance of winning.  He is also convinced that if there are two or more tax initiatives on the ballot, voters may reject them.  There have been efforts by the governor to persuade those sponsoring alternative measures to drop them.  However, the Field Poll suggests the CFT initiative is preferred.  Brown’s initiative comes in second; Munger’s comes in third.

(The ballot seems likely to be crowded with other initiatives unrelated to taxes and folk wisdom has it that voters tend to vote “no” on everything in such cases.  I have not seen evidence of that.  California’s most famous initiative is Prop 13 which tells you that there were at least 12 other initiatives on the ballot with it.  The most recent cases of general rejection occurred in special elections – not regular elections as we will have in November 2012 – which featured packages of interrelated initiatives linked to Governor Schwarzenegger in 2009 and 2004.)

Governor Brown’s initiative contains trigger cuts aimed at schools.  The thinking was that voters like schools and that pointing a trigger at them would compel them to vote “yes.”  But the Field Poll suggests that strategy may backfire.  Sixty-eight percent of voters don’t like the trigger. 

Note: Field did not identify the three initiatives by governor, CFT, or Munger.  Rather it read the descriptions to respondents below in random order.  However, the first one is the governor’s, the second is Munger, and the third is CFT.  

It is important to keep in mind that, except for the third initiative, the descriptions are not necessarily what the ballot language would be.  And they are not necessarily how pro and con TV ads would depict the initiatives in an actual campaign.

(One) (Another) proposition is called the “Temporary Taxes to Fund Education and Guarantee Local Public Safety Funding” initiative.  It would increase state personal income taxes on earnings over 250 thousand dollars for five years and increase the sales tax by one-half cent for four years.  It allocates 89 percent of the revenues to the k-12 schools and 11 percent to community colleges, and guarantees funding for public safety services realigned from state to local governments.  Fiscal impact:  Estimates of the revenue increases vary from about 5 to 6.9 billion dollars each year on average for the next four years and from 3.1 to 3.4 billion dollars in the fifth year. These revenues would be available to pay for the state’s school and community college funding requirements and address the state’s budgetary problem by paying for other spending commitments. If the election were being held today, would you vote YES or NO on this proposition?

(One) (Another) proposition is called the “Tax to Benefit Public Schools, Social Services, Public Safety and Road Maintenance Initiative.” It would add 3 percent to the personal income tax rate on annual earnings over one million dollars and adds 5 percent for earnings over 2 million dollars. It allocates 36 percent of the new revenues to the k-12 schools, 24 percent for public colleges and universities, 25 percent for services to children and senior citizens, 10 percent for public safety and 5 percent for road and bridge maintenance. Fiscal impact: Increased state personal tax revenues dedicated to public universities, school districts, community college districts and other local public services. Estimates of the revenue increases vary from 6 to 9.5 billion dollars in 2012-13 and from 4 to 6 billion dollars for 2013-14, and would tend to grow in later years. If the election were being held today, would you vote YES or NO on this proposition?

(One) (Another) proposition is called the “Tax to Fund Education, Preschools and Child Care Initiative.” It would increase personal income tax rates for individuals earning over 7,316 dollars with a sliding scale that increases the tax rate from zero point four percent for the lowest earners to two point two percent for individuals earning over 2.5 million dollars, and would end after 12 years.  It allocates 85% to the k-12 schools and 15% to preschools and child care, and in years of stronger growth would allocate several hundred million dollars to pay education debt services.  Fiscal impact:  Increased state personal income tax revenues varying from 10 to 11 billion dollars per year initially, tending to increase over time.  If the election were being held today, would you vote YES or NO on this proposition?

The full Field Poll is at http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2404.pdf

Some folks can't do without Trigger but maybe Brown could:

Update: An analysis of why CTA (California Teachers Assn.) - the larger of the two major teacher unions in California - is supporting the governor's tax plan is at:

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/27/4293138/dan-walters-why-would-the-california.html