Taxpayers, Business Groups, Elected Leaders and California’s Leading Newspapers Urge Voters To:
Vote No On Prop. 2:
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Says “No On Prop. 2”
“…school districts have to put local school bonds on the ballot. If approved by 55% of voters, these bonds will add new, extra charges to property tax bills. The borrowed money is paid back by raising property taxes. Higher property taxes raise the cost of housing and the cost of living, and not only for homeowners. Tenants will see higher rents and consumers will see higher prices as property owners deal with higher operating costs due to property tax increases. Tax hikes are one more burden on struggling Californians, on top of higher electricity bills, higher insurance costs and higher grocery bills…”
The OC Register Newspaper Says “No On Prop. 2”
“The Legislative Analyst’s Office pegs Prop. 2’s payback cost at $500 million a year from the general fund for 35 years… the money for that $500 million a year has to come from somewhere. That means cutting other spending programs or raising taxes. That’s why we long have called bonds “delayed tax increases.”
The San Diego Union-Tribune Newspaper Says “No On Prop. 2”
“…school districts should sweat the spending of every last dollar. Instead, officials’ first reaction to budget pressure has often been to figure out how to use costly long-term borrowing to cover short-term obligations. Millions of electronic devices that work on average for less than two years will be paid off by school bonds not maturing until the 2040s and 2050s.”
California State Senator Brian Jones Says “No On Prop. 2”
“Unfortunately, Proposition 2 does little or nothing to ensure that high priorities such as student safety are really funded this time, or we’ll just go deeper into debt and then hear the same story about leaky roofs and asbestos next time…”
California Assemblyman Bill Essayli Says “No On Prop. 2”
“California already owes big banks and billionaire investors more than $78 billion. Prop. 2 adds another $10 billion—$18 billion when repaid with interest…Under the funding formula used in Prop. 2, school districts must provide a “local match” of funds to receive money from the bonds. That will lead to districts issuing new local school bonds, which are paid for by adding new charges to property tax bills.”
Susan Shelley: Project Labor Agreements Are Just Costly Union Schemes. “Vote No on 2”
“…The argument can be made that the one true priority of the California Department of Education and many local school boards is to placate or reward political allies, specifically unions and their leaders… Vote no on 2 and 5. Stop your tax dollars from supporting union leaders in the style to which they’re accustomed…” -Susan Shelley, Columnist for the Southern California News Group.
“Zero accountability for spending — and no results! If the state continues to fail to manage its budget and deliver on what they promise, then why should we authorize more spending? The funding in Prop 2 will not go toward education improvements — it benefits the pockets of bureaucrats and greedy special interests.” -Carl DeMaio, Chairman of the Tax-Fighting Group ‘Reform California’ and a Candidate for State Assembly
State Senator John Moorlach (ret.) Says “No On Prop. 2”
“Making this ballot measure even worse is the encouragement to use project labor agreements, requiring the use of construction firms that are unionized. Many studies have found that this could raise the cost of projects by as much as another 30 percent! …Let’s hope voters bring some fiscal responsibility to California and say no to Proposition 2.”
Harmeet K. Dhillon, RNC National Committeewoman for California Says “No On Prop. 2”
“Prop 2 does not even require the funds to be spent on schools. Sacramento will spend the $10 billion on whatever it wants. California is in massive debt. We’re spending $5 billion a year on illegal immigrants’ healthcare. Now, special interests are demanding we borrow another $10 billion… We must REJECT Prop 2 NOW before it’s too late.”
