Elections will be held in New Hampshire and Washington, D.C. today. Find out what's on your ballot!

California Deficit Prevention Amendment (2012)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Not on Ballot
Proposed allot measures that were not on a ballot
This measure did not or
will not appear on a ballot
Voting on
state and local
government budgets,
spending and finance
State finance.jpg
Budget policy
Ballot measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
A California Deficit Prevention Amendment (11-0006) had been approved for circulation in California as an initiated constitutional amendment. To earn a spot on the state's 2012 ballot, sponsors of the initiative were required to collect 807,615 signatures by October 17, 2011.

A letter requesting a title and summary for the proposed initiative was signed by Thomas W. Hiltachk on behalf of Jon Coupal, and was received by the Attorney General of California's office on March 24, 2011.

Text of measure

See also: Ballot titles, summaries and fiscal statements for California's 2012 ballot propositions

Ballot title

State and Local Spending. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Official summary

Changes how the state spending limit is calculated and places a total limit on spending. Reduces annual cost of living adjustment to spending limit. Allocates excess state revenue to repayment of bonds and closing of education funding gap, a new reserve account, and a new school and roadway construction fund, rather than to schools and reducing tax rates. Caps sale of certain state bonds. Allows state to spread out mandated payments to local agencies. Suspends protections for local government employees and retirees if unfunded by state. Prohibits local government expenditures from exceeding revenues.[1]

Fiscal impact

Summary of estimated fiscal impact:

(This is a summary of the initiative's estimated "fiscal impact on state and local government" prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office and the Director of Finance.)

Revised spending limit likely would constrain state spending below levels that otherwise would have occurred. Also, over time the percentage of the state budget devoted to education expenses likely would increase, and the percentage devoted to most other areas likely would decrease. The measure would also likely increase the level of state resources going to the state reserves, payment of certain debts, infrastructure spending, and tax rebates. Possible reduction in the amount of new bond debt that could be sold to fund infrastructure projects, particularly in the short-term.[1]

External links

Suggest a link

Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found