Proposition 1a

Even in this season of economic crisis, it's hard not to be optimistic about California's future. Ours is a state bursting with energy and promise, a place populated by innovators and inventors, hardworking families and young dreamers, global enterprises and entrepreneurs. You can see and feel the pulse of possibility from the halls of East L.A.

Gov. Pete Wilson concedes he had no plan to fall back on if Proposition 1A, the $2-billion earthquake repair bond issue, failed at the polls. It was not a wise gamble. As everyone knows, Proposition 1A did indeed fail, not narrowly but resoundingly, in a regional split that saw voters in earthquake-hit Los Angeles and San Francisco areas approving the measure while almost everywhere else it went down to defeat.

What if the ballot description of Proposition 1A in the March 7 primary had read: "Indian tribal gambling: Allows tribes to operate $100-million Nevada-style casinos with as many as 2,000 slot machines each and card games such as blackjack; casinos may bear names like Harrah's and Donald Trump"? Would Californians have approved the proposition by a landslide 65% of the vote as they did?

Much of the $9.5 billion in federal earthquake recovery aid allocated to California since Jan. 17 is contingent on the state's paying part of the costs of repair and retrofitting. For example, California is responsible for 10% of the costs for repairing or rebuilding schools and other public buildings, utilities and streets and roads damaged in the Northridge quake, and 25% of the costs of upgrading public buildings in Los Angeles, Ventura and Orange counties to withstand seismic shaking.

Re "Necessary evils," editorial, April 26 I'm a permanent absentee voter, but I have mailed my ballot. I voted against every proposition on the May 19 special election ballot. I consider this entire mess no less than extortion by the Republicans in the Legislature. Lest we forget, this costly special election was the price exacted for Republican support for budget reform. It's time we allowed the budget to pass by a simple majority of each legislative house. Sue Kamm Los Angeles :: Like the voter pamphlet that buries mention of the two-year tax extension that accompanies Proposition 1A, The Times buried mention of the tax extension in its editorial.

Paul Clarke asks (Valley Commentary, June 19) why the people of California voted against the Wilson earthquake bond issue, Proposition 1A. I can't speak for the rest of us, but I can tell you why I voted against it. There was a temporary half-cent sales tax increase in 1990 which Gov. Pete Wilson adopted to cover the damage from the San Francisco quake. It certainly accomplished its goal with a minimum financial burden on any of us. There was no outcry from anyone that I know of calling for the elimination of that tax. But then there was a broadly based objection to increasing the debt, and cutting deeper into needed services, by raiding our county funds again.

Even the authors of Proposition 91 want you to vote against it. It's an "orphan" measure that got onto the Feb. 5 ballot as part of an overreaching bargaining strategy by a coalition of transportation advocates. They already got what they wanted: Proposition 1A, approved by 77% of California voters in November 2006, locks up the sales taxes that motorists pay at the gasoline pump, allowing the revenue to be used only for transportation projects. That makes this decision easy.

The battle over six state budget propositions on today's ballot sputtered to a close Monday with a burst of low-profile campaigning that belied the gravity of California's fiscal crisis. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose legacy will be shaped in part by the election's results, made a final pitch to voters before leaving the state ahead of the results. The governor is scheduled to join President Obama at the White House today for an announcement on auto emission rules.

The spending lobby, the tax haters and a ticked electorate all fouled up in 2009. But Gov.-elect Jerry Brown may give everyone a chance to redeem themselves next year. The spenders and the anti-taxers acted out of knee-jerk ideology. The voters were confused and distrustful of Sacramento. For many, it was a "cut off your nose to spite your face" moment. Remember: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature compromised on a budget-balancing package that included a four-year tax increase.