Now Steven Maviglio from the No on Prop 31 campaign whose initial sponsor has pulled out  and more

No on Prop 31 the “Equal Opportunity Plundering Act” where we talk with Wayne Lusvardi leading the No on Prop 31 discussion.  No on Prop 31 & no to a new layer of bureaucracy that’s unelected elites and no to emperor style power for the governor and just plain no to this billionaire boondoggle. Adding a layer of un-elected bureaucracy will take more power away from the voters.

Los Angeles Times Quote:

Proposition 31 is a little like the dreamy stranger glimpsed across a crowded room — alluring, exciting, all promise and possibility — who is revealed on closer inspection to be an unbalanced and dangerous monster. Is it a bad date, or just a Halloween movie? It's a real-life constitutional amendment, outwardly attractive but inside an absolute mess. California voters should run.

Proposition 31 will jeopardize fire protection, criminal justice, public health, social services and other vital programs!

Prop 31 would make it harder to cut taxes. Even if the economy recovered and the state had a budget surplus, Prop 31 would prohibit a tax cut of more than $25 million unless there were equivalent program cuts.

Prop 31 creates an incentive for the state to go deeper into debt. The measure only applies to legislative bills, not bond measures.

Prop 31 would prevent the state from participating in matching federal programs even if the federal government covered 95% of the cost. Prop 31 contains an exception from the requirements to offset or cut programs if an increase in spending is required by federal law. That exception does not apply to participation in voluntary federal programs.

Prop 31 would lock in current dysfunctional state programs. Any attempt to reform programs would be void if it could even be interpreted to be an expansion of the scope of the program unless other programs were cut or taxes/fees were raised. This is true even if the state was running a budget surplus.

Prop 31 will increase litigation and create confusion. Crucial terms would be added to the constitution without any definitions of those terms. “Expanding the scope of an existing state program” is not defined despite its central role in the constitutional amendment.