Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Our latest headlines

They're Not Covering the Same Convention
Recycling Bill Bottled Up in Closing Hours of California Legislative Session
Cavala: Editorial Opinion Masquerading as ‘News’ in the ‘Bee’
Stand-Off On California Budget Continues--No Agreement Close—Floor Sessions Today
A Young California Delegate Reports from the Floor of the Democratic Convention: Hillary Clinton Tamed PUMA’s and Won Wavering Democrats for Obama
The California Budget Gets a Tardy and an Incomplete Grade: The Governor and Legislative Republicans Undercut Education
Hope for High Risk Uninsured in California

About Us

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.

Californians Want Higher Taxes and More Services and Other Findings of PPIC Poll State Revenues and Budget

Strong Support for More Spending on Education, Health, Human Services; Majority Want More on Roads; but Public is Split on Prison Spending

Public Supports Raising Taxes on Corporations

But Many Contradictions With Support for Spending Limits and Two-Thirds Vote to Pass Budget and Local "Special Taxes"

By Frank D. Russo

The Public Policy Institute of California poll of voters and residents released late last night has some very interesting and sometimes contradictory findings as to the state budget, taxes, the process for making the tough decisions involved, and who the voters trust.

The PPIC released this 35 page plus survey with the apt headline: "California Voters: What They Don't Know Could Hurt Us?" and the subheadings "Budget Worries Fading Fast…But Why? Low Voter Knowledge May Ease the Way for Infrastructure Bonds, Term Limits, Prison Spending."

We have already done an analysis of the term limits and redistricting reform polling in this survey which we took with some large grains of salt. We may exceed our daily limit of salt with some of the findings on the main part of the survey, which is about what Californians want their government to be spending and how they want the money raised. There's a lot of interesting grist here as well to keep the mind's mill going and our heads scratched.

Where to begin?

Californians Clearly Want More Spending Except for Prisons Where We are Deeply Divided

When asked about whether the state should spend more money than it does now, the same amount, or less, strong majorities respond they want more spent on K-12 public education (72%), health and human services (65%), public colleges and universities (59%), and roads and other infrastructure projects (54%).

In most of these areas, the numbers are nowhere close to any equivocation. Take K-12 education: 72% want more spent, 18% want the same amount spent, and miniscule 8% of Californians want less money spent. Likely voters want more spent by 65% to 12% who want less spent. Democrats are off the charts on this one, with 83% favoring more spending and 4% less. Even Republicans favor more spending by a margin of 51% to 17% for less--that's as close as it gets.

On health and human services, the numbers are similar with 65% of Californians and 56% of likely voters favoring increased spending versus 12% and 16% thinking it should be less. Once again, even Republicans, by a margin of 36% to 34% (within the margin of the poll) favor increased funding to what we currently spend and only 25% want it reduced.

Public colleges and universities get the support of 59% of Californians and 51% of likely voters for more funding. Only 10% of Californians and 12% of likely voters want less spent.

As to roads and other infrastructure projects, that is favored even more so by likely voters than all Californians--at 56% versus 12% for less spending and 35% for where it is right now. Republicans are the big spenders here with 59% favoring increased spending over 6% who want less and 34% where it is now.

The state's "corrections system, including prisons" is the one exception where both the public and voters are divided given a point or two (within the margin) into equal one thirds for more, the same, and less. Democrats are a hair more likely to support less spending on prisons than Republicans but the other voters (decline to state and minor party members) have the highest desire to see spending decreased here (39%) versus the 29% who want more money spent and the 29% who want the same amount as now.

Do They Really Want More Spending and Taxes?

Take a look at the response to this question: "“In general, which of the following statements do you agree with more: I’d rather pay higher taxes and have a state government that provides more services, or I’d rather pay lower taxes and have a state government that provides fewer services?” 52% favor higher taxes and more spending. 39% want lower taxes and fewer services. The results are closer--48% to 44% amongst "likely voters." Democrats are strongly in favor of the majority position by 69% to 23% and Republicans their mirror image and in favor of lower taxes and fewer services by 66% to 27%. "Independents" as the others are called are in favor 47% to 43% of more spending and more services.

What Taxes Do They Want to Raise?

59% of Californians and likely votes want the state taxes on California corporations to be raised to reduce the budget gap between revenues and expenditures. Only 36% of Californians and 38% of likely voters oppose this.

Democrats by 74% to 22% are in favor of raising corporate taxes and are joined by the "independents" by a 59% to 37% margin. Republicans, predictably, but by a much closer margin than would have been expected, oppose this 55% to 41%.

One thing is even clearer; California likely voters by 67% to 30% oppose extending the state sales tax to services not currently taxed such as legal and accounting services, auto repairs, and haircuts. The numbers across party lines is not even close here.

Most Do Not Know Where the State Spends and Raises Most of Its Money

K-12 education is by far and away the largest item in the budget, accounting for almost halv of the pie. While 30% of those polled correctly identified this as the largest item, 28% thought it was health and human services and 23% thought it was the correctional system. 10% thought it was higher education. Only 9% professed to not know. Likely voters responded essentially the same as non voters. A full 61% of Californians got this one wrong.

The same result is had for the largest source of state revenues, where 31% of Californians and 37% of likely voters correctly chose the state personal income tax, but sizeable numbers of even voters (54%) wrongly picked either the sales tax, corporate tax, or even the motor vehicle fees, as the largest generator of funds.

Combine the budget spending and tax pop quiz here and only 10% get both questions right.

The Governor's Budget and Who Do they Trust?

Talk about a loaded question! This is what was asked:

Governor Schwarzenegger proposed a budget plan for the general fund in the next fiscal year that includes increased spending on K-12 public education, health and human services, higher education, and corrections and prisons. The plan includes no new taxes, while prepaying some of the state’s bond debt. In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the governor’s budget plan?

62% of all Californians pronounced themselves satisfied and 28% dissatisfied with this description of the Schwarzenegger budget. Of course, missing from this description are the cuts in the budget--the reductions in public transit, cost of living increases for the blind, aged, and disabled who depend on the help of in-home service providers, and other controversies. No mention of the fact that education increases are required by Prop 98 minimum levels in the state constitution. No mention of the deficit in the budget and any other controversies. Who is not to like increased funding with no new taxes?

Indeed, large majorities, 72% of all Californians and 69% of likely voters think it's a good idea that most of the increases go to education instead of other areas.

Here's another question with a very different set of numbers. When asked: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling the issue of the state budget and taxes?" he has the approval of 43% and disapproval of 39%. This is substantially below his overall approval rating of 53% to 34% in how he is doing his job as a whole. That has slipped from 58% in January of this year, but his likely voter approval remains high at 61%.

Also paradoxically, as to who Californians trust to make the "tough choices" on taxes and spending, the Democrats in the legislature come in first at 33% with Governor Schwarzenegger at 23% and Republicans in the legislature at 21%. But the legislature as an institution in the budget and taxes has only 31% approval and 50% disapproval. This deficit may be a bit more understood in the context of a 37% approval to 44% disapproval of the legislature in general (even though that is high as have latest few surveys'' numbers for the legislature when compared with years past.

The voters have what PPIC describes as the "best budget mood in years," with "only 44% feeling tat the balance between spending and revenues is a "big" problem, as compared with 73% in May of 2004. Another 43% see if as "somewhat of a problem" and 6% do not see it as a problem.

Who Do They Really Trust on Money Matters? Themselves and Bonds Seems to be the Answer

Although admitting that they don't know that much about bonds (only 5% say they know a lot, 29% some, 43% very little and 21% say they know "nothing") the Californians and the voters think passage of the bonds last year was a good idea by more than a two-to-one margin. They also are supportive of a $43.3 billion plan presented by the Governor in January for more infrastructure bonds (64% of likely voters support this).

They don't want to reduce the two-thirds requirement to pass a budget or raise local "special taxes" (although Californians are close to being divided on this, likely voters are not so predisposed.

By large margins they support "strictly limiting the amount of money that state spending could increase each year" (53 to 39% amongst all Californians and 55% to 39% with likely voters).

And by almost identical numbers, they don't want to eliminate "the requirements for minimum state spending in state programs such as K-12 public education" (that is Prop 98 which controls half the state's budget).

Finally, Californians and voters by a fair margin want a "major change" in "how the governor and legislature go about state spending." 51% of voters want "major changes," another 39% want "minor changes," and only 7 percent think its "fine the way it is."

I guess there is a reason why things are the way they are.

About the Poll

The Public Policy Institute is a highly respected non-partisan, nonprofit organization. The survey was taken between May 15th and May 22nd by telephone of 2,005 California adult residents, a large sample. The margin of error for all adults is 2%, for the 1465 registered voters surveyed is 2.5%, and for the 986 likely voters is 3%.

Posted on May 31, 2007

Comments

Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee but do not taxee me....

Sounds like a bunch of preschoolers to me.

Posted by: robert bosich at May 31, 2007 10:42 AM

It really is amazing the lack of intelligence in this state. Voters can be dooped so easily. Just say "we did it all without raising taxes" and it must be OK. Gimmee a break! Bonds aint free no matter what the legislators tell you. I agree with Robert, this "take more than you put in" attitude and tax the corporations but I want it free can only go so far. Those corporations and the ones pulling the wagon are going to be headed East not West right out of California.

Posted by: Morris1 at May 31, 2007 06:12 PM

California voters were duped and scammed into voting for Prop. 83 last year because they did not do their homework. They listened to the propaganda that was thrown their way without understanding all of the unintended consequences. Now the State has to fund this abhorrent law and is chosing to do so with borrowed money (bonds). This is no different than a tax except that our children and grandchildren are going to pay for it rather than ourselves. If the voters really care about how the State spends or budgets the money, I suggest you educate yourselves with facts and not hype and hysteria before casting your vote.

Posted by: Leah at May 31, 2007 10:39 PM

It is quite possible that those who are in lower tax brackets are in favor of tax and spend, and those who are in higher tax brackets are not. Perhaps Californians are characterized by a bimodal distribution. What happened to the middle class?
That democrats and republicans diverge so greatly in their views is telling.
Is California moving beyond the possibility of consensus? Has it come down to one side will win and the other will lose?

Posted by: Erik Kengaard at June 1, 2007 08:26 PM

California has a real crisis on its hands and has begun exacerbating the problem through a fear based political propoganda agenda that is misinforming California voters. It is no secret that California's prison system is massively overcrowded and undeniably disfunctional. The courts are simply sending too many people to prison for too much time.

Unfortunately, our criminal justice system has few alternative programs established for punishing law breakers, so judges are left with their hands tied and are forced to sentence offenders to prison time.
(Needs to be developed)

The hysteria in California over sex offenders has gotten way too out of hand. Politicians and the media have wipped up such propoganda that only Hilter and the Nazi's hold claim to a more effective effort. Californian's have been fed horror story after horror story to increase their level of fear, so they will in turn vote to pass Draconian laws which punish the dreaded sex offender.

The average Californian resident pictures some creepy crawly child predator who is lurking behind park bushes waiting for you to turn your back so he can snatch up your little Lucy and run off to molest her and kill her. The image of freaky, disgusting and dangerous. Admitedly, there are predators out there who fit that description. They have cause great pain to families, communities and even other criminals.

BUT, they are the exception and are a rare few. It is a fact that the large majority of sex offenders already knew their victims, often for long periods of time and often through family or friend relationships. It is also a fact that many sex offenders had no previous criminal record and have an incredibly low rate of re-offending. In fact, there is a far higher likelihood of an armed robber wife beater to re-offend than for a sex offender to re-offend. But, you don't have to register for either of those crimes or have your face plastered across the internet.

While being an advocate for reforming our states sex offender laws, I wish to clearly state that I do not condone sexually deviant behavior in anyway. I do, however, see a great need to create laws that address the astounding contrast amongst sex crimes. I do not believe that a 22 year old man who was dating a 16 year girl in a "consensual" relationship should be dealt with or punished in the same way as a 22 year old man who drugs and rapes a 16 year old girl. They are crimes with great contrast and character, but Jessica's Law places the same harsh restrictions on both men regardless of the type of sex crime.

What I suggest is to create a 3 tier system of sex crime classification and punishment. Each tier specifically structured to punish AND rehabilitate the sexual criminal in a way that is effective and just. What we have now is a "one size fits all" style of punishment that is costing this state billions of dollars every year.

It is tearing apart families, destroying lives and not fixing the problem. I don't understand how politicians and voters can propose and pass laws such as Prop 83 with total ease, but when we try to pass measures to drastically reform our educational systems and provide schools with the money they need to educate children in the highly competative 21st Century everyone brushes propositions under the table and pretends that there is no cure for the problem. Did ever occur to someone that maybe there wouldn't be so many law breakers if we invested more money into rehabilitation and education BEFORE they grew up to be criminals!!!

Governor Schwarzennegger, if you want to be remembered in history for being an exceptional leader and actually finding a cure to California's prison and sex offender problems, I suggest you start talking to US, the criminals. We know why the crimes are being committed and we know how to get them to slow. A politician who has never been in our shoes hasn't a clue how to curb crime. All they know is what they need to say and vote on in order to get re-elected.

Posted by: Sandy Port at June 1, 2007 10:39 PM

What about this survey? Is PPIC surveying registered voters? If that is the case then of course they are going to like anything having to do with building budgets for law enforcement.

That's because most of the people voting are friends and family members of law enforcement

The people who are victims of law enforcement and their purchased politicians are complaining but not bothering to show up or keep these "tough on crime" idiots from tearing apart families over crimes that aren't really crimes.

The people with the budgets can do propaganda campaigns to get whatever they want, the voters are law enforcement and friends, it's all nonsense.

Voter apathy is bankrupting our state as the Fascists are doing whatever they want because people are too silent.

Posted by: Michael Westmoreland at June 1, 2007 10:44 PM

Actually the post above with my name was written by a good friend. He knows what he is talking about and need to safely say it. I do agree with all he says. It's time somebody does something right.

Posted by: Sandy at June 1, 2007 11:50 PM

Gee Sandy, I guess you have never been the victim of a rapist. Sandy it's not about sex, it's about violence and control. Rapists and child molesters are evil violent people and you and your friend have either not encountered a victim of rape or molestation or your ideas about sexual violence are so convoluted that they are not worthy of recognition.

Sandy, I have encountered victims of these terrible and violent crimes. I'm a retired police officer.

Posted by: Ralph Warner at June 3, 2007 09:06 PM

Ralph Warner: Those two people who posted against the current sex offender laws are NOT defending child molestors and rapists. What they are, and I am saying, is that this state and most others apply these laws in a one size fits all. The 18 year old who has sex with the 16 year old is classified in the same way as the 38 year old who has sex with a 16 year old.

Plus I also understand from reading men's rights web sites that there are thousands of cases of men falsely accused of molestation or rape from bitter girlfriends or spouses. It's an easy charge to make and little to no proof is required for it to stick. Many of these men are registered sex offenders because they pled guilty to a sex charge rather than go through the risk of a show trial, espcially back before DNA was routinely used.

And you can be a retired police officer, but that doesn't mean you saw the whole gamut of sex offenders, especially the falsely accused.

Posted by: Shell45 at October 8, 2007 05:32 PM

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker