The fledgling campaign to support Special Election ballot measures 1A – 1F is showing signs of distress. As public support continues to tank in the polls, operatives behind the “Yes On 1A-1F” camp seem to have taken copious notes from the playbook of Prop 8, employing tactics that are deceptive, using fear mongering platitudes as the basis for their argument, and propping our children up in their television ads.

If I didn’t know any better, I might be inclined to believe that Frank Schubert (Former Yes On 8 Campaign Manager) himself was the Svengali behind this campaign. The truth is that Propositions 1A, 1D, and 1E are some of the worst budget reforms Sacramento has ever cooked up; products of a daft system whereby term limits, minority rule, an unreasonable zeal to oppose new revenue, and a willingness by Democrats to capitulate govern the survival of our most sacred programs.

Sacramento lawmakers have been pedaling these propositions as if they were snake-oil salesmen working off commission. But what they’ve failed to convey in their numerous pitches to support these measures are the ugly facts behind the Budget Agreement of FY 2009/10. They’ve spoken endlessly about how Proposition 1A would extend two more years of desperately needed revenue, without which they say will force “nuclear option” cuts. But what they don’t tout is their silent approval of a corporate tax loophole that will cost the State $650 million in its first year of implementation, $1.5 billion every year thereafter. We must explore new sources of revenue, every good Democrat agrees. But to give multi-national corporations a “tax choice” while simultaneously purporting that we must all “share the pain,” is insulting.

Prop 1A would do the following: Hand the Governor unilateral and unchecked power to make mid-year cuts during deficit years; extend two additional years of some of the most regressive taxes California has ever seen; establish a restrictive and cumbersome “rainy day” fund that would require the State to stow away billions each year, lopping off of vital health and human services and higher education; and impose a hard funding cap based on a flawed formula that would chronically under-fund vital services. What’s more, the assertion that if we don’t pass Prop 1A, “Armageddon” cuts will be our only resort is false. Prop 1A does nothing to solve our current deficit and would in fact exacerbate the problem by forcing deeper cuts as a result of the cap. Because this measure is virtually irreversible as it would amend our Constitution, our current economic woes would be locked in place forever.

For opponents of Prop 1A, its sister measure, Prop 1B has become a referendum for full funding of K-12 education in California. Prop 1B would restore $9.3 billion to K-12 public education to recoup for the suspension of Prop 98, a constitutional minimum guarantee of education funding. Lawmakers have tied Prop 1A to Prop 1B inextricably, using Prop 1A as the funding mechanism for Prop 1B. An overwhelming majority of Prop 1A critics are found supporting Prop 1B as a symbolic gesture, but vehemently disagree that Prop 1A should be the vehicle for education repayment. Prop 1A has divided teachers into two schools of thought: win back education repayment in the courts versus at the ballot box. This former school of thought was further underscored when the California Federation of Teachers filed suit against the State for $12.5 billion of education repayment last week, arguing that education repayment does not have to be contingent on a programmatic funding cap.

Prop 1C remains the only ballot measure that would ensure $5 billion of new revenue to help close the State’s massive budget gap without raiding other vital services or raising taxes.

Props 1D and 1E would raid Props 10 and 63, measures that were approved by the electorate to pay for early childhood education and healthcare, as well as direct mental health services for adults and children, to close the current budget gap. Finally, Prop 1F would prohibit the State from giving lawmakers pay increases during projected deficit years.

Props 1A, 1D, and 1E fly in the face of the progressive backbone of California. We must not squander our opportunity at real, comprehensive, and humane budget reform by going along with these measures and undoubtedly waging irreparable harm on those with the least among us. Vote your conscience on May 19th, Vote No on 1A, 1D, and 1E.