ARGUMENT in Favor of Proposition 49 Proposition 49 will: Make our neighborhoods safe Give our children a safe, educational, and recreational place to go after school Save taxpayers money Help working families Proposition 49 is funded out of future growth in state revenues, but only after our economy has recovered. IT WILL NOT REQUIRE AN INCREASE IN TAXES OR AFFECT THE CURRENT BUDGET. The prestigious Rose Institute says Proposition 49 saves society approximately $9 for every $1 invested. THE RETURN TO TAXPAYERS ALONE IS APPROXIMATELY 3 DOLLARS FOR EVERY 1 TAX DOLLAR INVESTED. That’s why it’s endorsed by taxpayer watchdog groups such as the California Taxpayers’ Association, the National Tax Limitation Committee and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Proposition 49 provides over $400 million in direct grants to elementary and junior high schools. These funds can ONLY be used for after school programs. Recent studies of existing after school programs by major universities and think tanks such as UCLA, UC Irvine, USC, and the Rand Institute are unanimous—after school programs change lives by improving grades and reducing crime. POLICE STATISTICS SHOW THAT VIOLENT JUVENILE CRIME—HOMICIDE, RAPE, ROBBERY, AND ASSAULT— INCREASES DRAMATICALLY DURING THE AFTER SCHOOL HOURS BETWEEN 3PM AND 6PM, creating a “danger zone” for our kids and our neighborhoods. 3PM to 6PM is the time when up to 1 million California kids under the age of 15 may be left unsupervised. These are the hours when kids are most likely to join gangs, use alcohol and tobacco, and become addicted to drugs. A study of the most crime-ridden schools in Los Angeles showed CRIME RATES DROPPED 40% WHEN THOSE SCHOOLS OFFERED AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS. In another study, vandalism and stealing plummeted 66%, while violent acts, carrying concealed weapons, and arrests were reduced 50% among program participants. PROPOSITION 49 IMPROVES GRADES AND TEST SCORES. Studies show that after school programs increase scores on standardized math and reading tests and improve grades, while decreasing the incidence of grade repetition, dropping out of school, and remedial education. Proposition 49 was put on the ballot by nearly 800,000 Californians. IT IS SUPPORTED BY THE WIDEST COALITION OF CALIFORNIANS OF ANY BALLOT MEASURE IN RECENT MEMORY. PROPOSITION 49 IS ENDORSED BY: LAW ENFORCEMENT: Attorney General Bill Lockyer, California State Sheriffs’ Association, California District Attorneys Association, California Narcotic Officers’ Association, California Peace Officers’ Association, California Police Activities League, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, and almost 60 individual police chiefs. EDUCATION: California Teachers Association, California Parent Teachers Association (PTA), California School Employees Association, Children Now, and hundreds of school superintendents and principals. TAXPAYERS ORGANIZATIONS: California Taxpayers’ Association, National Tax Limitation Committee, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. OTHER LEADERSHIP GROUPS: American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), California Chamber of Commerce, California Business Roundtable, California YMCA, California Girl Scouts, Hispanic 100, the Democratic Speaker of the Assembly, the Republican Leader of the Senate, over 70 Mayors and 200 other public officials of both parties, from Members of Congress to City Council members. JOIN US AT WWW.JOINARNOLD.COM. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER WAYNE JOHNSON, President California Teachers Association WARREN RUPF, President California State Sheriffs’ Association

ARGUMENT Against Proposition 49 Proposition 49 is a bad approach to a good cause. Prop 49 looks good, but in reality it disregards principles of good government by reducing government’s flexibility to respond to changing needs and priorities. It takes a specific after school program, which many people will see as worthwhile, and sets it apart from all other needs funded by your tax dollars. Read carefully. Look beyond rhetoric. See the larger picture. This program will: be entitled to guaranteed funding every year, in good budget times and bad. get a free pass through the budget process every year. receive special protection not afforded to other priorities like public safety, health care, environmental protection, transportation, social service programs, tax cuts and even other after school programs. And because this program receives special protection from budget cuts, it means that in times of economic downturn other programs may be cut to fund it—even those with potentially greater impact on children. INADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR RISING COSTS AND AN ONGOING BUDGET CRISIS. The drafters of this initiative say that other programs won’t be cut to pay for it, because they have included a provision that would only expand after school spending when spending on other programs has also significantly expanded. Their assumption is that if there is money to expand programs like health care or public safety, there should be money to expand after school programs too. The problem is that their trigger is too small. Inflation and population growth alone will require twice the amount they’ve calculated. In tough budget times like these, that will mean other programs will have to be cut, or taxes raised. A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. Proposition 98, passed by voters in 1988, sets aside a portion of the state budget for K–14 education programs. But the amount spent on specific programs is still decided during the budget process, every year. No program, regardless of how worthy, gets a free ride—yet. Prop 49 is the first attempt to earmark money for one particular program within the Proposition 98 guarantee. Prop 49 would increase the Proposition 98 guarantee level without raising additional revenues, so that programs funded outside the guarantee would be more vulnerable during economic downturns. If Prop 49 passes, other special interests will try similar measures in future elections. The result? Less flexibility to address future and changing education needs. Less money available in the non-Prop 98 part of the budget for other programs that directly impact the lives of our children, such as certain childcare programs, environmental programs, health care and social services. Less discretionary money available for local school districts. Look at the bigger picture. VOTE NO ON PROP 49. BARBARA INATSUGU, President League of Women Voters of California

---

REBUTTAL to Argument in Favor of Proposition 49 The decision to oppose Prop 49 was not easy, because we knew that most organizations with serious concerns about the measure would choose to remain silent. But the League of Women Voters of California is not intimidated by the popularity and economic strength of a ballot measure’s proponent. Our obligation is informing voters of responsible approaches to the critical issues facing Californians. We actively support quality after school programs that change lives by improving academic performance and reducing crime. The League believes it is our collective responsibility to promote the well being of children and encourage them to reach their full potential. But this requires more than just after school programs. It requires programs that provide child protection, family advocacy, medical care, dental care, mental health care and assistance in meeting such basic human needs...food, clothing and housing. Maybe you support all these children’s programs, but other priorities are also important to you—like environmental protection, public health care, senior assistance and trauma centers. None of these important programs has guaranteed funding. But Prop 49 fully funds one after school program, year after year, in good budget times and bad. Is that fair? Is that good public policy? We ask you to go beyond the rhetoric. Study the issues. Look at the larger picture. Don’t be fooled into thinking Prop 49 can solve all of society’s problems. Don’t allow $550,000,000 of your tax dollars to be isolated from the budget process each year. Stop Prop 49. BARBARA INATSUGU, President League of Women Voters of California

REBUTTAL to Argument Against Proposition 49 The League of Women Voters is nearly alone in their opposition to Proposition 49. And even they say 49 is “a good cause.” Here’s why: Studies by major universities prove that AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS REDUCE GANG ACTIVITY, REDUCE ALCOHOL AND DRUG USE, IMPROVE GRADES AND TEST SCORES AND MAKE OUR COMMUNITIES SAFER FOR EVERYONE. AND PROPOSITION 49 WILL SAVE TAXPAYERS MONEY. FOR EVERY $1 INVESTED, TAXPAYERS SAVE $3 BY REDUCING THE COSTS OF JUVENILE CRIME, REMEDIAL EDUCATION AND GRADE REPETITION. The League’s counter arguments are primarily technical budgeting arguments and, according to state budget experts and taxpayer organizations, they are simply mistaken. SECTION 10D OF PROPOSITION 49 SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS ARE NOT GUARANTEED ANNUAL FUNDING. Funds can be cut in bad budget years in exactly the same way other education programs are cut. PROPOSITION 49 WILL BE FUNDED ONLY AFTER OUR ECONOMY RECOVERS. STATE REVENUES FOR NON-EDUCATION PROGRAMS MUST GROW BY AT LEAST $1.5 BILLION BEFORE PROPOSITION 49 GETS A DIME. Budget experts and taxpayer organizations agree that $1.5 billion is enough to protect vital programs such as HEALTH CARE, PUBLIC SAFETY and EDUCATION— WITHOUT RAISING TAXES. Proposition 49 allows intergenerational mentoring through use of seniors and saves money by using existing school facilities. PROPOSITION 49 HAS BEEN ENDORSED BY MAJOR STATEWIDE ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTING: DOCTORS, SENIOR CITIZENS, TAXPAYER ADVOCATES, EDUCATORS, DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, FIREFIGHTERS, LABOR UNIONS, SHERIFFS, POLICE OFFICERS, CRIME VICTIMS, CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE and by PROMINENT REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC ELECTED OFFICIALS, ACADEMIC and COMMUNITY LEADERS. JON COUPAL, President Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association JAN HARP DOMENE, President California State Parent Teachers Association TOM PORTER, California State Director AARP

Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.