Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

S 504MBS

Authors

S 504MBS

Tagged with:

Publication PDFs

Database

This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.

View live version

object(Timber\Post)#3711 (44) { ["ImageClass"]=> string(12) "Timber\Image" ["PostClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Post" ["TermClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Term" ["object_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["custom"]=> array(5) { ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(12) "S_504MBS.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(7) "1236272" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(95658) "PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY MAY 2004 Public Policy Institute of California Special Survey on the California State Budget in collaboration with The James Irvine Foundation ○○○○○ Mark Baldassare Research Director & Survey Director The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens – William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller – recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Raymond L. Watson is Chairman of the Board of Directors. 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 • San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-4400 • Fax: (415) 291-4401 info@ppic.org • www.ppic.org Preface The PPIC Statewide Survey series provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with objective, advocacy-free information on the perceptions, opinions, and public policy preferences of California residents. Started in April 1998, the survey series has generated a database that includes the responses of more than 93,000 Californians. The current survey is the third in a series of special surveys on the California State Budget and Fiscal System, begun in June 2003 and conducted in collaboration with The James Irvine Foundation. At the same time that the state government faces the immediate challenge of addressing the current budget gap between state spending and state revenue, an array of structural reforms of the state and local finance system are also being considered to cope with long-term issues involved in balancing the state budget. Public opinion surveys offer the state’s lawmakers an opportunity to consider the views of Californians on various fiscal proposals and underlying perceptions of spending and taxes. Moreover, Californians have made fiscal decisions on their own through the initiative process—for example, Proposition 13 tax limitations and Proposition 98 state funding guarantees for K-12 public schools. California voters in the March primary had an important impact on current state and local fiscal conditions through their support of state propositions, and they now face important policy choices as a result of fiscal measures and citizens’ initiatives on the November ballot. This survey series seeks to raise public awareness, inform decisionmakers, and stimulate public discussions about the current state budget and the underlying state and local finance system. This report presents the responses of 2,001 adult residents throughout the state on a wide range of issues: • The state’s budget situation, including knowledge and attention to state fiscal issues and the perceived seriousness of the state budget gap, support for the governor’s budget plan and perceptions of the fiscal impacts of the March ballot measures, priorities for state spending, concerns about the local effects of the state budget gap, and preferred budget solutions. • State and local revenues, including support for earmarking state tax increases, specific state tax increases, local tax increases for local programs, Proposition 13 reform, general attitudes toward increasing state revenue through the expansion of gambling in the state, and support for state tax and spending proposals headed for the November ballot. • Political and economic trends, including public perceptions of the most important problem in California, general direction of the state, and outlook for the state’s economy; trust in state government officials and their handling of fiscal issues; overall approval ratings of Governor Schwarzenegger and the state legislature and, more specifically, their handling of state budget and tax issues, and overall approval ratings of President Bush and support for his reelection. • The extent to which Californians may differ with regard to attitudes toward spending and taxes by party affiliation, demographics, race/ethnicity, and region of residence. This is the 46th PPIC Statewide Survey, which has included a number of special editions: • The Central Valley (11/99, 3/01, 4/02, 4/03, 4/04) • Population Growth (5/01) • San Diego County (7/00) • Land Use (11/01, 11/02) • Orange County (9/01, 12/02, 12/03) • Environment (6/00, 6/02, 11/03) • Los Angeles County (3/03, 3/04) • California State Budget (6/03, 1/04) Copies of this report may be ordered by e-mail (order@ppic.org) or phone (415-291-4400). Copies of this and earlier reports are posted on the publications page of the PPIC web site (www.ppic.org). For questions about the survey, please contact survey@ppic.org. -i- Contents Preface Press Release State’s Budget Situation State and Local Revenue Political and Economic Trends Survey Methodology Survey Questions and Results Survey Advisory Committee i v 1 7 13 19 21 28 - iii - Press Release Para ver este comunicado de prensa en español, por favor visite nuestra página de internet: http://www.ppic.org/main/pressreleaseindex.asp SPECIAL SURVEY ON THE CALIFORNIA STATE BUDGET CALIFORNIA’S CHRONIC BUDGET BLUES Governor’s Popularity Has Not Brightened Bad Fiscal Mood; Residents Unhappy About Budget – But Many Unwilling To Pay Their Way Out SAN FRANCISCO, California, May 27, 2004 — Despite signs of a slowly improving economy, and vigorous efforts by a popular and influential governor, Californians’ unhappiness about the state’s economic and fiscal condition isn’t getting better, according to a new survey released by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) and The James Irvine Foundation. Nearly three-fourths (73%) of Californians still say the state’s budget gap is a big problem – the same percentage that said the gap was a big problem around the time of Governor Gray Davis’ 2003 May Revision. Among likely voters, concern is even greater, with 80 percent believing the budget gap is a big problem today. “Many Californians feel they have been burned in the past by the budget situation,” says PPIC Statewide Survey Director Mark Baldassare. “Even with a new, charismatic leader, they will likely have to see real fiscal improvements before their pessimism about the state’s finances turns around.” In fact, the governor’s budget – one that includes no new taxes – gets mixed reviews from state residents. Half (50%) are satisfied with the plan, 41 percent are dissatisfied, and 9 percent don’t know. Moreover, half (50%) say the plan should have included tax increases, with Democrats and Republicans deeply split on the issue (66% Democrats, 31% Republicans). A wide majority (76%) say they are at least somewhat concerned about the effects the plan’s proposed spending cuts will have on services. Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is… Or Not Despite that concern over cuts, many residents are unwilling to pay to protect public services. Large majorities oppose cutting spending for K-12 education (81%), colleges and universities (73%), and health and human services (68%); and most residents are either very or somewhat concerned that the state budget gap will cause severe cuts to their local school district (85%), local health and human services (80%), and local services such as parks and police (78%). However, when asked if they would support raising property taxes to fund local public schools, 50 percent said no, 45 percent said yes. Raising the state portion of the sales tax also gets a split response from state residents (49% support, 48% oppose). A real-world test? This November’s ballot measure to add a 3 percent surcharge on telephone use to fund hospital emergency services is lagging among likely voters (56% no, 41% yes). What might look like penny pinching may also be related to voters’ doubts about the state government’s fiscal effectiveness. “People have a pretty high level of suspicion about how sensibly and economically the tax money they send to Sacramento is used,” says Baldassare. In fact, nearly three-fourths (74%) of likely voters and 71 percent of all residents believe state government could spend less and still provide the same level of service. Local government comes under similar fire: A majority of residents (58%) and likely voters (57%) believe local government in their area could spend less and provide the same service. Moreover, 47 percent of residents say they would rather have a smaller government with lower taxes and -v- Press Release fewer services – 46 percent prefer a bigger government with higher taxes and more services. Support for the smaller government option grows to a majority among likely voters (54% to 39%). Take From the Rich… And Tax the Vices So who should pay to help get the state out of its current financial hole? As in past PPIC surveys, a majority of Californians support increasing taxes geared toward certain groups – namely, the wealthy and smokers. Residents support raising cigarette taxes (70% to 28%) and raising the tax rate on the state’s top income bracket (56% to 38%). This November’s ballot measure to increase tax on income over $1 million to fund mental health services is getting vigorous support among likely voters (67% support, 31% oppose). Likely voters also favor the idea of raising more tax revenue by allowing the expansion of gambling on Indian lands (53% good idea, 39% bad idea). However, they are almost evenly split on the idea of expanding gambling on non-Indian lands in the state (47% good idea, 48% bad idea). Governor’s Golden Glow Remains Untarnished Anxiety about the state’s finances doesn’t seem to be affecting Governor Schwarzenegger’s popularity: Large majorities of all residents (64%), and of likely voters (69%), approve of the way he is doing his job. Although his ratings drop somewhat on fiscal issues, even in this problematic area he receives comfortably high marks: 55 percent of residents and 61 percent of likely voters approve of his handling of the budget and taxes. Only 32 percent of residents, and 28 percent of likely voters, disapprove. The propositions the governor has backed since taking office are also seen in a favorable light: 60 percent of residents believe Proposition 57, the $15 billion bond he championed last March, helps the state’s fiscal situation either a lot or somewhat. “People see the budget situation as something brought on by others, but apparently do not fault Governor Schwarzenegger,” says Baldassare. The difference between the governor’s and the legislature’s approval ratings may bear this out. Today, only about one-third (35%) of likely voters approve of the job lawmakers are doing, compared to over half (52%) who disapprove. The legislature is, however, on more positive ground than it was nine months ago when approval stood at 28 percent and disapproval at 58 percent. “Partisan gridlock and inaction in Sacramento has been very exasperating for Californians,” says Baldassare. “Lawmakers improved status may be partly because they and the governor are seen as having a fairly successful working relationship up to now.” Beyond budget issues, the turnaround in approval of the state’s top officeholders is occurring at a time when the overall mood is also improving. While far from blissful – 44 percent of residents say California is going in the wrong direction, 43 percent say it is going the right way – the general outlook has improved from what it was just a few months ago. In February 2004, PPIC’s Statewide Survey found that 51 percent of residents thought the state was going in the wrong direction, while 35 percent believed it was going in the right direction. Latinos are a notable exception to this trend – their current outlook (38% right direction, 50% wrong direction) has barely budged since February (36% right direction, 50% wrong direction). Overall today, whites are more optimistic than Latinos about where the state is headed (47% to 38%). Bush Support on the Decline – But Is Kerry Benefiting? President George Bush’s approval ratings are shrinking in California: A majority of residents disapprove of the way the president is handling his job (55% to 41%), as do likely voters (56% to 40%). Among all residents, this is a 16-point drop from one year ago in June 2003, when his approval stood at 57 percent. The only region in California where the president enjoys majority support is in the Central Valley (55%), a stark contrast to the San Francisco Bay Area (26%) and Los Angeles area (38%). Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry currently holds a 9-point lead over the president among likely voters in - vi - Press Release California (48% to 39%), narrower than the 17-point advantage the “unnamed democratic challenger” had in February 2004. Recent national polls show Bush and Kerry in a statistical dead heat. More Key Findings • Restricting State Government’s Hand (page 10) A strong majority of likely voters (60%) support this November’s ballot measure requiring voter approval for any state-level legislation that reduces local government revenues. • Retooling Prop 13 (page 12) Fifty-six percent of likely voters think taxing commercial property according to its current market value – currently restricted by Proposition 13 – is a good idea. Only 38 percent think it is a bad idea. • Economy Still on Top, But Gas Prices on the Radar (page 13) One-third of Californians cite the economy, jobs, and unemployment as the top issue facing the state, and the percentage naming gasoline prices (4%) has risen significantly. • First Lady a Hit (page 25) A strong majority of Californians (59%) have a favorable impression of First Lady Maria Shriver, while only 10 percent have an unfavorable one. • What Your Parents Don’t Know… (page 27) Nearly half (49%) of parents who currently have children attending public school say they know very little or nothing about how their local school district receives and spends money. About the Survey The California State Budget Survey — a collaborative effort of the Public Policy Institute of California and The James Irvine Foundation — is a special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey. This is the third in a series intended to raise public awareness, inform decisionmakers, and stimulate public discussions about the current budget and the underlying state and local finance systems. Findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,001 California adult residents interviewed between May 11 and May 18, 2004. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish. The sampling error for the total sample is +/- 2%. The sampling error for subgroups is larger. For more information on methodology, see page 19. Mark Baldassare is research director at PPIC, where he holds the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Public Policy. He is founder of the PPIC Statewide Survey, which he has directed since 1998. His most recent book, A California State of Mind: The Conflicted Voter in a Changing World, is available at www.ppic.org. PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to improving public policy through objective, nonpartisan research on the economic, social, and political issues that affect Californians. The institute was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. This report will appear on PPIC’s website (www.ppic.org) on May 27. ### - vii - Percent Percent who say state budget gap is a ... 33 21 Percent all adults 73 Big problem Somew hat of a problem Not a problem Don't know Percent who say taxes should have been included in governor's state budget plan 70 66 60 50 50 48 40 31 30 20 10 0 All adults Dem Rep Ind Support for expansion of gaming to raise state tax revenue On Indian lands 8 On non-Indian lands 5 36 56 44 51 Good idea Bad idea Don't know Percent all adults Percent all adults Percent all adults Percent opposed to spending cuts in ... 100 81 80 73 68 60 44 40 20 0 K-12 public schools Higher education Health and Prisons and human corrections services Percent supporting revenue increases through … 70 70 60 56 50 40 30 20 10 0 Cigarette tax Income tax on the w ealthy 49 Sales tax Percent overall approval for elected officials 70 64 60 50 40 41 40 30 20 10 0 Governor State Legislature Schw arzenegger President Bush State’s Budget Situation State Budget Awareness Although Californians are concerned—and have been for some time—about the state’s budget situation, they haven’t developed any greater understanding of the state and local fiscal system. Compared to a year ago, almost the same percentages today say that they believe the budget gap is a big problem, that they are following news about the budget closely, and that they know very little or nothing about their state and local governments’ finances. Attitudes on these items were also similar in interviews before and after the recent May Revision. Seventy-three percent say that the gap between spending and revenue is a big problem for the state, compared to 73 percent after Governor Gray Davis’ budget revision in May 2003 and 70 percent after Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s first state budget in January 2004. Today, as then, about one in five Californians sees the budget gap as somewhat of a problem, and fewer than 5 percent believe it is not a problem. Concern about the state budget is high across regions and political and demographic groups. However, whites are more likely than Latinos (77% to 62%) and San Francisco Bay Area residents are somewhat more likely than people in other regions to think the budget gap is a big problem. Today, 61 percent of Californians say they follow news about the state budget very or fairly closely, similar to the percentage who made that claim after Governor Davis released his revised budget in May 2003. Public attention to budget news is higher among whites than Latinos (67% to 52%) and similar across regions. As in June 2003, nearly six in 10 Californians say they know a lot or something about how their state and local governments spend and raise money, while four in 10 adults continue to say they know very little or nothing about this topic. Fourteen percent of all adults and just under one in five likely voters, homeowners, college graduates, and upper-income residents say they know a lot about the state’s fiscal system. “Do you think that the budget gap is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem for the people of California today?” Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don't know All Adults 73% 21 3 3 Central Valley 74% 18 3 5 Region SF Bay Area 77% 19 2 2 Los Angeles 72% 24 2 2 Other Southern California 70% 22 4 4 Likely Voters 80% 18 2 0 “How closely are you following news about the California state budget?” Very closely Fairly closely Not too closely Not at all closely All Adults 17% 44 28 11 Central Valley 17% 44 28 11 Region SF Bay Area 17% 44 31 8 Los Angeles 20% 41 29 10 Other Southern California 16% 44 27 13 Likely Voters 25% 57 13 5 -1- State’s Budget Situation March Fiscal Measures Despite continuing concern about the state’s budget situation, many Californians believe that conditions have improved because of two fiscal measures that passed on the March ballot. Proposition 57 allows the state to borrow $15 billion to pay down the debt, and 60 percent of residents believe it helps the state’s fiscal situation either a lot or somewhat. However, 31 percent think Proposition 57 is not much or no help at all. Republicans (72%) are more likely than Democrats (56%) and independents (57%) to say that Proposition 57 helped the state’s fiscal situation at least somewhat. Although majorities across the state’s regions and political and demographic groups believe that the $15 billion in state bonds offers at least some fiscal relief, fewer than one in five say that Proposition 57 matters a lot, including those Californians who are most likely to vote. Californians are somewhat more optimistic about the fiscal effects of Proposition 58 (the companion measure to Proposition 57), which requires the state to pass a balanced budget and bans future borrowing to finance the budget. Sixty-seven percent say that Proposition 58 helps the state’s fiscal situation at least somewhat, and 26 percent think it helps a lot. Strong majorities across the state’s regions and demographic and political groups perceive at least some benefits from Proposition 58. Once again, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to hold this view. Among likely voters, about one in three say that passing Proposition 58 helps a lot. “Do you think Proposition 57 helps the state's fiscal situation a lot, somewhat, not much, or not at all?” A lot Somewhat Not much Not at all Don't know All Adults 14% 46 17 14 9 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 11% 45 21 16 7 24% 48 9 12 7 13% 44 18 17 8 Likely Voters 17% 47 16 15 5 “Do you think Proposition 58 helps the state's fiscal situation a lot, somewhat, not much, or not at all?” A lot Somewhat Not much Not at all Don't know All Adults 26% 41 15 11 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 22% 40% 27% 41 38 43 17 10 13 13 8 10 747 Likely Voters 32% 40 13 11 4 -2- State’s Budget Situation Governor’s Budget Plan Half of all Californians are satisfied with the governor’s state budget plan. Satisfaction with the governor’s budget remained unchanged after the release of his May Revision on May 13th and its modifications to his January proposals. Overall, majorities of Republicans (74%) and independents (52%) are satisfied with the plan, while a majority of Democrats are dissatisfied (57%). In January 2004, 57 percent of all adults were satisfied with the governor’s budget plan and 30 percent were dissatisfied. When asked in the days after the May Revision was released how much they thought the governor’s budget plan helps the state’s fiscal situation, 62 percent of residents said it helps at least somewhat, but only 10 percent thought it helps a lot. Californians are more disposed to tax increases now than they were in January. Overall, 50 percent think the governor’s budget should have included tax increases and 43 percent say it should not. In January, 42 percent favored tax increases, and 51 percent did not. Residents are sharply divided along partisan lines when asked if tax increases should have been included in the budget plan: Sixty-six percent of Democrats say yes; 64 percent of Republicans say no. Three in four Californians are very or somewhat concerned about the effects of spending cuts in the governor’s budget plan. Although some of the more severe cuts were removed in the May budget revisions, perceptions were similar before and after its release. Concern about cuts is higher among lower-income residents. “In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the governor’s budget plan?” Satisfied Dissatisfied Don't know All Adults 50% 41 9 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 34% 74% 52% 57 21 39 959 Likely Voters 52% 41 7 May Revision∗ Before After 49% 50% 43 40 8 10 “Do you think that tax increases should have been included in the governor's budget plan?” Yes No Don't know All Adults 50% 43 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 66% 31% 48% 28 64 46 656 Likely Voters 49% 46 5 May Revision Before After 50% 50% 44 43 67 “How concerned are you about the effects of the spending cuts in the governor's budget plan?” All Adults Very concerned Somewhat concerned Not too concerned Not at all concerned Don't know 33% 43 15 7 2 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 47% 19% 28% 40 41 44 9 25 17 2 14 8 213 Likely Voters 36% 39 15 8 2 May Revision Before After 34% 33% 41 43 16 14 78 22 ∗524 interviews were conducted before and 1,477 after the release of the May Revision (May 13, 2004). -3- May 2004 State’s Budget Situation State Budget Priorities Most Californians continue to oppose spending cuts in the program areas that make up the largest share of the state government’s budget—Kindergarten through 12th grade public education, public colleges and universities, and health and human services. There is substantial support for spending cuts only when it comes to spending on corrections and prisons, and opinions are evenly divided in this area. The results are almost identical to those in our survey conducted after Governor Davis’ revised budget was released in May 2003. Today, eight in 10 adult residents oppose cutting spending for K-12 public schools. Strong majorities of Democrats and Republicans agree that there should be no spending cuts for schools, and there is also consensus across regions of the state and demographic groups. Those with (83%) and without children (79%) both register strong opposition to spending cuts for K-12 schools. Seven in 10 adult residents also oppose spending cuts for public colleges and universities. Although majorities in all political groups also oppose these cuts, Republicans are more inclined than Democrats or independents to support them. Likely voters are against the cuts by a more than two-to-one margin. Opposition to these cuts is similar across income and education groups. Seven in 10 Californians also oppose spending cuts for health and human services. In this area, however, Democrats and independents are strongly opposed to cuts, while Republicans are more evenly divided. Nevertheless, among all likely voters, opponents of spending cuts in health and human services outnumber supporters by a two-to-one margin. Latinos are more likely than whites to oppose cuts (79% to 64%). Although opposition is highest among residents who are under age 35 and have lower education and income, most residents who are 55 and older, upper income, and college educated do not want spending cuts in health and human services either. In contrast to the other three state spending categories, adult residents are almost evenly divided on whether to cut spending for prisons and corrections. Support for these cuts increase with income and education. There are no significant differences across political parties, or between likely voters and all adults. Do you support or oppose the following proposal? How about cutting ... Kindergarten through 12th grade school spending, which currently makes up 40 percent of the state's general fund spending? Support Oppose Don't know Spending on public colleges and universities, which currently makes up 13 percent of the state's general fund spending? Support Oppose Don't know Spending on health and human services, which currently makes up 28 percent of the state's general fund spending? Support Oppose Don't know Spending on prisons and corrections, which currently makes up 7 percent of the state's general fund spending? Support Oppose Don't know All Adults 17% 81 2 25% 73 2 28% 68 4 49% 44 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 10% 88 2 18% 80 2 17% 79 4 50% 45 5 26% 71 3 39% 57 4 49% 47 4 52% 44 4 19% 78 3 25% 73 2 27% 67 6 51% 42 7 Likely Voters 19% 79 2 29% 68 3 33% 63 4 52% 42 6 -4- State’s Budget Situation Local Fiscal Concerns Besides opposing cuts in the state’s primary spending categories, many Californians are also concerned that the state’s budget gap will cause severe cuts in local public services. In fact, they seem to be more concerned about how the gap will affect their local public schools, local health and human services, and other local government services than they are about the effect of state budget cuts more generally. Moreover, their perceptions of the threat to local services were unchanged by the May Revision. A majority of Californians (56%) say they are very concerned that the state budget gap will cause severe cuts in K-12 public education in their area, and nearly all residents express at least some concern. San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles residents are more likely than others to say they are very concerned. Latinos are more likely than whites (64% to 52%), Democrats are more likely than Republicans (71% to 36%), and those with children are more likely than those without children (63% to 51%) to say they are very concerned about the state’s budget gap leading to severe cuts in local schools. Nearly half (46%) of Californians say they are very concerned about the possibility of severe cuts in local health and human services, and eight in 10 are at least somewhat concerned. The proportion who are highly concerned is greater in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area than elsewhere in the state. There are also stark differences in serious concern between Latinos and whites (58% to 38%) and Democrats and Republicans (61% to 23%). Concern rises with lower income and lower education. Four in 10 adults (38%) are very concerned about the possibility of severe cuts in funding for other local government services in their area, and eight in 10 Californians are at least somewhat concerned. The proportion that is very concerned is greater in Los Angeles (44%) and the San Francisco Bay Area (42%) than elsewhere. Latinos are more likely than whites to be very concerned (48% to 34%), and concern about local government service cuts is higher among lower-income than higher-income residents. How concerned are you that the state’s budget gap will cause severe cuts in ... K to 12 public education in your local school district? Very concerned Somewhat concerned Not very concerned Not at all concerned Very concerned Funding for health and human services in your local area? Somewhat concerned Not very concerned Not at all concerned Don't know Funding for local government services such as parks and recreation, police and public safety, and roads and transportation in your local area? Very concerned Somewhat concerned Not very concerned Not at all concerned Don't know All Adults 56% 29 8 7 46% 34 12 7 1 38% 40 14 7 1 Central Valley 46% 37 9 8 38% 40 14 7 1 35% 40 16 9 0 Region SF Bay Area 64% 24 8 4 50% 31 15 4 0 42% 36 15 5 2 Los Angeles 61% 27 7 5 55% 29 8 8 0 44% 40 9 6 1 Other Southern California 52% 30 11 7 37% 38 15 9 1 30% 45 16 8 1 Latinos 64% 28 5 3 58% 33 6 3 0 48% 38 8 5 1 - 5 - May 2004 State’s Budget Situation Preferred Budget Solution Whose approach do Californians favor when it comes to making tough choices involving the state budget? They are about evenly split between Governor Schwarzenegger (30%) and the Democrats in the legislature (31%), with Republicans in the legislature lagging behind (17%). Attitudes on this issue are similar to those following the release of the January budget, when the governor had a slight edge (33%) over the Democrats in the legislature (27%), and fewer than one in five favored Republicans in the legislature (17%). In contrast, Democrats (33%) and Republicans (30%) in the legislature had a very wide edge over Governor Davis (13%) in our February 2003 survey. Public opinion is strongly divided along partisan lines. Democratic voters overwhelmingly choose the legislative Democrats over Governor Schwarzenegger, while Republicans strongly favor Governor Schwarzenegger over the Democrats or the Republicans in the legislature. As for independents, about one in three name Governor Schwarzenegger’s approach as their favorite, while 22 percent name the legislative Democrats’ and 16 percent prefer the legislative Republicans’ approach. Once again, opinions were the same before and after the May Revision. “When it comes to the tough choices involved in the state budget, both in deciding how much Californians should pay in taxes and how to fund state programs, whose approach do you most prefer…” The Democrats' in the legislature Governor Schwarzenegger's The Republicans' in the legislature Other Don't know All Adults 31% 30 18 4 17 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 59% 19 4% 47 22% 35 6 35 16 435 12 11 22 Likely Voters 32% 33 18 5 12 Californians are evenly divided when asked if they prefer a smaller state government with lower taxes and fewer services or a larger state government with higher taxes and more services. Our surveys in June 2003 and in January 2004 revealed similar divisions. Underlying this mixed response on the role of government is a partisan divide: Democrats prefer to pay higher taxes for a larger state government with more services, while Republicans would rather have lower taxes and a smaller state government with fewer services. In addition, likely voters are more inclined than all adults to favor lower taxes and a smaller government with fewer services. Latinos are much more likely than whites (66% to 37%) to prefer paying higher taxes for a larger state government with more services. Support for a larger government with more services declines sharply with age, education, income, and homeownership. “Which statements do you agree with more: I’d rather pay higher taxes and have a larger state government that provides more services, or lower taxes and have a smaller state government that provides fewer services?” Higher taxes, more services Lower taxes, fewer services Don't know All Adults 46% 47 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 60% 20% 42% 33 74 52 766 Likely Voters 39% 54 7 -6- State and Local Revenue State Tax Revenue At the same time that all Californians and likely voters are roughly evenly divided about whether tax increases should have been included in the governor’s revised budget, there is majority support for increases in state taxes that are geared toward certain specific groups. Seven in 10 adults (70%) and likely voters (69%) think that the state excise tax on cigarettes should be raised from 87 cents to $1.50 a pack. A majority of Californians (56%) and likely voters (58%) support increasing the top rate of the state’s income tax from 9.3 to 10.3 percent for single filers earning more than $150,000 and joint filers earning more than $300,000. A potential tax increase that would affect a broader share of the populace gets more mixed reviews: Likely voters narrowly support increasing the state’s portion of the sales tax by ½ cent (52% to 46%), and all residents are as likely to support (49%) as to oppose (48%) this proposal. Among all adults in California, support for increasing the cigarette tax is virtually unchanged since June 2003 (71%) and, as might be expected, support continues to be significantly higher among nonsmokers (77%) than among the 16 percent of Californians who say they are smokers (36%). Support for increasing the state portion of the sales tax has also changed little between June 2003 and today (46% to 49%). By contrast, over the same time period, support for raising the top rate on the state’s income tax has increased significantly from 45 percent to 56 percent. In our current survey, Californians remain sharply divided on tax increases along party lines and political ideology. Democrats are more likely than Republicans to support each of the three potential tax increases: Cigarettes (76% to 63%), state income tax (67% to 47%), and state sales tax (59% to 43%). Correspondingly, the state’s liberals are more likely than conservatives to support increasing cigarette taxes (76% to 62%), the top rate on the state income tax (69% to 43%), and the sales tax (57% to 41%). There is only moderate variation across household income categories on each of these proposals (note: our top income category is “$100,000 and higher”). Californians with college degrees or more education are somewhat more likely than those without a college degree to support raising taxes in each of these areas. Whites are more likely than Latinos to support increasing the income tax (59% to 49%) and sales tax (51% to 44%), while Latinos are more likely than whites to support an increase in cigarette taxes (75% to 67%). “Do you support or oppose the proposal to …” Raise the state excise tax on cigarettes from 87 cents to $1.50 per pack? Change the top rate of the state income tax from 9.3 to 10.3 percent starting at $150,000 for single filers and $300,000 for joint filers? Raise the state portion of the sales tax by ½ cent? Support Oppose Don't know Support Oppose Don't know Support Oppose Don't know All Adults 70% 28 2 56% 38 6 49% 48 3 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 76% 63% 69% 22 35 30 221 67% 47% 56% 28 50 38 536 59% 39 2 43% 55 2 51% 47 2 Likely Voters 69% 29 2 58% 38 4 52% 46 2 -7- State and Local Revenue Gaming and State Revenue Fifty-six percent of all Californians, and 53 percent of likely voters, think that raising the state’s corporate tax revenues by allowing the expansion of casino-type gambling on Indian lands is a good thing; thirty-six percent of all adults and 39 percent of likely voters say it is a bad idea. Sizeable majorities of Democrats (59%) and independents (57%) say this is a good idea, as do a slim majority of Republicans (51%). Californians across the state’s major geographic regions think that raising state tax revenues by allowing for the expansion of gambling on Indian lands is a good idea, with the highest support voiced in Los Angeles (61%) and Other Southern California areas (57%). Majorities across income, education, and racial/ethnic groups, as well as homeowners and renters, think that raising corporate tax revenues by allowing the expansion of gambling on Indian lands is a good idea. “How about raising state corporate tax revenues by allowing the expansion of casino-type gambling on Indian lands?” Good idea Bad idea Don't know All Adults 56% 36 8 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 59% 34 7 51% 43 6 57% 33 10 Likely Voters 53% 39 8 Support is somewhat lower for raising tax revenues by allowing casino-type gambling on non-Indian lands. Fifty-one percent of all adults, and 47 percent of likely voters, think this is a good idea, while forty-four percent of all adults and 48 percent of likely voters think this is a bad idea. Slight majorities of Democrats and independents (both 52%) approve of this approach for raising corporate tax revenues, while Republicans are evenly divided (48% good idea; 49% bad idea). Across the state, Los Angeles residents (57%) are the most likely to stay that allowing casino-type gambling on non-Indian lands is a good way to raise corporate tax revenues. Support for gaming on non-Indian lands decreases somewhat with annual household income. “How about raising state corporate tax revenues by allowing casino-type gambling on non-Indian lands?” Good idea Bad idea Don't know All Adults 51% 44 5 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 52% 42 6 48% 49 3 52% 44 4 Likely Voters 47% 48 5 When it comes to legal gambling, nearly half of the state’s residents (49%) say that the more important consideration is the revenue and economic growth it produces, while 41 percent say that the more important consideration is the crime and social problems it creates. Among the state’s likely voters, 52 percent identify economic growth as the main consideration and 39 percent are more concerned about the social problems. Fifty-nine percent of Californians say they have participated in legal gambling at some time. A majority of those who have gambled (56%) say the more important consideration is the revenues and economic growth legalized gambling generates, while a plurality of those who have never gambled (49%) point to the crime and social problems it creates. -8- State and Local Revenue November 2004 Fiscal Measures Among the fiscal measures headed for the November 2004 ballot, a measure to increase the state income tax on taxable incomes over 1 million dollars to fund mental health services receives high public support, while a measure that would add a 3 percent surcharge on telephone usage to fund hospital emergency services has less than majority support. Support for these ballot measures mirrors the more general widespread support for raising the state income tax on high-income earners and the more tepid endorsement of a proposal to raise the state portion of the sales tax. Seven in 10 Californians (71%), and 67 percent of likely voters, would support increasing the state income tax on taxable income over 1 million dollars to provide funding for mental health services. Twentyseven percent of all adults and 31 percent of likely voters are opposed to the measure. Large majorities of Democrats (83%) and independents (71%) support this measure, while Republicans are nearly evenly split on whether to increase the income tax levied against the state’s more affluent citizens (50% to 48%). Eight in ten residents with household incomes under $40,000 support this measure, compared to 67 percent of those from households with higher incomes. Latinos are more likely than whites to support this measure (80% to 68%), as are women compared to men (77% to 66%). Seventy-seven percent of residents who are concerned that the state’s budget gap will cause severe cuts in local health and human services would vote yes on this measure, compared to 51 percent of those who are not very or not at all concerned about such service cuts. “How about an increase in the state income tax on taxable income over 1 million dollars to provide funding for mental health services?” Yes No Don't know All Adults 71% 27 2 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 83% 15 2 50% 48 2 71% 27 2 Likely Voters 67% 31 2 There is less than majority support for the proposed phone surcharge for hospital emergency services. Forty-six percent of state residents, and 41 percent of likely voters, support the measure to add an additional 3 percent surcharge on telephone usage in the state to fund hospital emergency services; fifty percent of all Californians and 56 percent of likely voters oppose the measure. A majority of Democrats (53%) support this measure, while majorities of Republicans (60%) and independents (53%) oppose it. Fifty-two percent of Californians under age 35 believe the measure is a good idea, compared to only 39 percent of those age 55 and older. Support for the telephone surcharge is also higher among Latinos than it is among whites (62% to 39%). Fifty-two percent of those who are concerned that the state’s budget gap will cause severe cuts in local health and human services support this measure, compared to only 21 percent of those who are not very or not at all concerned about such cuts in social services. “How about an additional 3 percent surcharge on telephone use within California to fund hospital emergency services?” Yes No Don't know All Adults 46% 50 4 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 53% 44 37% 60 42% 53 335 Likely Voters 41% 56 3 - 9 - May 2004 State and Local Revenue Local Government Services Another measure slated for the upcoming November 2004 ballot would require voter approval for any state legislation that reduces local government revenue. At this time, 64 percent of all adults would vote in favor of requiring voter approval for any reduction in local government revenue, and 29 percent would vote against the measure. Among likely voters, 60 percent support the measure and 33 percent are opposed. Sixty-four percent of independents, 63 percent of Democrats, and 60 percent of Republicans favor this idea. More than six in 10 residents in each of the state’s major regions would vote in favor of requiring voter approval for any state legislation that reduces local government revenue. Majorities of residents in all age, income brackets, education levels, and racial/ethnic groups support this measure, as do both homeowners and renters. “How about requiring voter approval for any state legislation that reduces local government revenue?” Yes No Don't know All Adults 64% 29 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 63% 29 8 60% 32 8 64% 29 7 Likely Voters 60% 33 7 While a strong majority of Californians support this measure, a majority also believe that their local governments could spend less money and still provide the same level of services. Overall, 58 percent of the state’s residents think that their local governments could spend less and still provide the same level of services; thirty-four percent think that their local governments could not. Sixty-seven percent of Republicans, 63 percent of independents, and a narrow plurality of Democrats (49%) think their local governments could spend less and still maintain the same level of services. This opinion is held by majorities of residents across all of the state’s regions and among all racial/ethnic, age, education, and income categories. “In general, do you think the local governments in your area could spend less and still provide the same level of services?” Yes, could spend less No, could not spend less Don't know All Adults 58% 34 8 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 49% 67% 63% 44 26 30 777 Likely Voters 57% 36 7 Among those who think that local governments in their area could spend less and still maintain their current level of service, 24 percent think that the governments could cut spending by under 10 percent without reducing services, 41 percent think that the governments could cut between 10 and 20 percent, and 23 percent think that the governments could cut 20 percent or more and still provide the same level of services. Although a majority of Californians believe that local governments could be more efficient service providers, many are also willing to both protect local government revenues from the state government and, as we see in the next section, to raise specific types of local revenues for particular purposes. - 10 - State and Local Revenue Local Tax Revenue Large majorities of Californians are very concerned that the state’s budget gap will cause severe cuts in their local government services. But are they willing to raise local taxes to address such cuts? In fact, majorities of all adults and likely voters say they would vote yes on local ballot measures to increase sales taxes and taxes on alcoholic beverages and cigarettes for specific purposes. By contrast, a narrow majority would reject a ballot measure proposing an increase in property taxes, even if the additional revenues were directed toward their local public schools. Seventy-seven percent of all Californians, and 74 percent of the state’s likely voters, would vote yes on a measure that increased taxes on alcoholic beverages and cigarettes in order to fund public health services in their local area. Large majorities of Democrats (84%), independents (77%), and Republicans (67%) would support this measure. Eighty-two percent of those who are concerned about the state’s budget gap causing severe cuts in local public health services would support an increase in these taxes, as would 58 percent of those who are not very or not at all concerned about such cuts. Fifty-six percent of Californians, and 54 percent of likely voters, would support an increase in their local sales tax in order to fund local government services such as parks, police, and roads. While majorities of Democrats (65%) and independents (56%) would support this measure, a slim majority of Republicans (52%) would oppose it. Sixty-two percent of those who are concerned about the state’s budget gap causing severe cuts in this area would vote yes on a measure that increased their local sales tax to fund such services, compared to only 37 percent of those who are not very or not at all concerned. A narrow majority of Californians would vote against a local ballot measure that would increase property taxes in order to provide more funding for their local public schools (50% oppose; 45% support). Opposition to this measure is significantly more pronounced among the state’s likely voters (57% to 39%). A large majority of Republicans (68%) oppose the measure, which is supported by a narrow majority of Democrats (53%); independents are evenly divided (47% support; 46% oppose). Homeowners are significantly more likely than renters to oppose raising local property taxes (59% to 36%). Half of those concerned about cuts in K-12 public school funding would vote yes on this measure, compared to only 18 percent of those who are either not very or not at all concerned about such cuts. “What if there were a measure on your local ballot to ___________. Would you vote yes or no?” Increase taxes on alcoholic beverages and cigarettes in order to fund local public health services? Increase the local sales tax in order to fund local government services such as parks, police, and roads? Increase property taxes in order to provide more funds for local public schools? Yes No Don't know Yes No Don't know Yes No Don't know All Adults 77% 22 1 56% 39 5 45% 50 5 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 84% 67% 77% 15 31 22 121 65% 44% 56% 31 52 39 4 45 53% 29% 47% 44 68 46 337 Likely Voters 74% 24 2 54% 42 4 39% 57 4 - 11 - May 2004 State and Local Revenue Proposition 13 Reform In order to raise local special taxes in California today, a two-thirds majority vote is required. Are Californians prepared to repeal this part of the Proposition 13 tax-limiting initiative? A slim majority (51%) think that lowering the two-thirds requirement to a 55 percent majority vote is a bad idea, while four in 10 think it would be a good idea. Support for the proposal has dropped slightly from June 2003, when 46 percent said it was a good idea (45 percent thought it a bad idea). Today, six in 10 likely voters (58%) say lowering the threshold for passing local taxes is a bad idea. Democrats are split on this proposal (47% like the idea; 46% don’t), while majorities of Republicans (65%) and independents (56%) don’t like the idea. Across the state, majorities of residents oppose lowering the two-thirds requirement, except in Los Angeles where residents are evenly split on the issue (46% good idea; 44% bad idea). A majority of Latinos say this proposal is a good idea (53%), while a majority of whites (59%) don’t think so. Homeowners (55%) are more likely to oppose lowering the requirement, while renters are split (45% good idea; 45% bad idea). Opposition to lowering the vote threshold increases with annual household income and education. “How about lowering the two-thirds (67 percent) requirement for voters to pass local special taxes to a 55 percent majority vote—is this a good idea or a bad idea?” Good idea Bad idea Don't know All Adults 40% 51 9 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 47% 46 7 28% 65 7 37% 56 7 Likely Voters 37% 58 5 The public appears more supportive of changing aspects of Proposition 13 that do not directly affect their own residential property tax bills. Six in ten Californians (59%) say it would be a good idea for the state to tax commercial properties currently protected under Proposition 13 according to their current market values. Among likely voters, 56 percent think this is a good idea. Support for this proposal is in line with the support it received in June 2003, when 57 percent of the state’s residents said this was a good idea. As was the case then, majorities of Democrats (67%) and independents (62%) today say that taxing commercial property at current market value is a good thing, while Republicans are split on the issue (46% good idea; 49% bad idea). Large percentages of liberals (67%) and moderates (65%) support the idea, and conservatives are evenly split (49% good idea; 46% bad idea). Nearly six in ten residents in all income and education categories support this proposal. Majorities of homeowners (56%) and renters (65%) favor the idea of taxing commercial property based on its current market value. “Under Proposition 13, residential and commercial property taxes are both strictly limited. What do you think about having commercial properties taxed according to their current market value?” Good idea Bad idea Don't know All Adults 59% 34 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 67% 46% 62% 27 49 32 656 Likely Voters 56% 38 6 - 12 - Political and Economic Trends Most Important Issue The economy continues to hold its place at the top of Californians’ list of the most important issues facing the state today, with one in three residents (34%) mentioning the economy, jobs, or unemployment. The next most frequently mentioned issues are schools (12%) and the state budget and taxes (11%). Five or fewer percent of Californians mention other matters, including health care issues (5%), immigration (5%), crime and gangs (4%), gasoline prices (4%), housing costs and availability (4%), and environmental concern (2%). Since the February 2004 statewide survey, there has been a significant increase in the percentage of Californians noting gasoline prices as the most important issue facing people in the state. Concern about the economy has been at the top of the list since December 2001 and has held fairly constant relative to the June 2003 (31%) and February 2004 (36%) statewide surveys; today, 34 percent highlight economic issues as the most important in the state. The percentage of residents naming the state budget and taxes as the biggest problem has dropped 6 percentage points since February 2004 (17% to 11%); in June 2003, 13 percent mentioned the state budget as the biggest problem. The percentages of Californians mentioning schools, health care, and crime as the most important issues has remained largely unchanged since our June 2003 survey. The economy ranks as the top issue in all regions of the state and in all demographic groups. Both whites and Latinos (both 34%) and both Democrats (37%) and Republicans (33%) most frequently mention the economy, jobs, and unemployment as the top issue facing people in California today. At the same time, whites are more likely than Latinos (15% to 5%) and Republicans are more likely than Democrats (16% to 12%) to mention the state budget and taxes as the most important issue. Schools are named as a top problem more often in the urban coastal regions of Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area than in the rest of the state. “What do you think is the most important issue facing people in California today?” Economy, jobs, unemployment Education, schools State budget, deficit, taxes Health care, health costs Immigration, illegal immigration Crime, gangs Gasoline prices Housing costs, housing availability Environment, pollution Other (specify) Don't know All Adults 34% 12 11 5 5 4 4 4 2 14 5 Central Valley 35% 10 11 6 3 5 4 2 1 17 6 Region SF Bay Area 36% 18 12 5 3 2 3 3 2 12 4 Los Angeles 36% 15 8 4 6 6 3 3 1 13 5 Other Southern California 31% 9 14 4 6 2 8 5 3 13 5 Latinos 34% 12 5 3 6 8 4 3 1 14 10 - 13 - Political and Economic Trends Overall Mood Californians’ mood appears to be much improved compared to June 2003. Residents are now about as likely to think the state is going in the right direction as to think it is going in the wrong direction (43% to 44%). In June 2003, we saw a huge gap between these numbers (30% right direction; 57% wrong direction). Indeed, the gap was still considerable as late as three months ago, in February 2004 (35% right direction; 51% wrong direction). The San Francisco Bay Area lags behind the rest of the state in optimism, with a majority (51%) still saying California is headed in the wrong direction. Whites are more positive than Latinos in thinking that things are going in the right direction (47% to 38%), and Republicans offer a much more positive assessment than Democrats (60% to 36%). Residents who approve of the job Arnold Schwarzenegger is doing as governor are overwhelmingly positive about the state’s direction (57%), as are those with incomes of $80,000 or higher (51%), and conservatives (52%). However, fewer than half of residents in all other political and demographic groups think that things in California are generally going in the right direction. “Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction?” Right direction Wrong direction Don’t know All Adults 43% 44 13 Central Valley 45% 40 15 Region SF Bay Area 35% 51 14 Los Angeles 43% 45 12 Other Southern California 48% 38 14 Latinos 38% 50 12 While a sizeable percentage of residents still think some rough economic times lie ahead for the state, economic confidence is noticeably higher than it was in June 2003. Californians are now about equally likely to say economic conditions will be good as say it will be bad over the next 12 months (42% to 44%). However, one year ago, 58 percent expected bad economic times, and only 32 percent expected better times. The percentage in our current survey expecting a healthy economy is similar to the percentage in our February 2004 survey (43%). Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to expect good financial times (57% to 33%), as are those who approve of Schwarzenegger’s job performance (52%). Optimism is also higher among whites than Latinos (45% to 37%) and among men than women (46% to 37%). “Turning to economic conditions in California, do you think that during the next 12 months we will have good times financially or bad times?” Good times Bad times Don’t know All Adults 42% 44 14 Central Valley 37% 45 18 Region SF Bay Area 43% 42 15 Los Angeles 42% 45 13 Other Southern California 45% 44 11 Latinos 37% 50 13 - 14 - Political and Economic Trends Governor’s Ratings Arnold Schwarzenegger’s ratings have reached a new high, with 64 percent of Californians saying they approve of the way he his handling his job as governor—a significant increase (+ 9 points) since February 2004. Among likely voters, the governor’s ratings are even more positive (69%), up 8 points since February. Schwarzenegger’s approval ratings among all adults have been in positive territory throughout this year, ranging from 59 percent approval in January to 55 percent in February. In our previous surveys, about two in 10 adults had no opinion about the governor’s performance in office. Today, only one in 10 Californians have not made up their minds about their new governor. The change in opinions has been entirely in the positive direction—the one in four who disapprove of Schwarzenegger has not shifted throughout this year. A majority of adults in all regions approve of Schwarzenegger’s job performance, although disapproval is higher in the San Francisco Bay Area than elsewhere. Solid majorities of Republicans (87%) and independent voters (63%), and even most Democrats (53%), approve of the way the governor is doing his job. Approval among Democrats has risen 9 points since February. Latinos express relatively high levels of disapproval of the governor: Forty-seven percent of Latinos approve of his performance and 44 percent say they disapprove. Among whites, by contrast, an overwhelming 72 percent approve of the governor’s job performance, and only 18 percent disapprove. “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California?” Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 64% 26 10 Central Valley 68% 21 11 Region SF Bay Area 54% 34 12 Los Angeles 64% 29 7 Other Southern California 68% 19 13 Party Registration Dem 53% 36 11 Rep 87% 6 7 Ind 63% 26 11 Likely Voters 69% 23 8 As for the governor’s handling of the budget and taxes, Schwarzenegger continues to receive slim majority approval. Today, 55 percent approve of his performance in this area, compared to 51 percent in February and 54 percent in January. While majorities in most of the state like the way Schwarzenegger is handling fiscal issues, fewer than half in the San Francisco Bay Area agree. Favor also falls below 50 percent among Democrats (42%), while eight in 10 Republicans and 56 percent of independents approve of the governor’s handling of fiscal affairs. Latinos are less approving than whites when it comes to the governor’s handling of the budget (41% to 63%). “Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling the issue of the state budget and taxes?” Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 55% 32 13 Central Valley 60% 28 12 Region SF Bay Area 47% 39 14 Los Angeles 52% 37 11 Other Southern California 63% 23 14 Party Registration Dem 42% 47 11 Rep 80% 10 10 Ind 56% 28 16 Likely Voters 61% 28 11 - 15 - May 2004 Political and Economic Trends Legislature’s Ratings While Californians’ enthusiasm about Schwarzenegger’s performance does not extend to the state legislature, their ratings are showing some improvement over time. Forty-three percent of Californians disapprove of the way the legislature is handling its responsibilities, while 40 percent approve. Approval is somewhat lower among likely voters, with a majority (52%) giving the legislators a negative job rating. The overall approval ratings for the legislature represent a slight improvement among all residents since January (up 4 points) and a considerable 12 point increase since August 2003, when approval stood at 28 percent and disapproval at 58 percent. The legislature’s ratings are lowest in the San Francisco Bay Area, where half disapprove of the legislature’s job performance. Disapproval is similar among Republicans, Democrats, and independents, standing close to 50 percent in all cases. About half of residents age 55 and older (50%) and college graduates (51%) disapprove of the way the legislature is handling its job. Latinos are far more favorable than whites in their opinion of the Sacramento lawmakers (53% to 35%). “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling its job?” Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 40% 43 17 Central Valley 36% 45 19 Region SF Bay Area 35% 49 16 Los Angeles 47% 39 14 Other Southern California 41% 42 17 Party Registration Dem 40% 46 14 Rep 38% 47 15 Ind 32% 48 20 Likely Voters 35% 52 13 Ratings of the legislators’ handling of the state budget and taxes are even lower than their overall performance ratings. Only one in three constituents approve of the way the legislature is handling the state’s fiscal affairs, while the majority (53%) disapprove. Likely voters are even more negative, with nearly six in 10 (58%) expressing disapproval. Still, approval of the legislature’s performance in fiscal policy among all adults is up 4 points since January, and 13 points since its all-time low in August 2003. Majorities across the state’s regions disapprove of the legislature’s handling of this policy area. Statewide, approval ratings are similar among Democrats and Republicans but somewhat lower among independents. Disapproval is higher among whites than Latinos (56% to 45%) and is highest among men (56%), college graduates (59%), and those with incomes of $80,000 or more (58%). Approve Disapprove Don't know “Do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature has been handling the issue of the state budget and taxes?” All Adults 32% 53 15 Central Valley 34% 51 15 Region SF Bay Area 30% 54 16 Los Angeles 36% 53 11 Other Southern California 31% 52 17 Party Registration Dem 32% 56 12 Rep 34% 53 13 Ind 24% 62 14 Likely Voters 30% 58 12 - 16 - Political and Economic Trends State Government’s Performance Californians’ confidence in their state government as a whole has also improved slightly, although still near the historic lows seen in the months surrounding the governor’s recall election last year. While only 32 percent say they trust state leaders to do what is right always or most of the time, this is 5 points higher than in January, and the highest point registered since June 2003 (34%). Likely voters are more negative. Views are similar across political groups, and trust is higher among Latinos than whites (45% to 29%). When asked specifically about the state government’s fiscal performance, seven in 10 residents (71%) and 74 percent of likely voters say the government could spend less and still provide the same level of services. Large majorities of Republicans (83%), independents (80%), and Democrats (62%) hold this view. These negative assessments of the state’s fiscal performance are similar to those we reported last September (70%) and this January (67%). The majority of adults across all major regions and demographic groups, including 67 percent of Latinos and 74 percent of whites, think the state could spend less and provide the same level of services. Asked how much the state could cut without reducing services, most put the figure between 10 and 19 percent (43%), while 22 percent think less than 10 percent can be cut, and 25 percent think 20 percent or more of the budget could be cut. One in three independents (33%), 25 percent of Republicans, and 22 percent of Democrats think 20 percent or more of the budget could be cut without reducing services. “In general, do you think the state government could spend less and still provide the same level of services?” All Adults Yes, could spend less No, could not spend less Don't know 71% 25 4 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 62% 83% 80% 35 15 16 324 Likely Voters 74% 23 3 Eight in 10 residents think Governor Schwarzenegger’s “California Performance Review” will help the state’s fiscal situation at least somewhat by making state government more efficient, with 27 percent saying it will help a lot. Republicans are especially likely to think this review will have a major effect (38%), while fewer Democrats (20%) and independents (27%) currently hold this view. “Governor Schwarzenegger has ordered a ‘California Performance Review’ with the goal of making state governmental operations more efficient and effective. Do you think this will help the state's fiscal situation a lot, somewhat, not much, or not at all?” A lot Somewhat Not much Not at all Don’t know / Haven't heard about it All Adults 27% 52 11 6 4 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 20% 38% 27% 53 51 49 15 6 15 727 532 Likely Voters 31% 50 11 4 4 - 17 - May 2004 Political and Economic Trends President’s Ratings While Schwarzenegger’s performance ratings are climbing, President George Bush’s ratings are sinking: A majority of Californians (55%) now disapprove of the way he is handling his job. Approval of the president’s performance in office (41%) has dropped 8 points since February (49%) and 16 points since June 2003 (57%) and now stands at the lowest level so far in his term. The views of likely voters are similar to those of all adults. Californians’ opinions are similar to those of all Americans according to a recent Newsweek poll that showed 42 percent approving of the president’s performance and 52 percent disapproving. The president’s approval ratings fall below a majority in all regions except the Central Valley, and they are especially negative in the San Francisco Bay Area. Although he has strong support from fellow Republicans (79%), this support is counterbalanced by an equally high negative opinion among Democrats (81%), and independents lean toward the negative as well (58% disapprove). Majorities in all demographic groups disapprove of the president’s job performance, with ratings especially negative among women (58%) and college graduates (63%). “Do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president of the United States?” Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 41% 55 4 Central Valley 55% 41 4 Region SF Bay Area 26% 71 3 Los Angeles 38% 58 4 Other Southern California 48% 49 3 Party Registration Dem 16% 81 3 Rep 79% 18 3 Ind 38% 58 4 Likely Voters 40% 56 4 John Kerry now holds a 9-point lead over Bush among likely voters in California (48% to 39%), with 5 percent backing Ralph Nader. This gap is much narrower than the Democrats’ 17-point lead in our February survey, when 37 percent backed Bush and 54 percent supported an unnamed Democratic challenger. Democratic support for the party’s candidate has dropped 7 points since February, when 85 percent supported a Democratic nominee. Independents are divided when asked who they support for president, even though 58 percent disapprove of Bush. Republicans, meanwhile, remain loyal to Bush. The recent Newsweek poll that showed relatively high national job disapproval for President Bush reported an evenly divided race between Bush and Kerry (42% Bush; 43% Kerry; 5% Nader). “If the 2004 presidential election were being held today, would you vote for …” John Kerry, the Democrat George W. Bush, the Republican Ralph Nader, an independent Other Don’t know All Adults 45% Central Valley 35% 36 50 74 22 10 9 Region SF Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California 59% 49% 39% Party Registration Dem 78% Rep 10% Ind 40% 21 31 43 10 79 34 7 7 6 5 3 13 2 2 2 023 11 11 10 7 6 10 Likely Voters 48% 39 5 2 6 - 18 - Survey Methodology The PPIC Statewide Survey is directed by Mark Baldassare, research director at the Public Policy Institute of California, with assistance in research and writing from Jon Cohen, survey research manager, and Eliana Kaimowitz and Renatta DeFever, survey research associates. The survey was conducted with partial funding from The James Irvine Foundation, and it benefited from discussions with Irvine staff and grantees and discussions at meetings facilitated by the foundation; however, the survey methods, questions, and content of the report were solely determined by Mark Baldassare. The findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,001 California adult residents interviewed between May 11 and May 18, 2004. Interviewing took place on weekday nights and weekend days, using a computer-generated random sample of telephone numbers that ensured that both listed and unlisted telephone numbers were called. All telephone exchanges in California were eligible for calling. Telephone numbers in the survey sample were called up to six times to increase the likelihood of reaching eligible households. Once a household was reached, an adult respondent (age 18 or older) was randomly chosen for interviewing by using the “last birthday method” to avoid biases in age and gender. Each interview took an average of 19 minutes to complete. Interviewing was conducted in English or Spanish. Casa Hispana translated the survey into Spanish, and Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas, Inc. conducted the telephone interviewing. We used recent U.S. Census and state figures to compare the demographic characteristics of the survey sample with characteristics of California’s adult population. The survey sample was closely comparable to the census and state figures. The survey data in this report were statistically weighted to account for any demographic differences. The sampling error for the total sample of 2,001 adults is +/- 2 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that 95 times out of 100, the results will be within 2 percentage points of what they would be if all adults in California were interviewed. The sampling error for subgroups is larger. The sampling error for the 1,552 registered voters is +/- 2.5 percent. The sampling error for the 1,034 likely voters is +/- 3 percent, and the sampling error for each of the half samples is also +/- 3 percent. Sampling error is only one type of error to which surveys are subject. Results may also be affected by factors such as question wording, question order, and survey timing. Throughout the report, we refer to four geographic regions. “Central Valley” includes Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo, and Yuba Counties. “SF Bay Area” includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. “Los Angeles” refers to Los Angeles County, and “Other Southern California” includes the mostly suburban regions of Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties. These four regions were chosen for analysis because they are the major population centers of the state, accounting for approximately 90 percent of the state population. We present specific results for Latinos because they account for about 28 percent of the state’s adult population and constitute one of the fastest growing voter groups. The sample sizes for the African American and Asian subgroups are not large enough for separate statistical analysis. We do compare the opinions of registered Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The “independents” category includes only those who are registered to vote as “decline to state.” In the case of the presidential approval ratings, we compare PPIC Statewide Survey responses to responses recorded in a national poll conducted by Newsweek (May 13-14, 2004). We used earlier PPIC Statewide Surveys to analyze trends over time in California. - 19 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY: SPECIAL SURVEY ON THE CALIFORNIA STATE BUDGET MAY 11—MAY 18, 2004 2,001 CALIFORNIA ADULT RESIDENTS; ENGLISH AND SPANISH MARGIN OF ERROR +/- 2% AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR TOTAL SAMPLE 1. Thinking about the state as a whole, what do you think is the most important issue facing people in California today? [open-ended list] 34% economy, jobs, unemployment 12 education, schools 11 state budget, deficit, taxes 5 health care, health costs 5 immigration, illegal immigration 4 crime, gangs 4 gasoline prices 4 housing costs, housing availability 2 environment, pollution 14 other (specify) 5 don’t know 2. Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction? 43% right direction 44 wrong direction 13 don’t know 3. Turning to economic conditions in California, do you think that during the next 12 months we will have good times financially or bad times? 42% good times 44 bad times 14 don’t know 4. How closely are you following news about the California state budget—very closely, fairly closely, not too closely, or not at all closely? 17% very closely 44 fairly closely 28 not too closely 11 not at all closely 5. In general, how much would you say you know about how your state and local government spends and raises money—a lot, some, very little, or nothing? 14% a lot 43 some 33 very little 10 nothing 6. As you may know, the state government has an annual budget of around 100 billion dollars and currently faces a multi-billion dollar gap between state spending and state revenue. Do you think that this budget gap is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem for the people of California today? 73% big problem 21 somewhat of a problem 3 not a problem 3 don’t know 7. In March 2004, California voters passed Proposition 57, allowing the state to sell up to 15 billion dollars in state bonds to finance part of current year and next fiscal year spending. Do you think this helps the state’s fiscal situation a lot, somewhat, not much, or not at all? 14% a lot 46 somewhat 17 not much 14 not at all 9 don’t know 8. Also in March 2004, California voters passed Proposition 58, which requires that the state pass a balanced budget and bans future borrowing to finance the budget. Do you think this helps the state’s fiscal situation a lot, somewhat, not much, or not at all? 26% a lot 41 somewhat 15 not much 11 not at all 7 don’t know - 21 - [rotate block 1 and block 2] Regardless of why you think the state faces a gap between spending and revenue ... [block 1 introduction] ... spending cuts could be used to help reduce this gap. For each of the following, please indicate whether you support or oppose the proposal. [rotate questions 9 to 12] 9. How about cutting kindergarten through 12th grade school spending, which currently makes up 40 percent of the state’s general fund spending—do you support or oppose this proposal? 17% support 81 oppose 2 don’t know 10. How about cutting spending on public colleges and universities which currently makes up 13 percent of the state’s general fund spending—do you support or oppose this proposal? 25% support 73 oppose 2 don’t know 11. How about cutting spending on health and human services, which currently makes up 28 percent of the state’s general fund spending—do you support or oppose this proposal? 28% support 68 oppose 4 don’t know 12. How about cutting spending on prisons and corrections, which currently makes up 7 percent of the state’s general fund spending—do you support or oppose this proposal? 49% support 44 oppose 7 don’t know 13. [if answered “oppose” to all questions, 9 through 12 ] You’ve said that none of these cuts are acceptable ways to reduce the budget gap. Could you name another state program that you think could or should be cut to help reduce the budget gap? 33% yes 47 no 20 don’t know [block 2 introduction] ... tax and fee increases could be used to help reduce this budget gap. For each of the following, please indicate whether you support or oppose the proposal. [rotate questions q14 to q16] 14. How about changing the top rate of the state income tax from 9.3 percent to 10.3 percent, starting at 150,000 dollars for single filers and 300,000 dollars for joint filers in California—do you support or oppose this proposal? 56% support 38 oppose 6 don’t know 15. How about raising the state excise tax on cigarettes from 87 cents to $1.50 per pack—do you support or oppose this proposal? 70% support 28 oppose 2 don’t know 16. How about raising the state portion of the sales tax by one-half cent—do you support or oppose this proposal? 49% support 48 oppose 3 don’t know 17. Governor Schwarzenegger [starting May 13, include the word “recently”] proposed a budget plan for the next fiscal year that includes spending cuts in transportation, higher education, and general government; defers spending increases for K-12 public education; and uses local government property tax money and state bonds. The plan includes no new taxes. In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the governor’s budget plan? [Prior to the May Revision, this question also noted cuts to health and human services, and did not include higher education cuts. This question includes all budget items estimated to contribute one billion dollars or more to closing the state’s budget gap] 50% satisfied 41 dissatisfied 9 don’t know - 22 - 17a.[Asked starting May 13] And from what you know now, does the governor’s budget plan help the state’s fiscal situation a lot, somewhat, not much or not at all? 10% a lot 52 somewhat 20 not much 9 not at all 9 don’t know [rotate questions 18 and 19] 18. Do you think that tax increases should have been included in the governor’s budget plan? 50% yes 43 no 7 don’t know 19. Overall, how concerned are you about the effects of the spending cuts in the governor’s budget plan—very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned? 33% very concerned 43 somewhat concerned 15 not too concerned 7 not at all concerned 2 don’t know 20. When it comes to the tough choices involved in the state budget, both in deciding how much Californians should pay in taxes and how to fund state programs, whose approach do you most prefer— [rotate] Governor Schwarzenegger’s, the Democrats’ in the legislature, or the Republicans’ in the legislature? 31% Democrats’ 30 Governor Schwarzenegger’s 18 Republicans’ 4 other answer (specify) 17 don’t know [rotate blocks 3 and 4] [block 3] [rotate questions 21 to 23] 21. How concerned are you that the state’s budget gap will cause severe cuts in K-12 public education in your local school district—very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not at all concerned? 56% very concerned 29 somewhat concerned 8 not very concerned 7 not at all concerned 22. How concerned are you that the state’s budget gap will cause severe cuts in funding for local government services such as parks and recreation, police and public safety, and roads and transportation in your local area —very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not at all concerned? 38% very concerned 40 somewhat concerned 14 not very concerned 7 not at all concerned 1 don’t know 23. How concerned are you that the state’s budget gap will cause severe cuts in funding for health and human services in your local area—very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not at all concerned? 46% very concerned 34 somewhat concerned 12 not very concerned 7 not at all concerned 1 don’t know [block 4] [rotate questions 24 to 26] 24. What if there were a measure on your local ballot to increase the local sales tax in order to fund local government services such as parks, police, and roads? Would you vote yes or no? 56% yes 39 no 5 don’t know 25. What if there were a measure on your local ballot for new taxes on alcoholic beverages and cigarettes in order to fund local public health services? Would you vote yes or no? 77% yes 22 no 1 don’t know 26. What if there were a measure on your local ballot to increase property taxes in order to provide more funds for the local public schools? Would you vote yes or no? 45% yes 50 no 5 don’t know - 23 - May 2004 27. In general, do you think the local government in your area could spend less and still provide the same level of services? 58% yes, could spend less [ask q27a] 34 no, could not spend less [skip to q28-30 rotation] 8 don’t know [skip to q28-30 rotation] 27a.How much could local government cut its spending without reducing services? [read list] 24% under 10 percent 41 10 percent to under 20 percent 14 20 percent to under 30 percent 9 30 percent or more 12 don’t know Spending and tax reforms have been proposed to address fundamental issues in the state budget. For each of the following, please indicate whether you think this is a good idea or a bad idea. [rotate questions 28 to 30] 28a. [half sample] How about raising state corporate tax revenues by allowing casino-type gambling on nonIndian lands—is this a good idea or a bad idea? 51% good idea 44 bad idea 5 don’t know 28b. [half sample] How about raising state corporate tax revenues by allowing the expansion of casino-type gambling on Indian lands—is this a good idea or a bad idea? 56% good idea 36 bad idea 8 don’t know 29. How about lowering the two-thirds (67 percent) requirement for voters to pass local special taxes to a 55 percent majority vote—is this a good idea or a bad idea? 40% good idea 51 bad idea 9 don’t know 30. Under Proposition 13, residential and commercial property taxes are both strictly limited. What do you think about having commercial properties taxed according to their current market value? Is this a good idea or a bad idea? 59% good idea 34 bad idea 7 don’t know 31. On another topic, some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you absolutely certain that you are registered to vote? 78% yes [ask q32] 21 no [skip to q32a] 1 don’t know [skip to q32a] 32. Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or as an independent? 43% Democrat [ask q32b] 34 Republican [ask q32c] 5 another party (specify) [skip to q33/34] 18 independent [ask q32a] 32a.Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or Democratic Party? 26% Republican party 43 Democratic party 23 neither (volunteered) 8 don’t know [go to q33] 32b. Would you call yourself a strong Democrat or not a very strong Democrat? 55% strong 43 not very strong 2 don’t know [go to q33] 32c.Would you call yourself a strong Republican or not a very strong Republican? 55% strong 41 not very strong 4 don’t know Several tax and spending proposals may appear on the November 2004 ballot. For each of the following, please say if you would vote yes or no if the election were held today. [rotate questions 33 and 34] 33a. [half sample] How about a 9.95 billion dollar state bond measure that would fund the planning and construction of a high-speed train in California, linking Los Angeles to San Francisco via the Central Valley. Would you vote yes or no? 40% yes 54 no 6 don’t know - 24 - 33b. [half sample] How about requiring voter approval for any state legislation that reduces local government revenue? Would you vote yes or no? 64% yes 29 no 7 don’t know 34a. [half sample] How about an increase in the state income tax on taxable income over 1 million dollars to provide funding for mental health services? Would you vote yes or no? 71% yes 27 no 2 don’t know 34b. [half sample] How about an additional 3 percent surcharge on telephone use within California to fund hospital emergency services? Would you vote yes or no? 46% yes 50 no 4 don’t know 35. On another topic, which is the more important consideration for you when it comes to legalized gambling— [rotate] the crime and social problems it creates, or the revenue and economic growth it produces? 49% revenue and economic growth 41 crime and social problems 3 neither (volunteered) 2 both (volunteered) 5 don’t know 36. In general, which of the following statements do you agree with more—I’d rather pay higher taxes to support a larger state government that provides more services, or I’d rather pay lower taxes and have a smaller state government that provides fewer services? 46% higher taxes and more services 47 lower taxes and fewer services 7 don’t know 37. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California? 64% approve 26 disapprove 10 don’t know 38. And do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling the issue of the state budget and taxes? 55% approve 32 disapprove 13 don’t know 39. Overall, do you have a favorable or an unfavorable impression of Maria Shriver, California’s First Lady? 59% favorable 10 unfavorable 31 don’t know 40. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling its job? 40% approve 43 disapprove 17 don’t know 41. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature has been handling the issue of the state budget and taxes? 32% approve 53 disapprove 15 don’t know Let’s talk about the way government operates in general, regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in office. 42. How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Sacramento to do what is right—just about always, most of the time, or only some of the time? 5% just about always 27 most of the time 60 only some of the time 5 none of the time/not at all (volunteered) 3 don’t know 43. In general, do you think the state government could spend less and still provide the same level of services? 71% yes, could spend less [ask q43a] 25 no, could not spend less [skip to q44] 4 don’t know [skip to q44] 43a.How much could the state government cut its spending without reducing services? [read list] 22% under 10 percent 43 10 percent to under 20 percent 15 20 percent to under 30 percent 10 30 percent or more 10 don’t know - 25 - May 2004 44. Governor Schwarzenegger has ordered a “California Performance Review” with the goal of making state governmental operations more efficient and effective. Do you think this will help the state’s fiscal situation a lot, somewhat, not much, or not at all? 27% a lot 52 somewhat 11 not much 6 not at all 4 don’t know 45. Generally speaking, how much interest would you say you have in politics—a great deal, a fair amount, only a little, or none? 22% great deal 45 fair amount 26 only a little 6 none 1 don’t know 46. How often would you say you vote—always, nearly always, part of the time, seldom, or never? 53% always 18 nearly always 9 part of the time 5 seldom 15 never 47. On another topic, would you consider yourself to be politically [read in rotated order] 12% very liberal 21 somewhat liberal 29 middle-of-the-road 25 somewhat conservative 11 very conservative 2 don’t know 48. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president of the United States? 41% approve 55 disapprove 4 don’t know 49. Overall, do you approve of disapprove of the way that Barbara Boxer is handling her job as U.S. Senator? 45% approve 30 disapprove 25 don’t know Turning again to the November election: 50. If the 2004 presidential election were being held today, would you vote for [rotate] George W. Bush, the Republican; John Kerry, the Democrat; or Ralph Nader, an independent? 45% John Kerry 36 George W. Bush 7 Ralph Nader 2 other answer (specify) 10 don’t know 51. If the 2004 U.S. Senate election were being held today, would you vote for [rotate] Barbara Boxer, Democrat; or Bill Jones, the Republican? 49% Barbara Boxer 32 Bill Jones 1 other answer (specify) 18 don’t know Changing subjects: 52. Do you smoke cigarettes? 16% yes 84 no 53. Are you or is anyone in your immediate family a member of a labor union? (if yes, ask: Is that person you or another person in your family?) 10% yes, respondent 10 yes, another person in the family 2 yes, both 76 no 2 don’t know 54. And have you ever participated in any form of legal gambling? (if yes: Do you gamble frequently, sometimes, or rarely?) 3% yes, frequently 14 yes, sometimes 42 yes, rarely 41 no [55-59: demographic questions] - 26 - 60. Are there any children 18 or under currently living in your household? 44% yes [ask q60a] 56 no [skip to q67] 60a. Do they attend public or private schools? 70% public schools [ask q61] 10 private schools [skip to q67] 2 both public and private schools [ask q61] 15 not old enough to attend school [skip to q67] 3 other [skip to q67] 61. Briefly, about the public schools in your area—how much would you say you know about how your local school district receives and spends money—a lot, some, very little, or nothing? 17% a lot 32 some 33 very little 16 nothing 2 don’t know 62. Overall, how much would you say that you know about the student grading and test score system used by your local school—a lot, some, very little, or nothing? 31% a lot 38 some 19 very little 11 nothing 1 don’t know Please tell me if you support or oppose the following proposals: [rotate questions 63 to 66] 63. Control over school budgets and spending would be at the local level instead of the district level, so each principal would set budgets in consultation with teachers. In general, would you support or oppose this idea? 70% support 24 oppose 6 don’t know 64. Each school would receive funding based on the types of students at that school. For example, schools with more English language learners and students with disabilities would get more money. In general, would you support or oppose this idea? 55% support 41 oppose 4 don’t know 65. Students would be able to enroll in any public school. In general, would you support or oppose this idea? 79% support 19 oppose 2 don’t know 66. Whom do you trust the most to make decisions about how to spend money at your local school [read rotated list, then ask “or someone else?”] 34% local school district 24 your principal 24 the teachers 7 state government 6 someone else (specify) 5 don’t know [67-71: demographic questions] - 27 - May 2004 PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY Advisory Committee Mitchel Benson Director of Communications California Treasurer Phil Angelides Angela Blackwell President PolicyLink Paul Brest President The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Mollyann Brodie Vice President Kaiser Family Foundation Bruce E. Cain Director Institute of Governmental Studies University of California, Berkeley James E. Canales President The James Irvine Foundation Matt Fong Chairman Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Advisory Committee William Hauck President California Business Roundtable Dennis A. Hunt Vice President Communications and Public Affairs The California Endowment Sherry Bebitch Jeffe Senior Scholar School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Carol S. Larson President and CEO The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Monica Lozano Publisher and CEO La Opinión Donna Lucas Deputy Chief of Staff Office of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Max Neiman Professor Political Science Department University of California, Riverside Dan Rosenheim News Director KPIX-TV Carol Stogsdill President Stogsdill Consulting Cathy Taylor Vice President and Editorial Commentary Director Orange County Register Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center - 28- PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA Board of Directors Raymond L. Watson, Chairman Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Gary K. Hart Founder Institute for Education Reform California State University, Sacramento Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities David W. Lyon President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Vilma S. Martinez Partner Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP Cheryl White Mason Chief, Civil Liability Management Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office Arjay Miller Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Thomas C. Sutton Chairman & CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company Cynthia A. Telles Department of Psychiatry UCLA School of Medicine Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Advisory Council Mary C. Daly Research Advisor Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Clifford W. Graves General Manager Department of Community Development City of Los Angeles Elizabeth G. Hill Legislative Analyst State of California Hilary W. Hoynes Associate Professor Department of Economics University of California, Davis Andrés E. Jiménez Director California Policy Research Center University of California Office of the President Norman R. King Executive Director San Bernardino Associated Governments Daniel A. Mazmanian C. Erwin and Ione Piper Dean and Professor School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Dean Misczynski Director California Research Bureau Rudolf Nothenberg Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) City and County of San Francisco Manuel Pastor Professor, Latin American & Latino Studies University of California, Santa Cruz Peter Schrag Contributing Editor The Sacramento Bee James P. Smith Senior Economist RAND Corporation PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 Phone: (415) 291-4400 Fax: (415) 291-4401 www.ppic.org info@ppic.org" } ["___content":protected]=> string(102) "

S 504MBS

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(119) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-special-survey-on-the-california-state-budget-may-2004/s_504mbs/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8410) ["ID"]=> int(8410) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:37:23" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(3607) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(8) "S 504MBS" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(8) "s_504mbs" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(12) "S_504MBS.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(7) "1236272" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(95658) "PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY MAY 2004 Public Policy Institute of California Special Survey on the California State Budget in collaboration with The James Irvine Foundation ○○○○○ Mark Baldassare Research Director & Survey Director The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens – William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller – recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Raymond L. Watson is Chairman of the Board of Directors. 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 • San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-4400 • Fax: (415) 291-4401 info@ppic.org • www.ppic.org Preface The PPIC Statewide Survey series provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with objective, advocacy-free information on the perceptions, opinions, and public policy preferences of California residents. Started in April 1998, the survey series has generated a database that includes the responses of more than 93,000 Californians. The current survey is the third in a series of special surveys on the California State Budget and Fiscal System, begun in June 2003 and conducted in collaboration with The James Irvine Foundation. At the same time that the state government faces the immediate challenge of addressing the current budget gap between state spending and state revenue, an array of structural reforms of the state and local finance system are also being considered to cope with long-term issues involved in balancing the state budget. Public opinion surveys offer the state’s lawmakers an opportunity to consider the views of Californians on various fiscal proposals and underlying perceptions of spending and taxes. Moreover, Californians have made fiscal decisions on their own through the initiative process—for example, Proposition 13 tax limitations and Proposition 98 state funding guarantees for K-12 public schools. California voters in the March primary had an important impact on current state and local fiscal conditions through their support of state propositions, and they now face important policy choices as a result of fiscal measures and citizens’ initiatives on the November ballot. This survey series seeks to raise public awareness, inform decisionmakers, and stimulate public discussions about the current state budget and the underlying state and local finance system. This report presents the responses of 2,001 adult residents throughout the state on a wide range of issues: • The state’s budget situation, including knowledge and attention to state fiscal issues and the perceived seriousness of the state budget gap, support for the governor’s budget plan and perceptions of the fiscal impacts of the March ballot measures, priorities for state spending, concerns about the local effects of the state budget gap, and preferred budget solutions. • State and local revenues, including support for earmarking state tax increases, specific state tax increases, local tax increases for local programs, Proposition 13 reform, general attitudes toward increasing state revenue through the expansion of gambling in the state, and support for state tax and spending proposals headed for the November ballot. • Political and economic trends, including public perceptions of the most important problem in California, general direction of the state, and outlook for the state’s economy; trust in state government officials and their handling of fiscal issues; overall approval ratings of Governor Schwarzenegger and the state legislature and, more specifically, their handling of state budget and tax issues, and overall approval ratings of President Bush and support for his reelection. • The extent to which Californians may differ with regard to attitudes toward spending and taxes by party affiliation, demographics, race/ethnicity, and region of residence. This is the 46th PPIC Statewide Survey, which has included a number of special editions: • The Central Valley (11/99, 3/01, 4/02, 4/03, 4/04) • Population Growth (5/01) • San Diego County (7/00) • Land Use (11/01, 11/02) • Orange County (9/01, 12/02, 12/03) • Environment (6/00, 6/02, 11/03) • Los Angeles County (3/03, 3/04) • California State Budget (6/03, 1/04) Copies of this report may be ordered by e-mail (order@ppic.org) or phone (415-291-4400). Copies of this and earlier reports are posted on the publications page of the PPIC web site (www.ppic.org). For questions about the survey, please contact survey@ppic.org. -i- Contents Preface Press Release State’s Budget Situation State and Local Revenue Political and Economic Trends Survey Methodology Survey Questions and Results Survey Advisory Committee i v 1 7 13 19 21 28 - iii - Press Release Para ver este comunicado de prensa en español, por favor visite nuestra página de internet: http://www.ppic.org/main/pressreleaseindex.asp SPECIAL SURVEY ON THE CALIFORNIA STATE BUDGET CALIFORNIA’S CHRONIC BUDGET BLUES Governor’s Popularity Has Not Brightened Bad Fiscal Mood; Residents Unhappy About Budget – But Many Unwilling To Pay Their Way Out SAN FRANCISCO, California, May 27, 2004 — Despite signs of a slowly improving economy, and vigorous efforts by a popular and influential governor, Californians’ unhappiness about the state’s economic and fiscal condition isn’t getting better, according to a new survey released by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) and The James Irvine Foundation. Nearly three-fourths (73%) of Californians still say the state’s budget gap is a big problem – the same percentage that said the gap was a big problem around the time of Governor Gray Davis’ 2003 May Revision. Among likely voters, concern is even greater, with 80 percent believing the budget gap is a big problem today. “Many Californians feel they have been burned in the past by the budget situation,” says PPIC Statewide Survey Director Mark Baldassare. “Even with a new, charismatic leader, they will likely have to see real fiscal improvements before their pessimism about the state’s finances turns around.” In fact, the governor’s budget – one that includes no new taxes – gets mixed reviews from state residents. Half (50%) are satisfied with the plan, 41 percent are dissatisfied, and 9 percent don’t know. Moreover, half (50%) say the plan should have included tax increases, with Democrats and Republicans deeply split on the issue (66% Democrats, 31% Republicans). A wide majority (76%) say they are at least somewhat concerned about the effects the plan’s proposed spending cuts will have on services. Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is… Or Not Despite that concern over cuts, many residents are unwilling to pay to protect public services. Large majorities oppose cutting spending for K-12 education (81%), colleges and universities (73%), and health and human services (68%); and most residents are either very or somewhat concerned that the state budget gap will cause severe cuts to their local school district (85%), local health and human services (80%), and local services such as parks and police (78%). However, when asked if they would support raising property taxes to fund local public schools, 50 percent said no, 45 percent said yes. Raising the state portion of the sales tax also gets a split response from state residents (49% support, 48% oppose). A real-world test? This November’s ballot measure to add a 3 percent surcharge on telephone use to fund hospital emergency services is lagging among likely voters (56% no, 41% yes). What might look like penny pinching may also be related to voters’ doubts about the state government’s fiscal effectiveness. “People have a pretty high level of suspicion about how sensibly and economically the tax money they send to Sacramento is used,” says Baldassare. In fact, nearly three-fourths (74%) of likely voters and 71 percent of all residents believe state government could spend less and still provide the same level of service. Local government comes under similar fire: A majority of residents (58%) and likely voters (57%) believe local government in their area could spend less and provide the same service. Moreover, 47 percent of residents say they would rather have a smaller government with lower taxes and -v- Press Release fewer services – 46 percent prefer a bigger government with higher taxes and more services. Support for the smaller government option grows to a majority among likely voters (54% to 39%). Take From the Rich… And Tax the Vices So who should pay to help get the state out of its current financial hole? As in past PPIC surveys, a majority of Californians support increasing taxes geared toward certain groups – namely, the wealthy and smokers. Residents support raising cigarette taxes (70% to 28%) and raising the tax rate on the state’s top income bracket (56% to 38%). This November’s ballot measure to increase tax on income over $1 million to fund mental health services is getting vigorous support among likely voters (67% support, 31% oppose). Likely voters also favor the idea of raising more tax revenue by allowing the expansion of gambling on Indian lands (53% good idea, 39% bad idea). However, they are almost evenly split on the idea of expanding gambling on non-Indian lands in the state (47% good idea, 48% bad idea). Governor’s Golden Glow Remains Untarnished Anxiety about the state’s finances doesn’t seem to be affecting Governor Schwarzenegger’s popularity: Large majorities of all residents (64%), and of likely voters (69%), approve of the way he is doing his job. Although his ratings drop somewhat on fiscal issues, even in this problematic area he receives comfortably high marks: 55 percent of residents and 61 percent of likely voters approve of his handling of the budget and taxes. Only 32 percent of residents, and 28 percent of likely voters, disapprove. The propositions the governor has backed since taking office are also seen in a favorable light: 60 percent of residents believe Proposition 57, the $15 billion bond he championed last March, helps the state’s fiscal situation either a lot or somewhat. “People see the budget situation as something brought on by others, but apparently do not fault Governor Schwarzenegger,” says Baldassare. The difference between the governor’s and the legislature’s approval ratings may bear this out. Today, only about one-third (35%) of likely voters approve of the job lawmakers are doing, compared to over half (52%) who disapprove. The legislature is, however, on more positive ground than it was nine months ago when approval stood at 28 percent and disapproval at 58 percent. “Partisan gridlock and inaction in Sacramento has been very exasperating for Californians,” says Baldassare. “Lawmakers improved status may be partly because they and the governor are seen as having a fairly successful working relationship up to now.” Beyond budget issues, the turnaround in approval of the state’s top officeholders is occurring at a time when the overall mood is also improving. While far from blissful – 44 percent of residents say California is going in the wrong direction, 43 percent say it is going the right way – the general outlook has improved from what it was just a few months ago. In February 2004, PPIC’s Statewide Survey found that 51 percent of residents thought the state was going in the wrong direction, while 35 percent believed it was going in the right direction. Latinos are a notable exception to this trend – their current outlook (38% right direction, 50% wrong direction) has barely budged since February (36% right direction, 50% wrong direction). Overall today, whites are more optimistic than Latinos about where the state is headed (47% to 38%). Bush Support on the Decline – But Is Kerry Benefiting? President George Bush’s approval ratings are shrinking in California: A majority of residents disapprove of the way the president is handling his job (55% to 41%), as do likely voters (56% to 40%). Among all residents, this is a 16-point drop from one year ago in June 2003, when his approval stood at 57 percent. The only region in California where the president enjoys majority support is in the Central Valley (55%), a stark contrast to the San Francisco Bay Area (26%) and Los Angeles area (38%). Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry currently holds a 9-point lead over the president among likely voters in - vi - Press Release California (48% to 39%), narrower than the 17-point advantage the “unnamed democratic challenger” had in February 2004. Recent national polls show Bush and Kerry in a statistical dead heat. More Key Findings • Restricting State Government’s Hand (page 10) A strong majority of likely voters (60%) support this November’s ballot measure requiring voter approval for any state-level legislation that reduces local government revenues. • Retooling Prop 13 (page 12) Fifty-six percent of likely voters think taxing commercial property according to its current market value – currently restricted by Proposition 13 – is a good idea. Only 38 percent think it is a bad idea. • Economy Still on Top, But Gas Prices on the Radar (page 13) One-third of Californians cite the economy, jobs, and unemployment as the top issue facing the state, and the percentage naming gasoline prices (4%) has risen significantly. • First Lady a Hit (page 25) A strong majority of Californians (59%) have a favorable impression of First Lady Maria Shriver, while only 10 percent have an unfavorable one. • What Your Parents Don’t Know… (page 27) Nearly half (49%) of parents who currently have children attending public school say they know very little or nothing about how their local school district receives and spends money. About the Survey The California State Budget Survey — a collaborative effort of the Public Policy Institute of California and The James Irvine Foundation — is a special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey. This is the third in a series intended to raise public awareness, inform decisionmakers, and stimulate public discussions about the current budget and the underlying state and local finance systems. Findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,001 California adult residents interviewed between May 11 and May 18, 2004. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish. The sampling error for the total sample is +/- 2%. The sampling error for subgroups is larger. For more information on methodology, see page 19. Mark Baldassare is research director at PPIC, where he holds the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Public Policy. He is founder of the PPIC Statewide Survey, which he has directed since 1998. His most recent book, A California State of Mind: The Conflicted Voter in a Changing World, is available at www.ppic.org. PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to improving public policy through objective, nonpartisan research on the economic, social, and political issues that affect Californians. The institute was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. This report will appear on PPIC’s website (www.ppic.org) on May 27. ### - vii - Percent Percent who say state budget gap is a ... 33 21 Percent all adults 73 Big problem Somew hat of a problem Not a problem Don't know Percent who say taxes should have been included in governor's state budget plan 70 66 60 50 50 48 40 31 30 20 10 0 All adults Dem Rep Ind Support for expansion of gaming to raise state tax revenue On Indian lands 8 On non-Indian lands 5 36 56 44 51 Good idea Bad idea Don't know Percent all adults Percent all adults Percent all adults Percent opposed to spending cuts in ... 100 81 80 73 68 60 44 40 20 0 K-12 public schools Higher education Health and Prisons and human corrections services Percent supporting revenue increases through … 70 70 60 56 50 40 30 20 10 0 Cigarette tax Income tax on the w ealthy 49 Sales tax Percent overall approval for elected officials 70 64 60 50 40 41 40 30 20 10 0 Governor State Legislature Schw arzenegger President Bush State’s Budget Situation State Budget Awareness Although Californians are concerned—and have been for some time—about the state’s budget situation, they haven’t developed any greater understanding of the state and local fiscal system. Compared to a year ago, almost the same percentages today say that they believe the budget gap is a big problem, that they are following news about the budget closely, and that they know very little or nothing about their state and local governments’ finances. Attitudes on these items were also similar in interviews before and after the recent May Revision. Seventy-three percent say that the gap between spending and revenue is a big problem for the state, compared to 73 percent after Governor Gray Davis’ budget revision in May 2003 and 70 percent after Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s first state budget in January 2004. Today, as then, about one in five Californians sees the budget gap as somewhat of a problem, and fewer than 5 percent believe it is not a problem. Concern about the state budget is high across regions and political and demographic groups. However, whites are more likely than Latinos (77% to 62%) and San Francisco Bay Area residents are somewhat more likely than people in other regions to think the budget gap is a big problem. Today, 61 percent of Californians say they follow news about the state budget very or fairly closely, similar to the percentage who made that claim after Governor Davis released his revised budget in May 2003. Public attention to budget news is higher among whites than Latinos (67% to 52%) and similar across regions. As in June 2003, nearly six in 10 Californians say they know a lot or something about how their state and local governments spend and raise money, while four in 10 adults continue to say they know very little or nothing about this topic. Fourteen percent of all adults and just under one in five likely voters, homeowners, college graduates, and upper-income residents say they know a lot about the state’s fiscal system. “Do you think that the budget gap is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem for the people of California today?” Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don't know All Adults 73% 21 3 3 Central Valley 74% 18 3 5 Region SF Bay Area 77% 19 2 2 Los Angeles 72% 24 2 2 Other Southern California 70% 22 4 4 Likely Voters 80% 18 2 0 “How closely are you following news about the California state budget?” Very closely Fairly closely Not too closely Not at all closely All Adults 17% 44 28 11 Central Valley 17% 44 28 11 Region SF Bay Area 17% 44 31 8 Los Angeles 20% 41 29 10 Other Southern California 16% 44 27 13 Likely Voters 25% 57 13 5 -1- State’s Budget Situation March Fiscal Measures Despite continuing concern about the state’s budget situation, many Californians believe that conditions have improved because of two fiscal measures that passed on the March ballot. Proposition 57 allows the state to borrow $15 billion to pay down the debt, and 60 percent of residents believe it helps the state’s fiscal situation either a lot or somewhat. However, 31 percent think Proposition 57 is not much or no help at all. Republicans (72%) are more likely than Democrats (56%) and independents (57%) to say that Proposition 57 helped the state’s fiscal situation at least somewhat. Although majorities across the state’s regions and political and demographic groups believe that the $15 billion in state bonds offers at least some fiscal relief, fewer than one in five say that Proposition 57 matters a lot, including those Californians who are most likely to vote. Californians are somewhat more optimistic about the fiscal effects of Proposition 58 (the companion measure to Proposition 57), which requires the state to pass a balanced budget and bans future borrowing to finance the budget. Sixty-seven percent say that Proposition 58 helps the state’s fiscal situation at least somewhat, and 26 percent think it helps a lot. Strong majorities across the state’s regions and demographic and political groups perceive at least some benefits from Proposition 58. Once again, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to hold this view. Among likely voters, about one in three say that passing Proposition 58 helps a lot. “Do you think Proposition 57 helps the state's fiscal situation a lot, somewhat, not much, or not at all?” A lot Somewhat Not much Not at all Don't know All Adults 14% 46 17 14 9 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 11% 45 21 16 7 24% 48 9 12 7 13% 44 18 17 8 Likely Voters 17% 47 16 15 5 “Do you think Proposition 58 helps the state's fiscal situation a lot, somewhat, not much, or not at all?” A lot Somewhat Not much Not at all Don't know All Adults 26% 41 15 11 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 22% 40% 27% 41 38 43 17 10 13 13 8 10 747 Likely Voters 32% 40 13 11 4 -2- State’s Budget Situation Governor’s Budget Plan Half of all Californians are satisfied with the governor’s state budget plan. Satisfaction with the governor’s budget remained unchanged after the release of his May Revision on May 13th and its modifications to his January proposals. Overall, majorities of Republicans (74%) and independents (52%) are satisfied with the plan, while a majority of Democrats are dissatisfied (57%). In January 2004, 57 percent of all adults were satisfied with the governor’s budget plan and 30 percent were dissatisfied. When asked in the days after the May Revision was released how much they thought the governor’s budget plan helps the state’s fiscal situation, 62 percent of residents said it helps at least somewhat, but only 10 percent thought it helps a lot. Californians are more disposed to tax increases now than they were in January. Overall, 50 percent think the governor’s budget should have included tax increases and 43 percent say it should not. In January, 42 percent favored tax increases, and 51 percent did not. Residents are sharply divided along partisan lines when asked if tax increases should have been included in the budget plan: Sixty-six percent of Democrats say yes; 64 percent of Republicans say no. Three in four Californians are very or somewhat concerned about the effects of spending cuts in the governor’s budget plan. Although some of the more severe cuts were removed in the May budget revisions, perceptions were similar before and after its release. Concern about cuts is higher among lower-income residents. “In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the governor’s budget plan?” Satisfied Dissatisfied Don't know All Adults 50% 41 9 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 34% 74% 52% 57 21 39 959 Likely Voters 52% 41 7 May Revision∗ Before After 49% 50% 43 40 8 10 “Do you think that tax increases should have been included in the governor's budget plan?” Yes No Don't know All Adults 50% 43 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 66% 31% 48% 28 64 46 656 Likely Voters 49% 46 5 May Revision Before After 50% 50% 44 43 67 “How concerned are you about the effects of the spending cuts in the governor's budget plan?” All Adults Very concerned Somewhat concerned Not too concerned Not at all concerned Don't know 33% 43 15 7 2 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 47% 19% 28% 40 41 44 9 25 17 2 14 8 213 Likely Voters 36% 39 15 8 2 May Revision Before After 34% 33% 41 43 16 14 78 22 ∗524 interviews were conducted before and 1,477 after the release of the May Revision (May 13, 2004). -3- May 2004 State’s Budget Situation State Budget Priorities Most Californians continue to oppose spending cuts in the program areas that make up the largest share of the state government’s budget—Kindergarten through 12th grade public education, public colleges and universities, and health and human services. There is substantial support for spending cuts only when it comes to spending on corrections and prisons, and opinions are evenly divided in this area. The results are almost identical to those in our survey conducted after Governor Davis’ revised budget was released in May 2003. Today, eight in 10 adult residents oppose cutting spending for K-12 public schools. Strong majorities of Democrats and Republicans agree that there should be no spending cuts for schools, and there is also consensus across regions of the state and demographic groups. Those with (83%) and without children (79%) both register strong opposition to spending cuts for K-12 schools. Seven in 10 adult residents also oppose spending cuts for public colleges and universities. Although majorities in all political groups also oppose these cuts, Republicans are more inclined than Democrats or independents to support them. Likely voters are against the cuts by a more than two-to-one margin. Opposition to these cuts is similar across income and education groups. Seven in 10 Californians also oppose spending cuts for health and human services. In this area, however, Democrats and independents are strongly opposed to cuts, while Republicans are more evenly divided. Nevertheless, among all likely voters, opponents of spending cuts in health and human services outnumber supporters by a two-to-one margin. Latinos are more likely than whites to oppose cuts (79% to 64%). Although opposition is highest among residents who are under age 35 and have lower education and income, most residents who are 55 and older, upper income, and college educated do not want spending cuts in health and human services either. In contrast to the other three state spending categories, adult residents are almost evenly divided on whether to cut spending for prisons and corrections. Support for these cuts increase with income and education. There are no significant differences across political parties, or between likely voters and all adults. Do you support or oppose the following proposal? How about cutting ... Kindergarten through 12th grade school spending, which currently makes up 40 percent of the state's general fund spending? Support Oppose Don't know Spending on public colleges and universities, which currently makes up 13 percent of the state's general fund spending? Support Oppose Don't know Spending on health and human services, which currently makes up 28 percent of the state's general fund spending? Support Oppose Don't know Spending on prisons and corrections, which currently makes up 7 percent of the state's general fund spending? Support Oppose Don't know All Adults 17% 81 2 25% 73 2 28% 68 4 49% 44 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 10% 88 2 18% 80 2 17% 79 4 50% 45 5 26% 71 3 39% 57 4 49% 47 4 52% 44 4 19% 78 3 25% 73 2 27% 67 6 51% 42 7 Likely Voters 19% 79 2 29% 68 3 33% 63 4 52% 42 6 -4- State’s Budget Situation Local Fiscal Concerns Besides opposing cuts in the state’s primary spending categories, many Californians are also concerned that the state’s budget gap will cause severe cuts in local public services. In fact, they seem to be more concerned about how the gap will affect their local public schools, local health and human services, and other local government services than they are about the effect of state budget cuts more generally. Moreover, their perceptions of the threat to local services were unchanged by the May Revision. A majority of Californians (56%) say they are very concerned that the state budget gap will cause severe cuts in K-12 public education in their area, and nearly all residents express at least some concern. San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles residents are more likely than others to say they are very concerned. Latinos are more likely than whites (64% to 52%), Democrats are more likely than Republicans (71% to 36%), and those with children are more likely than those without children (63% to 51%) to say they are very concerned about the state’s budget gap leading to severe cuts in local schools. Nearly half (46%) of Californians say they are very concerned about the possibility of severe cuts in local health and human services, and eight in 10 are at least somewhat concerned. The proportion who are highly concerned is greater in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area than elsewhere in the state. There are also stark differences in serious concern between Latinos and whites (58% to 38%) and Democrats and Republicans (61% to 23%). Concern rises with lower income and lower education. Four in 10 adults (38%) are very concerned about the possibility of severe cuts in funding for other local government services in their area, and eight in 10 Californians are at least somewhat concerned. The proportion that is very concerned is greater in Los Angeles (44%) and the San Francisco Bay Area (42%) than elsewhere. Latinos are more likely than whites to be very concerned (48% to 34%), and concern about local government service cuts is higher among lower-income than higher-income residents. How concerned are you that the state’s budget gap will cause severe cuts in ... K to 12 public education in your local school district? Very concerned Somewhat concerned Not very concerned Not at all concerned Very concerned Funding for health and human services in your local area? Somewhat concerned Not very concerned Not at all concerned Don't know Funding for local government services such as parks and recreation, police and public safety, and roads and transportation in your local area? Very concerned Somewhat concerned Not very concerned Not at all concerned Don't know All Adults 56% 29 8 7 46% 34 12 7 1 38% 40 14 7 1 Central Valley 46% 37 9 8 38% 40 14 7 1 35% 40 16 9 0 Region SF Bay Area 64% 24 8 4 50% 31 15 4 0 42% 36 15 5 2 Los Angeles 61% 27 7 5 55% 29 8 8 0 44% 40 9 6 1 Other Southern California 52% 30 11 7 37% 38 15 9 1 30% 45 16 8 1 Latinos 64% 28 5 3 58% 33 6 3 0 48% 38 8 5 1 - 5 - May 2004 State’s Budget Situation Preferred Budget Solution Whose approach do Californians favor when it comes to making tough choices involving the state budget? They are about evenly split between Governor Schwarzenegger (30%) and the Democrats in the legislature (31%), with Republicans in the legislature lagging behind (17%). Attitudes on this issue are similar to those following the release of the January budget, when the governor had a slight edge (33%) over the Democrats in the legislature (27%), and fewer than one in five favored Republicans in the legislature (17%). In contrast, Democrats (33%) and Republicans (30%) in the legislature had a very wide edge over Governor Davis (13%) in our February 2003 survey. Public opinion is strongly divided along partisan lines. Democratic voters overwhelmingly choose the legislative Democrats over Governor Schwarzenegger, while Republicans strongly favor Governor Schwarzenegger over the Democrats or the Republicans in the legislature. As for independents, about one in three name Governor Schwarzenegger’s approach as their favorite, while 22 percent name the legislative Democrats’ and 16 percent prefer the legislative Republicans’ approach. Once again, opinions were the same before and after the May Revision. “When it comes to the tough choices involved in the state budget, both in deciding how much Californians should pay in taxes and how to fund state programs, whose approach do you most prefer…” The Democrats' in the legislature Governor Schwarzenegger's The Republicans' in the legislature Other Don't know All Adults 31% 30 18 4 17 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 59% 19 4% 47 22% 35 6 35 16 435 12 11 22 Likely Voters 32% 33 18 5 12 Californians are evenly divided when asked if they prefer a smaller state government with lower taxes and fewer services or a larger state government with higher taxes and more services. Our surveys in June 2003 and in January 2004 revealed similar divisions. Underlying this mixed response on the role of government is a partisan divide: Democrats prefer to pay higher taxes for a larger state government with more services, while Republicans would rather have lower taxes and a smaller state government with fewer services. In addition, likely voters are more inclined than all adults to favor lower taxes and a smaller government with fewer services. Latinos are much more likely than whites (66% to 37%) to prefer paying higher taxes for a larger state government with more services. Support for a larger government with more services declines sharply with age, education, income, and homeownership. “Which statements do you agree with more: I’d rather pay higher taxes and have a larger state government that provides more services, or lower taxes and have a smaller state government that provides fewer services?” Higher taxes, more services Lower taxes, fewer services Don't know All Adults 46% 47 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 60% 20% 42% 33 74 52 766 Likely Voters 39% 54 7 -6- State and Local Revenue State Tax Revenue At the same time that all Californians and likely voters are roughly evenly divided about whether tax increases should have been included in the governor’s revised budget, there is majority support for increases in state taxes that are geared toward certain specific groups. Seven in 10 adults (70%) and likely voters (69%) think that the state excise tax on cigarettes should be raised from 87 cents to $1.50 a pack. A majority of Californians (56%) and likely voters (58%) support increasing the top rate of the state’s income tax from 9.3 to 10.3 percent for single filers earning more than $150,000 and joint filers earning more than $300,000. A potential tax increase that would affect a broader share of the populace gets more mixed reviews: Likely voters narrowly support increasing the state’s portion of the sales tax by ½ cent (52% to 46%), and all residents are as likely to support (49%) as to oppose (48%) this proposal. Among all adults in California, support for increasing the cigarette tax is virtually unchanged since June 2003 (71%) and, as might be expected, support continues to be significantly higher among nonsmokers (77%) than among the 16 percent of Californians who say they are smokers (36%). Support for increasing the state portion of the sales tax has also changed little between June 2003 and today (46% to 49%). By contrast, over the same time period, support for raising the top rate on the state’s income tax has increased significantly from 45 percent to 56 percent. In our current survey, Californians remain sharply divided on tax increases along party lines and political ideology. Democrats are more likely than Republicans to support each of the three potential tax increases: Cigarettes (76% to 63%), state income tax (67% to 47%), and state sales tax (59% to 43%). Correspondingly, the state’s liberals are more likely than conservatives to support increasing cigarette taxes (76% to 62%), the top rate on the state income tax (69% to 43%), and the sales tax (57% to 41%). There is only moderate variation across household income categories on each of these proposals (note: our top income category is “$100,000 and higher”). Californians with college degrees or more education are somewhat more likely than those without a college degree to support raising taxes in each of these areas. Whites are more likely than Latinos to support increasing the income tax (59% to 49%) and sales tax (51% to 44%), while Latinos are more likely than whites to support an increase in cigarette taxes (75% to 67%). “Do you support or oppose the proposal to …” Raise the state excise tax on cigarettes from 87 cents to $1.50 per pack? Change the top rate of the state income tax from 9.3 to 10.3 percent starting at $150,000 for single filers and $300,000 for joint filers? Raise the state portion of the sales tax by ½ cent? Support Oppose Don't know Support Oppose Don't know Support Oppose Don't know All Adults 70% 28 2 56% 38 6 49% 48 3 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 76% 63% 69% 22 35 30 221 67% 47% 56% 28 50 38 536 59% 39 2 43% 55 2 51% 47 2 Likely Voters 69% 29 2 58% 38 4 52% 46 2 -7- State and Local Revenue Gaming and State Revenue Fifty-six percent of all Californians, and 53 percent of likely voters, think that raising the state’s corporate tax revenues by allowing the expansion of casino-type gambling on Indian lands is a good thing; thirty-six percent of all adults and 39 percent of likely voters say it is a bad idea. Sizeable majorities of Democrats (59%) and independents (57%) say this is a good idea, as do a slim majority of Republicans (51%). Californians across the state’s major geographic regions think that raising state tax revenues by allowing for the expansion of gambling on Indian lands is a good idea, with the highest support voiced in Los Angeles (61%) and Other Southern California areas (57%). Majorities across income, education, and racial/ethnic groups, as well as homeowners and renters, think that raising corporate tax revenues by allowing the expansion of gambling on Indian lands is a good idea. “How about raising state corporate tax revenues by allowing the expansion of casino-type gambling on Indian lands?” Good idea Bad idea Don't know All Adults 56% 36 8 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 59% 34 7 51% 43 6 57% 33 10 Likely Voters 53% 39 8 Support is somewhat lower for raising tax revenues by allowing casino-type gambling on non-Indian lands. Fifty-one percent of all adults, and 47 percent of likely voters, think this is a good idea, while forty-four percent of all adults and 48 percent of likely voters think this is a bad idea. Slight majorities of Democrats and independents (both 52%) approve of this approach for raising corporate tax revenues, while Republicans are evenly divided (48% good idea; 49% bad idea). Across the state, Los Angeles residents (57%) are the most likely to stay that allowing casino-type gambling on non-Indian lands is a good way to raise corporate tax revenues. Support for gaming on non-Indian lands decreases somewhat with annual household income. “How about raising state corporate tax revenues by allowing casino-type gambling on non-Indian lands?” Good idea Bad idea Don't know All Adults 51% 44 5 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 52% 42 6 48% 49 3 52% 44 4 Likely Voters 47% 48 5 When it comes to legal gambling, nearly half of the state’s residents (49%) say that the more important consideration is the revenue and economic growth it produces, while 41 percent say that the more important consideration is the crime and social problems it creates. Among the state’s likely voters, 52 percent identify economic growth as the main consideration and 39 percent are more concerned about the social problems. Fifty-nine percent of Californians say they have participated in legal gambling at some time. A majority of those who have gambled (56%) say the more important consideration is the revenues and economic growth legalized gambling generates, while a plurality of those who have never gambled (49%) point to the crime and social problems it creates. -8- State and Local Revenue November 2004 Fiscal Measures Among the fiscal measures headed for the November 2004 ballot, a measure to increase the state income tax on taxable incomes over 1 million dollars to fund mental health services receives high public support, while a measure that would add a 3 percent surcharge on telephone usage to fund hospital emergency services has less than majority support. Support for these ballot measures mirrors the more general widespread support for raising the state income tax on high-income earners and the more tepid endorsement of a proposal to raise the state portion of the sales tax. Seven in 10 Californians (71%), and 67 percent of likely voters, would support increasing the state income tax on taxable income over 1 million dollars to provide funding for mental health services. Twentyseven percent of all adults and 31 percent of likely voters are opposed to the measure. Large majorities of Democrats (83%) and independents (71%) support this measure, while Republicans are nearly evenly split on whether to increase the income tax levied against the state’s more affluent citizens (50% to 48%). Eight in ten residents with household incomes under $40,000 support this measure, compared to 67 percent of those from households with higher incomes. Latinos are more likely than whites to support this measure (80% to 68%), as are women compared to men (77% to 66%). Seventy-seven percent of residents who are concerned that the state’s budget gap will cause severe cuts in local health and human services would vote yes on this measure, compared to 51 percent of those who are not very or not at all concerned about such service cuts. “How about an increase in the state income tax on taxable income over 1 million dollars to provide funding for mental health services?” Yes No Don't know All Adults 71% 27 2 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 83% 15 2 50% 48 2 71% 27 2 Likely Voters 67% 31 2 There is less than majority support for the proposed phone surcharge for hospital emergency services. Forty-six percent of state residents, and 41 percent of likely voters, support the measure to add an additional 3 percent surcharge on telephone usage in the state to fund hospital emergency services; fifty percent of all Californians and 56 percent of likely voters oppose the measure. A majority of Democrats (53%) support this measure, while majorities of Republicans (60%) and independents (53%) oppose it. Fifty-two percent of Californians under age 35 believe the measure is a good idea, compared to only 39 percent of those age 55 and older. Support for the telephone surcharge is also higher among Latinos than it is among whites (62% to 39%). Fifty-two percent of those who are concerned that the state’s budget gap will cause severe cuts in local health and human services support this measure, compared to only 21 percent of those who are not very or not at all concerned about such cuts in social services. “How about an additional 3 percent surcharge on telephone use within California to fund hospital emergency services?” Yes No Don't know All Adults 46% 50 4 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 53% 44 37% 60 42% 53 335 Likely Voters 41% 56 3 - 9 - May 2004 State and Local Revenue Local Government Services Another measure slated for the upcoming November 2004 ballot would require voter approval for any state legislation that reduces local government revenue. At this time, 64 percent of all adults would vote in favor of requiring voter approval for any reduction in local government revenue, and 29 percent would vote against the measure. Among likely voters, 60 percent support the measure and 33 percent are opposed. Sixty-four percent of independents, 63 percent of Democrats, and 60 percent of Republicans favor this idea. More than six in 10 residents in each of the state’s major regions would vote in favor of requiring voter approval for any state legislation that reduces local government revenue. Majorities of residents in all age, income brackets, education levels, and racial/ethnic groups support this measure, as do both homeowners and renters. “How about requiring voter approval for any state legislation that reduces local government revenue?” Yes No Don't know All Adults 64% 29 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 63% 29 8 60% 32 8 64% 29 7 Likely Voters 60% 33 7 While a strong majority of Californians support this measure, a majority also believe that their local governments could spend less money and still provide the same level of services. Overall, 58 percent of the state’s residents think that their local governments could spend less and still provide the same level of services; thirty-four percent think that their local governments could not. Sixty-seven percent of Republicans, 63 percent of independents, and a narrow plurality of Democrats (49%) think their local governments could spend less and still maintain the same level of services. This opinion is held by majorities of residents across all of the state’s regions and among all racial/ethnic, age, education, and income categories. “In general, do you think the local governments in your area could spend less and still provide the same level of services?” Yes, could spend less No, could not spend less Don't know All Adults 58% 34 8 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 49% 67% 63% 44 26 30 777 Likely Voters 57% 36 7 Among those who think that local governments in their area could spend less and still maintain their current level of service, 24 percent think that the governments could cut spending by under 10 percent without reducing services, 41 percent think that the governments could cut between 10 and 20 percent, and 23 percent think that the governments could cut 20 percent or more and still provide the same level of services. Although a majority of Californians believe that local governments could be more efficient service providers, many are also willing to both protect local government revenues from the state government and, as we see in the next section, to raise specific types of local revenues for particular purposes. - 10 - State and Local Revenue Local Tax Revenue Large majorities of Californians are very concerned that the state’s budget gap will cause severe cuts in their local government services. But are they willing to raise local taxes to address such cuts? In fact, majorities of all adults and likely voters say they would vote yes on local ballot measures to increase sales taxes and taxes on alcoholic beverages and cigarettes for specific purposes. By contrast, a narrow majority would reject a ballot measure proposing an increase in property taxes, even if the additional revenues were directed toward their local public schools. Seventy-seven percent of all Californians, and 74 percent of the state’s likely voters, would vote yes on a measure that increased taxes on alcoholic beverages and cigarettes in order to fund public health services in their local area. Large majorities of Democrats (84%), independents (77%), and Republicans (67%) would support this measure. Eighty-two percent of those who are concerned about the state’s budget gap causing severe cuts in local public health services would support an increase in these taxes, as would 58 percent of those who are not very or not at all concerned about such cuts. Fifty-six percent of Californians, and 54 percent of likely voters, would support an increase in their local sales tax in order to fund local government services such as parks, police, and roads. While majorities of Democrats (65%) and independents (56%) would support this measure, a slim majority of Republicans (52%) would oppose it. Sixty-two percent of those who are concerned about the state’s budget gap causing severe cuts in this area would vote yes on a measure that increased their local sales tax to fund such services, compared to only 37 percent of those who are not very or not at all concerned. A narrow majority of Californians would vote against a local ballot measure that would increase property taxes in order to provide more funding for their local public schools (50% oppose; 45% support). Opposition to this measure is significantly more pronounced among the state’s likely voters (57% to 39%). A large majority of Republicans (68%) oppose the measure, which is supported by a narrow majority of Democrats (53%); independents are evenly divided (47% support; 46% oppose). Homeowners are significantly more likely than renters to oppose raising local property taxes (59% to 36%). Half of those concerned about cuts in K-12 public school funding would vote yes on this measure, compared to only 18 percent of those who are either not very or not at all concerned about such cuts. “What if there were a measure on your local ballot to ___________. Would you vote yes or no?” Increase taxes on alcoholic beverages and cigarettes in order to fund local public health services? Increase the local sales tax in order to fund local government services such as parks, police, and roads? Increase property taxes in order to provide more funds for local public schools? Yes No Don't know Yes No Don't know Yes No Don't know All Adults 77% 22 1 56% 39 5 45% 50 5 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 84% 67% 77% 15 31 22 121 65% 44% 56% 31 52 39 4 45 53% 29% 47% 44 68 46 337 Likely Voters 74% 24 2 54% 42 4 39% 57 4 - 11 - May 2004 State and Local Revenue Proposition 13 Reform In order to raise local special taxes in California today, a two-thirds majority vote is required. Are Californians prepared to repeal this part of the Proposition 13 tax-limiting initiative? A slim majority (51%) think that lowering the two-thirds requirement to a 55 percent majority vote is a bad idea, while four in 10 think it would be a good idea. Support for the proposal has dropped slightly from June 2003, when 46 percent said it was a good idea (45 percent thought it a bad idea). Today, six in 10 likely voters (58%) say lowering the threshold for passing local taxes is a bad idea. Democrats are split on this proposal (47% like the idea; 46% don’t), while majorities of Republicans (65%) and independents (56%) don’t like the idea. Across the state, majorities of residents oppose lowering the two-thirds requirement, except in Los Angeles where residents are evenly split on the issue (46% good idea; 44% bad idea). A majority of Latinos say this proposal is a good idea (53%), while a majority of whites (59%) don’t think so. Homeowners (55%) are more likely to oppose lowering the requirement, while renters are split (45% good idea; 45% bad idea). Opposition to lowering the vote threshold increases with annual household income and education. “How about lowering the two-thirds (67 percent) requirement for voters to pass local special taxes to a 55 percent majority vote—is this a good idea or a bad idea?” Good idea Bad idea Don't know All Adults 40% 51 9 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 47% 46 7 28% 65 7 37% 56 7 Likely Voters 37% 58 5 The public appears more supportive of changing aspects of Proposition 13 that do not directly affect their own residential property tax bills. Six in ten Californians (59%) say it would be a good idea for the state to tax commercial properties currently protected under Proposition 13 according to their current market values. Among likely voters, 56 percent think this is a good idea. Support for this proposal is in line with the support it received in June 2003, when 57 percent of the state’s residents said this was a good idea. As was the case then, majorities of Democrats (67%) and independents (62%) today say that taxing commercial property at current market value is a good thing, while Republicans are split on the issue (46% good idea; 49% bad idea). Large percentages of liberals (67%) and moderates (65%) support the idea, and conservatives are evenly split (49% good idea; 46% bad idea). Nearly six in ten residents in all income and education categories support this proposal. Majorities of homeowners (56%) and renters (65%) favor the idea of taxing commercial property based on its current market value. “Under Proposition 13, residential and commercial property taxes are both strictly limited. What do you think about having commercial properties taxed according to their current market value?” Good idea Bad idea Don't know All Adults 59% 34 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 67% 46% 62% 27 49 32 656 Likely Voters 56% 38 6 - 12 - Political and Economic Trends Most Important Issue The economy continues to hold its place at the top of Californians’ list of the most important issues facing the state today, with one in three residents (34%) mentioning the economy, jobs, or unemployment. The next most frequently mentioned issues are schools (12%) and the state budget and taxes (11%). Five or fewer percent of Californians mention other matters, including health care issues (5%), immigration (5%), crime and gangs (4%), gasoline prices (4%), housing costs and availability (4%), and environmental concern (2%). Since the February 2004 statewide survey, there has been a significant increase in the percentage of Californians noting gasoline prices as the most important issue facing people in the state. Concern about the economy has been at the top of the list since December 2001 and has held fairly constant relative to the June 2003 (31%) and February 2004 (36%) statewide surveys; today, 34 percent highlight economic issues as the most important in the state. The percentage of residents naming the state budget and taxes as the biggest problem has dropped 6 percentage points since February 2004 (17% to 11%); in June 2003, 13 percent mentioned the state budget as the biggest problem. The percentages of Californians mentioning schools, health care, and crime as the most important issues has remained largely unchanged since our June 2003 survey. The economy ranks as the top issue in all regions of the state and in all demographic groups. Both whites and Latinos (both 34%) and both Democrats (37%) and Republicans (33%) most frequently mention the economy, jobs, and unemployment as the top issue facing people in California today. At the same time, whites are more likely than Latinos (15% to 5%) and Republicans are more likely than Democrats (16% to 12%) to mention the state budget and taxes as the most important issue. Schools are named as a top problem more often in the urban coastal regions of Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area than in the rest of the state. “What do you think is the most important issue facing people in California today?” Economy, jobs, unemployment Education, schools State budget, deficit, taxes Health care, health costs Immigration, illegal immigration Crime, gangs Gasoline prices Housing costs, housing availability Environment, pollution Other (specify) Don't know All Adults 34% 12 11 5 5 4 4 4 2 14 5 Central Valley 35% 10 11 6 3 5 4 2 1 17 6 Region SF Bay Area 36% 18 12 5 3 2 3 3 2 12 4 Los Angeles 36% 15 8 4 6 6 3 3 1 13 5 Other Southern California 31% 9 14 4 6 2 8 5 3 13 5 Latinos 34% 12 5 3 6 8 4 3 1 14 10 - 13 - Political and Economic Trends Overall Mood Californians’ mood appears to be much improved compared to June 2003. Residents are now about as likely to think the state is going in the right direction as to think it is going in the wrong direction (43% to 44%). In June 2003, we saw a huge gap between these numbers (30% right direction; 57% wrong direction). Indeed, the gap was still considerable as late as three months ago, in February 2004 (35% right direction; 51% wrong direction). The San Francisco Bay Area lags behind the rest of the state in optimism, with a majority (51%) still saying California is headed in the wrong direction. Whites are more positive than Latinos in thinking that things are going in the right direction (47% to 38%), and Republicans offer a much more positive assessment than Democrats (60% to 36%). Residents who approve of the job Arnold Schwarzenegger is doing as governor are overwhelmingly positive about the state’s direction (57%), as are those with incomes of $80,000 or higher (51%), and conservatives (52%). However, fewer than half of residents in all other political and demographic groups think that things in California are generally going in the right direction. “Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction?” Right direction Wrong direction Don’t know All Adults 43% 44 13 Central Valley 45% 40 15 Region SF Bay Area 35% 51 14 Los Angeles 43% 45 12 Other Southern California 48% 38 14 Latinos 38% 50 12 While a sizeable percentage of residents still think some rough economic times lie ahead for the state, economic confidence is noticeably higher than it was in June 2003. Californians are now about equally likely to say economic conditions will be good as say it will be bad over the next 12 months (42% to 44%). However, one year ago, 58 percent expected bad economic times, and only 32 percent expected better times. The percentage in our current survey expecting a healthy economy is similar to the percentage in our February 2004 survey (43%). Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to expect good financial times (57% to 33%), as are those who approve of Schwarzenegger’s job performance (52%). Optimism is also higher among whites than Latinos (45% to 37%) and among men than women (46% to 37%). “Turning to economic conditions in California, do you think that during the next 12 months we will have good times financially or bad times?” Good times Bad times Don’t know All Adults 42% 44 14 Central Valley 37% 45 18 Region SF Bay Area 43% 42 15 Los Angeles 42% 45 13 Other Southern California 45% 44 11 Latinos 37% 50 13 - 14 - Political and Economic Trends Governor’s Ratings Arnold Schwarzenegger’s ratings have reached a new high, with 64 percent of Californians saying they approve of the way he his handling his job as governor—a significant increase (+ 9 points) since February 2004. Among likely voters, the governor’s ratings are even more positive (69%), up 8 points since February. Schwarzenegger’s approval ratings among all adults have been in positive territory throughout this year, ranging from 59 percent approval in January to 55 percent in February. In our previous surveys, about two in 10 adults had no opinion about the governor’s performance in office. Today, only one in 10 Californians have not made up their minds about their new governor. The change in opinions has been entirely in the positive direction—the one in four who disapprove of Schwarzenegger has not shifted throughout this year. A majority of adults in all regions approve of Schwarzenegger’s job performance, although disapproval is higher in the San Francisco Bay Area than elsewhere. Solid majorities of Republicans (87%) and independent voters (63%), and even most Democrats (53%), approve of the way the governor is doing his job. Approval among Democrats has risen 9 points since February. Latinos express relatively high levels of disapproval of the governor: Forty-seven percent of Latinos approve of his performance and 44 percent say they disapprove. Among whites, by contrast, an overwhelming 72 percent approve of the governor’s job performance, and only 18 percent disapprove. “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California?” Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 64% 26 10 Central Valley 68% 21 11 Region SF Bay Area 54% 34 12 Los Angeles 64% 29 7 Other Southern California 68% 19 13 Party Registration Dem 53% 36 11 Rep 87% 6 7 Ind 63% 26 11 Likely Voters 69% 23 8 As for the governor’s handling of the budget and taxes, Schwarzenegger continues to receive slim majority approval. Today, 55 percent approve of his performance in this area, compared to 51 percent in February and 54 percent in January. While majorities in most of the state like the way Schwarzenegger is handling fiscal issues, fewer than half in the San Francisco Bay Area agree. Favor also falls below 50 percent among Democrats (42%), while eight in 10 Republicans and 56 percent of independents approve of the governor’s handling of fiscal affairs. Latinos are less approving than whites when it comes to the governor’s handling of the budget (41% to 63%). “Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling the issue of the state budget and taxes?” Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 55% 32 13 Central Valley 60% 28 12 Region SF Bay Area 47% 39 14 Los Angeles 52% 37 11 Other Southern California 63% 23 14 Party Registration Dem 42% 47 11 Rep 80% 10 10 Ind 56% 28 16 Likely Voters 61% 28 11 - 15 - May 2004 Political and Economic Trends Legislature’s Ratings While Californians’ enthusiasm about Schwarzenegger’s performance does not extend to the state legislature, their ratings are showing some improvement over time. Forty-three percent of Californians disapprove of the way the legislature is handling its responsibilities, while 40 percent approve. Approval is somewhat lower among likely voters, with a majority (52%) giving the legislators a negative job rating. The overall approval ratings for the legislature represent a slight improvement among all residents since January (up 4 points) and a considerable 12 point increase since August 2003, when approval stood at 28 percent and disapproval at 58 percent. The legislature’s ratings are lowest in the San Francisco Bay Area, where half disapprove of the legislature’s job performance. Disapproval is similar among Republicans, Democrats, and independents, standing close to 50 percent in all cases. About half of residents age 55 and older (50%) and college graduates (51%) disapprove of the way the legislature is handling its job. Latinos are far more favorable than whites in their opinion of the Sacramento lawmakers (53% to 35%). “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling its job?” Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 40% 43 17 Central Valley 36% 45 19 Region SF Bay Area 35% 49 16 Los Angeles 47% 39 14 Other Southern California 41% 42 17 Party Registration Dem 40% 46 14 Rep 38% 47 15 Ind 32% 48 20 Likely Voters 35% 52 13 Ratings of the legislators’ handling of the state budget and taxes are even lower than their overall performance ratings. Only one in three constituents approve of the way the legislature is handling the state’s fiscal affairs, while the majority (53%) disapprove. Likely voters are even more negative, with nearly six in 10 (58%) expressing disapproval. Still, approval of the legislature’s performance in fiscal policy among all adults is up 4 points since January, and 13 points since its all-time low in August 2003. Majorities across the state’s regions disapprove of the legislature’s handling of this policy area. Statewide, approval ratings are similar among Democrats and Republicans but somewhat lower among independents. Disapproval is higher among whites than Latinos (56% to 45%) and is highest among men (56%), college graduates (59%), and those with incomes of $80,000 or more (58%). Approve Disapprove Don't know “Do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature has been handling the issue of the state budget and taxes?” All Adults 32% 53 15 Central Valley 34% 51 15 Region SF Bay Area 30% 54 16 Los Angeles 36% 53 11 Other Southern California 31% 52 17 Party Registration Dem 32% 56 12 Rep 34% 53 13 Ind 24% 62 14 Likely Voters 30% 58 12 - 16 - Political and Economic Trends State Government’s Performance Californians’ confidence in their state government as a whole has also improved slightly, although still near the historic lows seen in the months surrounding the governor’s recall election last year. While only 32 percent say they trust state leaders to do what is right always or most of the time, this is 5 points higher than in January, and the highest point registered since June 2003 (34%). Likely voters are more negative. Views are similar across political groups, and trust is higher among Latinos than whites (45% to 29%). When asked specifically about the state government’s fiscal performance, seven in 10 residents (71%) and 74 percent of likely voters say the government could spend less and still provide the same level of services. Large majorities of Republicans (83%), independents (80%), and Democrats (62%) hold this view. These negative assessments of the state’s fiscal performance are similar to those we reported last September (70%) and this January (67%). The majority of adults across all major regions and demographic groups, including 67 percent of Latinos and 74 percent of whites, think the state could spend less and provide the same level of services. Asked how much the state could cut without reducing services, most put the figure between 10 and 19 percent (43%), while 22 percent think less than 10 percent can be cut, and 25 percent think 20 percent or more of the budget could be cut. One in three independents (33%), 25 percent of Republicans, and 22 percent of Democrats think 20 percent or more of the budget could be cut without reducing services. “In general, do you think the state government could spend less and still provide the same level of services?” All Adults Yes, could spend less No, could not spend less Don't know 71% 25 4 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 62% 83% 80% 35 15 16 324 Likely Voters 74% 23 3 Eight in 10 residents think Governor Schwarzenegger’s “California Performance Review” will help the state’s fiscal situation at least somewhat by making state government more efficient, with 27 percent saying it will help a lot. Republicans are especially likely to think this review will have a major effect (38%), while fewer Democrats (20%) and independents (27%) currently hold this view. “Governor Schwarzenegger has ordered a ‘California Performance Review’ with the goal of making state governmental operations more efficient and effective. Do you think this will help the state's fiscal situation a lot, somewhat, not much, or not at all?” A lot Somewhat Not much Not at all Don’t know / Haven't heard about it All Adults 27% 52 11 6 4 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 20% 38% 27% 53 51 49 15 6 15 727 532 Likely Voters 31% 50 11 4 4 - 17 - May 2004 Political and Economic Trends President’s Ratings While Schwarzenegger’s performance ratings are climbing, President George Bush’s ratings are sinking: A majority of Californians (55%) now disapprove of the way he is handling his job. Approval of the president’s performance in office (41%) has dropped 8 points since February (49%) and 16 points since June 2003 (57%) and now stands at the lowest level so far in his term. The views of likely voters are similar to those of all adults. Californians’ opinions are similar to those of all Americans according to a recent Newsweek poll that showed 42 percent approving of the president’s performance and 52 percent disapproving. The president’s approval ratings fall below a majority in all regions except the Central Valley, and they are especially negative in the San Francisco Bay Area. Although he has strong support from fellow Republicans (79%), this support is counterbalanced by an equally high negative opinion among Democrats (81%), and independents lean toward the negative as well (58% disapprove). Majorities in all demographic groups disapprove of the president’s job performance, with ratings especially negative among women (58%) and college graduates (63%). “Do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president of the United States?” Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 41% 55 4 Central Valley 55% 41 4 Region SF Bay Area 26% 71 3 Los Angeles 38% 58 4 Other Southern California 48% 49 3 Party Registration Dem 16% 81 3 Rep 79% 18 3 Ind 38% 58 4 Likely Voters 40% 56 4 John Kerry now holds a 9-point lead over Bush among likely voters in California (48% to 39%), with 5 percent backing Ralph Nader. This gap is much narrower than the Democrats’ 17-point lead in our February survey, when 37 percent backed Bush and 54 percent supported an unnamed Democratic challenger. Democratic support for the party’s candidate has dropped 7 points since February, when 85 percent supported a Democratic nominee. Independents are divided when asked who they support for president, even though 58 percent disapprove of Bush. Republicans, meanwhile, remain loyal to Bush. The recent Newsweek poll that showed relatively high national job disapproval for President Bush reported an evenly divided race between Bush and Kerry (42% Bush; 43% Kerry; 5% Nader). “If the 2004 presidential election were being held today, would you vote for …” John Kerry, the Democrat George W. Bush, the Republican Ralph Nader, an independent Other Don’t know All Adults 45% Central Valley 35% 36 50 74 22 10 9 Region SF Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California 59% 49% 39% Party Registration Dem 78% Rep 10% Ind 40% 21 31 43 10 79 34 7 7 6 5 3 13 2 2 2 023 11 11 10 7 6 10 Likely Voters 48% 39 5 2 6 - 18 - Survey Methodology The PPIC Statewide Survey is directed by Mark Baldassare, research director at the Public Policy Institute of California, with assistance in research and writing from Jon Cohen, survey research manager, and Eliana Kaimowitz and Renatta DeFever, survey research associates. The survey was conducted with partial funding from The James Irvine Foundation, and it benefited from discussions with Irvine staff and grantees and discussions at meetings facilitated by the foundation; however, the survey methods, questions, and content of the report were solely determined by Mark Baldassare. The findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,001 California adult residents interviewed between May 11 and May 18, 2004. Interviewing took place on weekday nights and weekend days, using a computer-generated random sample of telephone numbers that ensured that both listed and unlisted telephone numbers were called. All telephone exchanges in California were eligible for calling. Telephone numbers in the survey sample were called up to six times to increase the likelihood of reaching eligible households. Once a household was reached, an adult respondent (age 18 or older) was randomly chosen for interviewing by using the “last birthday method” to avoid biases in age and gender. Each interview took an average of 19 minutes to complete. Interviewing was conducted in English or Spanish. Casa Hispana translated the survey into Spanish, and Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas, Inc. conducted the telephone interviewing. We used recent U.S. Census and state figures to compare the demographic characteristics of the survey sample with characteristics of California’s adult population. The survey sample was closely comparable to the census and state figures. The survey data in this report were statistically weighted to account for any demographic differences. The sampling error for the total sample of 2,001 adults is +/- 2 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that 95 times out of 100, the results will be within 2 percentage points of what they would be if all adults in California were interviewed. The sampling error for subgroups is larger. The sampling error for the 1,552 registered voters is +/- 2.5 percent. The sampling error for the 1,034 likely voters is +/- 3 percent, and the sampling error for each of the half samples is also +/- 3 percent. Sampling error is only one type of error to which surveys are subject. Results may also be affected by factors such as question wording, question order, and survey timing. Throughout the report, we refer to four geographic regions. “Central Valley” includes Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo, and Yuba Counties. “SF Bay Area” includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. “Los Angeles” refers to Los Angeles County, and “Other Southern California” includes the mostly suburban regions of Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties. These four regions were chosen for analysis because they are the major population centers of the state, accounting for approximately 90 percent of the state population. We present specific results for Latinos because they account for about 28 percent of the state’s adult population and constitute one of the fastest growing voter groups. The sample sizes for the African American and Asian subgroups are not large enough for separate statistical analysis. We do compare the opinions of registered Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The “independents” category includes only those who are registered to vote as “decline to state.” In the case of the presidential approval ratings, we compare PPIC Statewide Survey responses to responses recorded in a national poll conducted by Newsweek (May 13-14, 2004). We used earlier PPIC Statewide Surveys to analyze trends over time in California. - 19 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY: SPECIAL SURVEY ON THE CALIFORNIA STATE BUDGET MAY 11—MAY 18, 2004 2,001 CALIFORNIA ADULT RESIDENTS; ENGLISH AND SPANISH MARGIN OF ERROR +/- 2% AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR TOTAL SAMPLE 1. Thinking about the state as a whole, what do you think is the most important issue facing people in California today? [open-ended list] 34% economy, jobs, unemployment 12 education, schools 11 state budget, deficit, taxes 5 health care, health costs 5 immigration, illegal immigration 4 crime, gangs 4 gasoline prices 4 housing costs, housing availability 2 environment, pollution 14 other (specify) 5 don’t know 2. Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction? 43% right direction 44 wrong direction 13 don’t know 3. Turning to economic conditions in California, do you think that during the next 12 months we will have good times financially or bad times? 42% good times 44 bad times 14 don’t know 4. How closely are you following news about the California state budget—very closely, fairly closely, not too closely, or not at all closely? 17% very closely 44 fairly closely 28 not too closely 11 not at all closely 5. In general, how much would you say you know about how your state and local government spends and raises money—a lot, some, very little, or nothing? 14% a lot 43 some 33 very little 10 nothing 6. As you may know, the state government has an annual budget of around 100 billion dollars and currently faces a multi-billion dollar gap between state spending and state revenue. Do you think that this budget gap is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem for the people of California today? 73% big problem 21 somewhat of a problem 3 not a problem 3 don’t know 7. In March 2004, California voters passed Proposition 57, allowing the state to sell up to 15 billion dollars in state bonds to finance part of current year and next fiscal year spending. Do you think this helps the state’s fiscal situation a lot, somewhat, not much, or not at all? 14% a lot 46 somewhat 17 not much 14 not at all 9 don’t know 8. Also in March 2004, California voters passed Proposition 58, which requires that the state pass a balanced budget and bans future borrowing to finance the budget. Do you think this helps the state’s fiscal situation a lot, somewhat, not much, or not at all? 26% a lot 41 somewhat 15 not much 11 not at all 7 don’t know - 21 - [rotate block 1 and block 2] Regardless of why you think the state faces a gap between spending and revenue ... [block 1 introduction] ... spending cuts could be used to help reduce this gap. For each of the following, please indicate whether you support or oppose the proposal. [rotate questions 9 to 12] 9. How about cutting kindergarten through 12th grade school spending, which currently makes up 40 percent of the state’s general fund spending—do you support or oppose this proposal? 17% support 81 oppose 2 don’t know 10. How about cutting spending on public colleges and universities which currently makes up 13 percent of the state’s general fund spending—do you support or oppose this proposal? 25% support 73 oppose 2 don’t know 11. How about cutting spending on health and human services, which currently makes up 28 percent of the state’s general fund spending—do you support or oppose this proposal? 28% support 68 oppose 4 don’t know 12. How about cutting spending on prisons and corrections, which currently makes up 7 percent of the state’s general fund spending—do you support or oppose this proposal? 49% support 44 oppose 7 don’t know 13. [if answered “oppose” to all questions, 9 through 12 ] You’ve said that none of these cuts are acceptable ways to reduce the budget gap. Could you name another state program that you think could or should be cut to help reduce the budget gap? 33% yes 47 no 20 don’t know [block 2 introduction] ... tax and fee increases could be used to help reduce this budget gap. For each of the following, please indicate whether you support or oppose the proposal. [rotate questions q14 to q16] 14. How about changing the top rate of the state income tax from 9.3 percent to 10.3 percent, starting at 150,000 dollars for single filers and 300,000 dollars for joint filers in California—do you support or oppose this proposal? 56% support 38 oppose 6 don’t know 15. How about raising the state excise tax on cigarettes from 87 cents to $1.50 per pack—do you support or oppose this proposal? 70% support 28 oppose 2 don’t know 16. How about raising the state portion of the sales tax by one-half cent—do you support or oppose this proposal? 49% support 48 oppose 3 don’t know 17. Governor Schwarzenegger [starting May 13, include the word “recently”] proposed a budget plan for the next fiscal year that includes spending cuts in transportation, higher education, and general government; defers spending increases for K-12 public education; and uses local government property tax money and state bonds. The plan includes no new taxes. In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the governor’s budget plan? [Prior to the May Revision, this question also noted cuts to health and human services, and did not include higher education cuts. This question includes all budget items estimated to contribute one billion dollars or more to closing the state’s budget gap] 50% satisfied 41 dissatisfied 9 don’t know - 22 - 17a.[Asked starting May 13] And from what you know now, does the governor’s budget plan help the state’s fiscal situation a lot, somewhat, not much or not at all? 10% a lot 52 somewhat 20 not much 9 not at all 9 don’t know [rotate questions 18 and 19] 18. Do you think that tax increases should have been included in the governor’s budget plan? 50% yes 43 no 7 don’t know 19. Overall, how concerned are you about the effects of the spending cuts in the governor’s budget plan—very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned? 33% very concerned 43 somewhat concerned 15 not too concerned 7 not at all concerned 2 don’t know 20. When it comes to the tough choices involved in the state budget, both in deciding how much Californians should pay in taxes and how to fund state programs, whose approach do you most prefer— [rotate] Governor Schwarzenegger’s, the Democrats’ in the legislature, or the Republicans’ in the legislature? 31% Democrats’ 30 Governor Schwarzenegger’s 18 Republicans’ 4 other answer (specify) 17 don’t know [rotate blocks 3 and 4] [block 3] [rotate questions 21 to 23] 21. How concerned are you that the state’s budget gap will cause severe cuts in K-12 public education in your local school district—very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not at all concerned? 56% very concerned 29 somewhat concerned 8 not very concerned 7 not at all concerned 22. How concerned are you that the state’s budget gap will cause severe cuts in funding for local government services such as parks and recreation, police and public safety, and roads and transportation in your local area —very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not at all concerned? 38% very concerned 40 somewhat concerned 14 not very concerned 7 not at all concerned 1 don’t know 23. How concerned are you that the state’s budget gap will cause severe cuts in funding for health and human services in your local area—very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not at all concerned? 46% very concerned 34 somewhat concerned 12 not very concerned 7 not at all concerned 1 don’t know [block 4] [rotate questions 24 to 26] 24. What if there were a measure on your local ballot to increase the local sales tax in order to fund local government services such as parks, police, and roads? Would you vote yes or no? 56% yes 39 no 5 don’t know 25. What if there were a measure on your local ballot for new taxes on alcoholic beverages and cigarettes in order to fund local public health services? Would you vote yes or no? 77% yes 22 no 1 don’t know 26. What if there were a measure on your local ballot to increase property taxes in order to provide more funds for the local public schools? Would you vote yes or no? 45% yes 50 no 5 don’t know - 23 - May 2004 27. In general, do you think the local government in your area could spend less and still provide the same level of services? 58% yes, could spend less [ask q27a] 34 no, could not spend less [skip to q28-30 rotation] 8 don’t know [skip to q28-30 rotation] 27a.How much could local government cut its spending without reducing services? [read list] 24% under 10 percent 41 10 percent to under 20 percent 14 20 percent to under 30 percent 9 30 percent or more 12 don’t know Spending and tax reforms have been proposed to address fundamental issues in the state budget. For each of the following, please indicate whether you think this is a good idea or a bad idea. [rotate questions 28 to 30] 28a. [half sample] How about raising state corporate tax revenues by allowing casino-type gambling on nonIndian lands—is this a good idea or a bad idea? 51% good idea 44 bad idea 5 don’t know 28b. [half sample] How about raising state corporate tax revenues by allowing the expansion of casino-type gambling on Indian lands—is this a good idea or a bad idea? 56% good idea 36 bad idea 8 don’t know 29. How about lowering the two-thirds (67 percent) requirement for voters to pass local special taxes to a 55 percent majority vote—is this a good idea or a bad idea? 40% good idea 51 bad idea 9 don’t know 30. Under Proposition 13, residential and commercial property taxes are both strictly limited. What do you think about having commercial properties taxed according to their current market value? Is this a good idea or a bad idea? 59% good idea 34 bad idea 7 don’t know 31. On another topic, some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you absolutely certain that you are registered to vote? 78% yes [ask q32] 21 no [skip to q32a] 1 don’t know [skip to q32a] 32. Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or as an independent? 43% Democrat [ask q32b] 34 Republican [ask q32c] 5 another party (specify) [skip to q33/34] 18 independent [ask q32a] 32a.Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or Democratic Party? 26% Republican party 43 Democratic party 23 neither (volunteered) 8 don’t know [go to q33] 32b. Would you call yourself a strong Democrat or not a very strong Democrat? 55% strong 43 not very strong 2 don’t know [go to q33] 32c.Would you call yourself a strong Republican or not a very strong Republican? 55% strong 41 not very strong 4 don’t know Several tax and spending proposals may appear on the November 2004 ballot. For each of the following, please say if you would vote yes or no if the election were held today. [rotate questions 33 and 34] 33a. [half sample] How about a 9.95 billion dollar state bond measure that would fund the planning and construction of a high-speed train in California, linking Los Angeles to San Francisco via the Central Valley. Would you vote yes or no? 40% yes 54 no 6 don’t know - 24 - 33b. [half sample] How about requiring voter approval for any state legislation that reduces local government revenue? Would you vote yes or no? 64% yes 29 no 7 don’t know 34a. [half sample] How about an increase in the state income tax on taxable income over 1 million dollars to provide funding for mental health services? Would you vote yes or no? 71% yes 27 no 2 don’t know 34b. [half sample] How about an additional 3 percent surcharge on telephone use within California to fund hospital emergency services? Would you vote yes or no? 46% yes 50 no 4 don’t know 35. On another topic, which is the more important consideration for you when it comes to legalized gambling— [rotate] the crime and social problems it creates, or the revenue and economic growth it produces? 49% revenue and economic growth 41 crime and social problems 3 neither (volunteered) 2 both (volunteered) 5 don’t know 36. In general, which of the following statements do you agree with more—I’d rather pay higher taxes to support a larger state government that provides more services, or I’d rather pay lower taxes and have a smaller state government that provides fewer services? 46% higher taxes and more services 47 lower taxes and fewer services 7 don’t know 37. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California? 64% approve 26 disapprove 10 don’t know 38. And do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling the issue of the state budget and taxes? 55% approve 32 disapprove 13 don’t know 39. Overall, do you have a favorable or an unfavorable impression of Maria Shriver, California’s First Lady? 59% favorable 10 unfavorable 31 don’t know 40. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling its job? 40% approve 43 disapprove 17 don’t know 41. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature has been handling the issue of the state budget and taxes? 32% approve 53 disapprove 15 don’t know Let’s talk about the way government operates in general, regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in office. 42. How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Sacramento to do what is right—just about always, most of the time, or only some of the time? 5% just about always 27 most of the time 60 only some of the time 5 none of the time/not at all (volunteered) 3 don’t know 43. In general, do you think the state government could spend less and still provide the same level of services? 71% yes, could spend less [ask q43a] 25 no, could not spend less [skip to q44] 4 don’t know [skip to q44] 43a.How much could the state government cut its spending without reducing services? [read list] 22% under 10 percent 43 10 percent to under 20 percent 15 20 percent to under 30 percent 10 30 percent or more 10 don’t know - 25 - May 2004 44. Governor Schwarzenegger has ordered a “California Performance Review” with the goal of making state governmental operations more efficient and effective. Do you think this will help the state’s fiscal situation a lot, somewhat, not much, or not at all? 27% a lot 52 somewhat 11 not much 6 not at all 4 don’t know 45. Generally speaking, how much interest would you say you have in politics—a great deal, a fair amount, only a little, or none? 22% great deal 45 fair amount 26 only a little 6 none 1 don’t know 46. How often would you say you vote—always, nearly always, part of the time, seldom, or never? 53% always 18 nearly always 9 part of the time 5 seldom 15 never 47. On another topic, would you consider yourself to be politically [read in rotated order] 12% very liberal 21 somewhat liberal 29 middle-of-the-road 25 somewhat conservative 11 very conservative 2 don’t know 48. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president of the United States? 41% approve 55 disapprove 4 don’t know 49. Overall, do you approve of disapprove of the way that Barbara Boxer is handling her job as U.S. Senator? 45% approve 30 disapprove 25 don’t know Turning again to the November election: 50. If the 2004 presidential election were being held today, would you vote for [rotate] George W. Bush, the Republican; John Kerry, the Democrat; or Ralph Nader, an independent? 45% John Kerry 36 George W. Bush 7 Ralph Nader 2 other answer (specify) 10 don’t know 51. If the 2004 U.S. Senate election were being held today, would you vote for [rotate] Barbara Boxer, Democrat; or Bill Jones, the Republican? 49% Barbara Boxer 32 Bill Jones 1 other answer (specify) 18 don’t know Changing subjects: 52. Do you smoke cigarettes? 16% yes 84 no 53. Are you or is anyone in your immediate family a member of a labor union? (if yes, ask: Is that person you or another person in your family?) 10% yes, respondent 10 yes, another person in the family 2 yes, both 76 no 2 don’t know 54. And have you ever participated in any form of legal gambling? (if yes: Do you gamble frequently, sometimes, or rarely?) 3% yes, frequently 14 yes, sometimes 42 yes, rarely 41 no [55-59: demographic questions] - 26 - 60. Are there any children 18 or under currently living in your household? 44% yes [ask q60a] 56 no [skip to q67] 60a. Do they attend public or private schools? 70% public schools [ask q61] 10 private schools [skip to q67] 2 both public and private schools [ask q61] 15 not old enough to attend school [skip to q67] 3 other [skip to q67] 61. Briefly, about the public schools in your area—how much would you say you know about how your local school district receives and spends money—a lot, some, very little, or nothing? 17% a lot 32 some 33 very little 16 nothing 2 don’t know 62. Overall, how much would you say that you know about the student grading and test score system used by your local school—a lot, some, very little, or nothing? 31% a lot 38 some 19 very little 11 nothing 1 don’t know Please tell me if you support or oppose the following proposals: [rotate questions 63 to 66] 63. Control over school budgets and spending would be at the local level instead of the district level, so each principal would set budgets in consultation with teachers. In general, would you support or oppose this idea? 70% support 24 oppose 6 don’t know 64. Each school would receive funding based on the types of students at that school. For example, schools with more English language learners and students with disabilities would get more money. In general, would you support or oppose this idea? 55% support 41 oppose 4 don’t know 65. Students would be able to enroll in any public school. In general, would you support or oppose this idea? 79% support 19 oppose 2 don’t know 66. Whom do you trust the most to make decisions about how to spend money at your local school [read rotated list, then ask “or someone else?”] 34% local school district 24 your principal 24 the teachers 7 state government 6 someone else (specify) 5 don’t know [67-71: demographic questions] - 27 - May 2004 PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY Advisory Committee Mitchel Benson Director of Communications California Treasurer Phil Angelides Angela Blackwell President PolicyLink Paul Brest President The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Mollyann Brodie Vice President Kaiser Family Foundation Bruce E. Cain Director Institute of Governmental Studies University of California, Berkeley James E. Canales President The James Irvine Foundation Matt Fong Chairman Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Advisory Committee William Hauck President California Business Roundtable Dennis A. Hunt Vice President Communications and Public Affairs The California Endowment Sherry Bebitch Jeffe Senior Scholar School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Carol S. Larson President and CEO The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Monica Lozano Publisher and CEO La Opinión Donna Lucas Deputy Chief of Staff Office of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Max Neiman Professor Political Science Department University of California, Riverside Dan Rosenheim News Director KPIX-TV Carol Stogsdill President Stogsdill Consulting Cathy Taylor Vice President and Editorial Commentary Director Orange County Register Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center - 28- PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA Board of Directors Raymond L. Watson, Chairman Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Gary K. Hart Founder Institute for Education Reform California State University, Sacramento Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities David W. Lyon President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Vilma S. Martinez Partner Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP Cheryl White Mason Chief, Civil Liability Management Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office Arjay Miller Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Thomas C. Sutton Chairman & CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company Cynthia A. Telles Department of Psychiatry UCLA School of Medicine Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Advisory Council Mary C. Daly Research Advisor Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Clifford W. Graves General Manager Department of Community Development City of Los Angeles Elizabeth G. Hill Legislative Analyst State of California Hilary W. Hoynes Associate Professor Department of Economics University of California, Davis Andrés E. Jiménez Director California Policy Research Center University of California Office of the President Norman R. King Executive Director San Bernardino Associated Governments Daniel A. Mazmanian C. Erwin and Ione Piper Dean and Professor School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Dean Misczynski Director California Research Bureau Rudolf Nothenberg Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) City and County of San Francisco Manuel Pastor Professor, Latin American & Latino Studies University of California, Santa Cruz Peter Schrag Contributing Editor The Sacramento Bee James P. Smith Senior Economist RAND Corporation PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 Phone: (415) 291-4400 Fax: (415) 291-4401 www.ppic.org info@ppic.org" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:37:23" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(8) "s_504mbs" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:37:23" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:37:23" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(50) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/S_504MBS.pdf" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_mime_type"]=> string(15) "application/pdf" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" ["status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["attachment_authors"]=> bool(false) }