Pro and Con on Prop. 172

* I wish to commend The Times for its editorial support of Prop. 172, the half-cent state sales tax extension on Tuesday’s ballot (Oct. 18).

You are quite right that Prop. 172 represents no real “rescue” of local government services. Rather, it only attempts to mitigate somewhat the extensive damage caused by the governor’s and the Legislature’s ill-advised actions over the last two years, shifting billions of dollars in property tax revenues away from cities, counties and special districts.

The state should have faced up to its responsibilities instead of robbing Peter to pay Paul. They leave us no choice but to extend the sales tax or face certain ruin of our vital local public-safety services.

Ultimately, a comprehensive review of California’s entire tax structure should be undertaken, and is long overdue. Kudos to The Times and staff writers Ralph Frammolino and Bill Stall for their recent timely and thoughtful series of articles analyzing the state’s tax system and spotlighting problems and inequities (Oct. 10-15). We can only hope it stimulates some much-needed debate in Sacramento.

EDMUND D. EDELMAN, Chairman

L.A. County Board of Supervisors

* The assertion that the one-half cent sales tax is not a “new tax” or a “tax increase” is absurd. Because the voters, at one time, agreed to a limited tax (that they were promised would expire in two years), state legislators feel that they can sell this proposition, and apparently The Times agrees, as not being a new tax. What was the purpose of the original tax increase? Was it to provide “local government services”? Was it to provide new equipment for police? Was it dedicated to “law enforcement services”? Unless the answer to each of these questions is yes, we can come to no other conclusion than that Prop. 172 is a new tax!

I voted in favor of Prop. 13. The proponents warned us then that the politicians would attempt to circumvent the mandates of the proposition. Now, after reallocating funds traditionally used to support local governmental services, the Legislature has forged a “remarkable coalition” to support this tax.

I am not against the necessary funding that will provide the police and other law enforcement services necessary to maintain law and order on our streets. However, rather than a constitutional amendment (that permanently embeds this tax in our lives), how about an amendment that prohibits the Legislature from reallocating funds in order to balance the budget?

During these tough economic times we are all called upon to make sacrifices. Yet in Sacramento it seems to be business as usual. Perhaps it is time for a new “voter revolt.”

STEVEN A. SIMONS

Granada Hills