Noreen Evans admits there is something for everyone to like and dislike about the six ballot measures headed to voters in May.

Yet as the state teeters on the edge of fiscal insolvency, the assemblywoman insists that the passage of each proposition is crucial to keeping California afloat.

“They all really are essential … to balancing the budget, and they’re all part of a compromise,” said Evans, D-Santa Rosa, chairwoman of the Assembly’s budget committee and representative for Napa County.

Others are more skeptical, noting that even if all six propositions pass, the state will still be an estimated $8 billion to $9 billion short.

“We have solved no problem with this,” said Michael Haley, president of the Napa Valley Taxpayers Alliance. “There is no end in sight, even with these tax increases.”

On May 19 voters will be asked to approve five propositions —1A through 1E — all part of the Legislature’s budget package approved in February. Taken together, the measures extend recent increases in sales, income and vehicle taxes, borrow from the state lottery and shift social service funds to relieve recent cuts to public schools.

They also bolster a so-called Rainy Day fund for the state, requiring lawmakers to set aside revenues that exceed projections during economic boom times to help get through down periods.

Another measure, Proposition F, was tacked on separately and would require lawmakers to forgo pay increases when the state budget is out of balance.

Hard times

The state budget is far out of balance right now, which is what prompted lawmakers to cobble together the package. The state has run deficit budgets for years and things have deteriorated further with the declining economy. An estimated $42 billion deficit when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the budget two months ago has ballooned to $50 billion in the two months since because of declining state revenues.

The 2009-10 budget the Legislature passed earlier this year assumes the state will have access to $6 billion through the passage of three propositions — $5 billion under Proposition 1C by borrowing from future lottery profits; up to $608 million under Proposition 1D by transferring childhood development funding to the General Fund; and about $230 million under Proposition 1E by moving mental health funds to the General Fund.

Proposition 1B would require the state to make payments to local school districts and community colleges to address recent budget cuts. According to the California Secretary of State’s office, Proposition 1B could potentially save up to several billion dollars over the next two years but cost the state billions of dollars every year thereafter.

Proposition 1F, a freeze on pay raises for legislators during deficit years, is a largely symbolic gesture that would result in only minor savings to the state, according to the Secretary of State’s office.

The most widely debated of the propositions is Proposition 1A, which would enact a spending cap and increase the state’s rainy day fund by triggering about $16 billion in new taxes between July 2011 and 2013.

Leon Brauning, a local anti-tax activist who formed a group opposed to Proposition 1A, charges that the measure  is “unfair” and “regressive.”

“These are the worst regressive taxes there are,” Brauning said last month. “It just doesn’t seem fair that the poor people ought to be impacted so heavily.”

Not surprisingly, many educators are lobbying heavily for the passage of the propositions to secure promised funding for schools.

“We’ve got today’s students today, and we owe them the best education possible,” said Mike Wilmarth, Napa Valley Educators Association spokesman.

But not everyone who works with children finds something to like about the propositions on the ballot.

Sally Sheehan-Brown, executive director of First 5 Napa County, said Proposition 1D would take $268 million a year from the state and local First Five commissions for the next five years. In Napa County, this would mean a decrease of about $600,000 to $700,000 in the $1.3 million annual revenue towards providing health insurance for underinsured children and bolstering early education programs.

“Nobody wants to do this,” Evans admitted. “This was not our first choice. This was the least bad of a series of bad choices.”

Said Evans, “It does not solve the problem. It only makes it less bad.”