Californian now have a common attitude of distrusting the government completely because we feel we have been cheated by them for too long, we just don't know how. I personally have a hard time swallowing the food that is forced down my throat by Sacramento. Luckily Proposition 30 isn't too hard to swallow, maybe just a little over salted. I say over salted because of the way it is advertise is like there trying to make it look like a good idea, and that it is for the children. Then, they try to drive home this point by making a No on Proposition 30 mean you are voting for $6 billion dollar budget cut to the schools. These cuts need to be made because of California's incredible amount of debt, proposition 30 is an income taxes on the rich to give to the poor school system, and to give money originally earmarked for schools back into the general fund to help eliminate some of our state's debt. Proposition 30 also has a quarter of a cent increase to the tax on a dollar. lawmakers have been stacking budget cut after budget cut on the cool system, Proposition 30 is saying in a reductions to education. A yes vote will stop school from losing 3 week from their school you as well as angry to what is considered a normal sized class. Proposition 30 has the sales tax and income tax increase that Sacramento needs to repair the terrible job they've done in the past few years of holding California out of the ocean of debt we have now sunk into, but many fear that Sacramento lawmakers will just continue to be the ones drowning us.
Proposition 30 is a vote of trust in Sacramento, a vote that Californian will believe got the lawmakers in Sacramento will use any extra revenue made from proposition 30 in a way to better California as a whole. In my past few years as a student in the K-14 schooling system, I have become accustomed to the schools becoming weaker and weaker as the years went by. The cuts that Sacramento seemed to constantly be giving out to the school systems has left me a bitter product of a reduced High Education System. now Sacramento is sending the school enormous $6 billion dollar budget cut if Californians do not vote for Sacramento's new tax increase. This bill is a tax increase plain and simple, hidden behind a crusade for the schools agenda which is built on exaggerations of how helpful Prop 30 will be for the California school systems.
Putting California motors in a position where they have to vote for a tax measure or cutting fun to school could be considered an ultimatum to some California who have seen and experienced, first and, the pairs of passed budget cuts even smaller than the 1 attached to a note on Proposition 30. A crooked way to get a yes vote, makes me have less trust in then and their bill.
We won't know where the taxpayers money will go if we trust Sacramento with our money again. The money generated by proposition 30 will be funding the schools as the general fund has been doing in the past, so now Sacramento will not have to give the schools money from the general fund, basically giving Sacramento more money to spend, hopefully on California.
According to the Los Angeles Times, California was more than $25 billion dollars in debt in 2011, something needs to change in order to decrease that amount so we can start thinking of how to make California a better place instead of how we can pay off our huge pile of debt. You have two options for a new tax measure this November; prop 30, fixing the damage Sacramento previously cause the school and an increase to the amount of money available in the general fund, or, prop 38, which puts the schools ahead, making the schools self sustaining with prop 38's tax measure for a broad tax increase overall incomes varying depending on how much an individual, helping the school become separate from Sacramento, so they will not have to deal with this again for the next 12 years at least.
Proposition 30 is estimated to give California $6 billion annually, through an increase to the income tax on individual incomes of more than $250,000 to more than $1 million in brackets between 1-3% increasing with the amount of income of California's wealthiest residents. That is not the only source of income coming in through Proposition 30 though, it also has a separate sales tax effective on all Californians by an increase of .25% of every dollar spent. Prop 30 has advertised that they will be raising the money for the schools and only for the schools, one would think that Prop 30 increase the amount of money, but the bill does not give any extra revenue to the schools. A yes vote will only stop the "trigger cuts" and form a new tax system that separately funds the schools without using the general fund, the only increase to the amount of money received by the schools will happen through Prop 98. Prop 98 is a ballot measure passed back in 1998 that insures that around 50% of the general funds revenue will go to the schools, so now that the amount of money taken in by Sacramento will increase so will the amount of money the schools receive.
Proposition 38 also mentions that some of its $10 billion a year revenue would be put into effect to help get California out of its hole of debt, but these contributions would only last for a fraction of the 12 years that this proposition would be in place for. All other money raised is for the schools, completely separate from the government. With that said, if you really want your vote for a new tax measure to help the schools out as much as possible, and don't care what Sacramento has planned for California with Prop 30, then a Yes vote on Proposition 38 would be a wise choice. That would mean that a broad tax increase that the "trigger cuts" would be activated from the No vote on Prop 30, Scaring many people away from this possibility much to the benefit of Governor Jerry Brown and his proposition, but Prop 38 would make that back and more. Prop 38 is a way to take the schools out from under the control of the government, saying "we don't trust you with our children's education anymore" and giving the power back to the schools in the most literal way possible.
Governor Jerry Brown has stepped into his father's shoes, the questions everyone is wondering is what he is going to do to fill them. Edmund G. "Pat" Brown was the governor of California during the initiation of the California Master Plan for Higher Education in 1960. Modeling after his father's footsteps, Gov. Brown is also the face of a crusade to help save the schools, but my worry is that he will not make a big enough impact on the schools in the long run with Proposition 30 and he will lose some of his credibility as well as tarnishing his father's name and the title as California's Governor. However, if he is able to change the direction that California is headed with this single proposition, then he will be a respected Governor for years to come for being the one who finally got our state above the water.
Tyler,
ReplyDeleteThanks for an interesting and provocative essay! You make some strong points, especially in the second and third paragraphs where you do a good job of explaining this complicated scenario. I am confused, however, by paragraph five. I would encourage you to incorporate some quotes from the proposition to clarify this difficult issue. Your claim, "...so now Sacramento will not have to give the schools any money from the general fund" conflicts with the language in the proposition. I think you raise a good point here that is certainly worthy of scrutiny. Here is the section of the proposition that pertains to your point:
"The revenue generated by the
measure’s temporary tax increases would be included in the calculations of the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee—raising the guarantee by billions of dollars each year. A portion of the new revenues therefore would be used to
support higher school funding, with the remainder helping to balance the state budget. From an accounting perspective, the new revenues would be deposited into a
newly created state account called the Education Protection Account (EPA). Of the funds in the account, 89 percent would be provided to schools and 11 percent to community colleges."
And here: "The minimum guarantee is funded through a combination of
state General Fund and local property tax revenues."
If you are able to incorporate these specific quotes from the proposition, I think you will better able to clarify your questions here. Good work Tyler!