#prop 38

[isawthewolff]

so is everybody gonna ignore the fact that people voted no on prop 30 and 38? is education not important anymore? 

[starryheavenstos]

Okay everyone is like WOOO CALIFORNIA WE DID GOOD FOR OBAMA

But these fuckers in my state are not passing 30 or 38. Our education is going absolutely down the drain FUCK. 

[soy-tu-fruta-prohibida]

Prop 30 Didn't Pass!-_-

<-- Pissed off College student!

[barbiemichoacana]

[otford]

2012 California ballot questions

To quote myself: The California proposition system is a bunch of ordinary people complaining about politicians while acting as politicians and demonstrating exactly why people complain about politicians. One of the best things that could happen to California as a political unit is the abolition of the proposition system, and all of its products, particularly Proposition 13. Since that is not in the offing, though, here’s my take on the current crop. ― 30 and 38. These two must be taken together. Each is explicitly drawn to cancel the other out. If you really don’t care which one passes, you can vote for both, but if both pass, only the one with the most yes votes becomes law. If you have a preference, then, the best strategic move is to vote for your preferred measure, and abstain on the other. 30 is Jerry Brown’s measure, and I believe that he, while not perfect, is more or less attempting a serious and comprehensive solution to California’s budget problems, which is part of what he was elected to do. The state needs more money. We need to raise taxes. But 38 strikes me mostly as a vanity measure. On top of that, 38 is backed by the disgusting anti-Sacramento, anti-politician, pro-earmarking rhetoric that characterizes the proposition system at its worst. The fact that proponents of 30 have lately adopted the same rhetoric does not please me, but proponents of 38 are more guilty. Verdict: Yes on 30. Abstain on 38. ― 31. The last thing we need is more citizen micromanagement of the budget process, and even a small transfer of tax money from the state budget is a bad idea. Verdict: No. ― 32. This is the GOP’s partisan anti-union measure and nothing more. It prohibits even voluntary deductions, and seeks to deprive unions of any money or political spending. It claims to deprive corporations of the same power, but of course corporations never worked that way. Corporations never deducted funds from their employees’ paychecks explicitly. They have always diverted money from elsewhere in their revenue streams. So corporations will hobble their opponents but face no restrictions themselves. I’m not a huge fan of unions and their ugly, coercive behavior against competing workers (“scabs”), nor am I reflexively anti-corporation. But this proposition is transparent in its intentions. Verdict: No. ― 33. Ostensibly this offers discounts to those who maintain insurance coverage, regardless of insurer, but what it really does is allow surcharges against those who don’t (non-drivers like me, for example). A great tip-off is that members of the armed forces are exempt from its provisions; that often tells you that everyone else is being screwed. Verdict: No. ― 34, 35, and 36. These three must also be analyzed together. We can always count on politicians to be as harsh as possible on criminals. We don’t need citizen legislators to outdo them. To the contrary: we need citizens to tell politicians when it’s okay to back off. For that reason, abolishing the death penalty is a good subject for a citizen initiative; politicians are unlikely to do it themselves. 36 is similar; three-strikes laws are generally bad, but politicians fear to fix them, even when they can (which isn’t the case in California). But 35 is an attempt to out-demagogue the politicians. And the sex-offender registry is so flawed in concept and execution that it should be abolished, not enhanced. Verdict: Yes on 34. No on 35. Yes on 36. ― 37. Consumer information is generally good. The anti-GM movement, though, is anti-scientific hysteria. I think genetically-modified organisms are a danger to wilderness. But the argument and rhetoric of “Frankenfood” is not about the environment, or education; it’s about freaking people out with superstition. I won’t vote for that. The immediate result might be good, but the longer-term impact is not. In this case, a little consumer information is not worth encouraging the forces of superstition. Verdict: No. ― 39. The state needs the money, and should hardly be encouraging businesses to locate out of state. Verdict: Yes. ― 40. This was a Republican attempt to overturn the new state-senate districts. I’m lukewarm on citizen redistricting, but there’s no reason to get rid of the work that has already been done, particularly on the Republicans’ behalf. Verdict: Yes. Bonus: Los Angeles County measures. ― A. Appointing professional assessors is far better than electing political assessors. Among other things, ordinary voters can’t really know enough about candidates to make a sensible decision, and we already elect local governments. Let them make the call. Verdict: Yes. ― B. I understand the arguments: if condoms aren’t required, performers will be pressured not to use them. The measure is still a nanny-state initiative. Verdict: No. ― J. Retains a tax for transit, including mass transit. Easy. Verdict: Yes. ― O.T. Ford

[arts4la]

VIA KPCC's Vanessa Romo:

Critics have accused Brown and Munger of using scare tactics about the imminent collapse of the public education system to elicit more “Yes” votes for the tax initiatives intended to shore up funds for education. 

But Moody’s Investors Service says the forecast for California school districts is dire, and many are at risk of having their credit rating downgraded if both ballot measures fail.

The projections in the report, "California School Districts Face Mounting Credit Pressure If Tax Initiative Fails in November Election," are bleak:

“As many as 150 of the 327 California school districts it rates to face some degree of fiscal pressure if both propositions are defeated. The weakest of these are likely candidates that Moody's would place on review for downgrade following the election.”

A downgraded credit rating would lead to higher interest rates on loans. That, according to Moody’s, would be much more costly for taxpayers, as more school districts have turned to borrowing as a result of budget cuts.

[doyoumatterandcare-blog]

California Props 30 and 38 for Education

Context

            In California alone, there are close to one thousand public schools that educate more than six million students. Evidently, our value for education translates into state spending; nearly fifty percent of the state’s budget each year is spent on education (CBP “Where do…”). However, starting in 2007, lawmakers passed state spending cuts of nearly 11.1% (from $103 billion to $96.1 billion) and our schools have also suffered the consequences. In 2007, annual spending was reduced “for K-12 education by $7.0 billion, from $50.3 billion in 2007-08 to $43.4 billion in 2012-11—a 13.8 percent drop” (CBP “California’s public schools…”). Additional cuts also applied to community colleges, California State Universities, and University of California schools. In 2011, lawmakers cut another $5 billion dollars from school funding and the affects of such cuts have become increasing obvious, such as the two or three weeks many schools have shaved off the school year (CBP “California’s public schools…”). This alarming trend has caused a large amount of discontent and as the fear of school spending cuts continues to grow, so has the support of the November 6th ballot propositions, 30 and 38.

The described propositions apply to the State of California.

Descriptions

            Proposition 30, also known as Jerry Brown’s Tax Increase, proposes the temporary increases in sales tax by ¼ cent and personal income tax (PIT) for those with annual earnings over $250,000 for four years and seven years, respectively. The proposition estimates an average of $6 billion in addition revenue, though in the first two years more revenue will be generated. 89% of the revenues will be distributed to K-12 schools and 11% to community colleges; the use of all funds will be determined by school boards with public observation. Increases will be compounded with Proposition 98’s minimum annual guarantee, which promises schools a certain amount from the General Fund revenues. Any remaining funds will be used to balance the state budget. Furthermore, the proposition protects Californians from education and safety cuts of $6 billion caused by the automatic midyear spending trigger cuts for 2012-13 (State of California Proposition 30).

The information provided above was adapted from: http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2012/general/pdf/30-title-summ-analysis.pdf

Please visit the page for more detailed information.

            Proposition 38 or Molly Munger’s State Income Tax Increase for Education proposes increasing PIT for individuals across the board, excluding the lowest individual earners. The proposition estimates a $10 billion average additional revenue in which from 2013-17, 60% will be given to K-12 schools, 30% to repaying the state debt, and 10% to preschools and childcare. From 2017 to expiration, 85% of revenue will be allocated to K-12 schools and 15% to childcare and preschools. The funds for each school will be determined by the number of students in the school and how the money will be spent will be derived from public input. The raised revenues will be directly given to the California Education Trust Fund (CETF) which is separated from the state General Fund, as to make school funding more direct. Additionally, the proposition supports increasing support and school funds for children in lower income families (State of California Proposition 38).

The information provided above was adapted from:

http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2012/general/pdf/38-title-summ-analysis.pdf

Please visit the page for more detailed information.

One or the Other?

            The though both propositions raise funds for schools, there are discrepancies between the two. First, they raise different amounts of revenue; Proposition 30 raises $6 billion while Proposition 38 raises $10 billion. Second, they allocate the funds to different places though both will contribute to balancing the state budget: “Prop 38 infuses more funds into K-through-12 and pre-school education. Prop 30 supports a wider swatch of educational institutions and public safety services” (Small). Third, how the funds are allocated differ; Proposition 30 creates an Education Protect Account within the General Fund while Proposition 38 creates the CETF which is completely outside the General Fund. Fourth, Proposition 30 will offset the 2012-13 automatic annual trigger cuts of $6 billion which main effects education spending while Proposition 38 will not. Fifth, the tax increases and time the propositions are in effect are distinct. Proposition 30 is comprised of temporary tax increase in personal income tax for the highest earners for seven years and Californian sales tax for four years; Proposition 38 is a more long term tax increase for tax payers across the board with the exception of only the lowest earners for twelve years.

            Take note that the two propositions cannot exist together. If both propositions are passed, the one with more number of votes will be the proposition in effect. In this case, the most obvious difference would be the automatic trigger cuts of $6 billion will still remain if Proposition 38 is passed (State of California Proposition 30; Proposition 38).

For more comparisons, visit:

http://cbp.org/pdfs/2012/121004_How%20Do%20Propositions%2030%20and%2038%20Compare.pdf

Why does this matter? What can you do?

            Education is an essential part to the well-being of society. Children who are nurtured with the knowledge taught in schools tend to do well when they grow up and contribute to the betterment of our country. Public schools provide children in families with lesser income to have the same opportunities as those with more money promoting equality within America. When we support education, we support and hope for a better future for our children and the United States.

            As a teenager, you can encourage your parents to vote during the November 6th ballots and spread information in support of the propositions; those who are 18 can simply vote.

Both propositions will raise funds of Californian schools, but there are defining differences between the two, so it is up to you to decide which you will support. Please educate yourself further with the links provided below.

Links

Information about Proposition 30:

http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2012/general/pdf/30-title-summ-analysis.pdf

http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2012/120911_Proposition_30_BB.pdf

Information about Proposition 38:

http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2012/general/pdf/38-title-summ-analysis.pdf

http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2012/120907_Proposition_38_BB.pdf

Articles:

http://prospect.org/article/will-munger-kids-kill-californias-schools

http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/10/18/34671/california-schools-fare-better-under-both-props-30/

Sources

California Budget Project. California’s Public Schools Have Experienced Deep Cuts in funding Since 2007-08. Sacramento, California: California Budget Project, Apr. 10 2012. PDF.

California Budget Project. How do Propositions 30 and 38 Compare? Sacramento, California: California Budget Project, Oct. 04 2012. PDF.

California Budget Project. What would proposition 30 mean for California? Sacramento, California: California Budget Project, Oct. 04 2012. PDF.

California Budget Project. What would proposition 38 mean for California? Sacramento, California: California Budget Project, Oct. 04 2012. PDF.

California Budget Project. Where do California’s tax dollars go? Sacramento, California: California Budget Project, Jul. 2012. PDF.

Small, Julie. “California schools fare better under both Props 30 and 38.” Southern California Public Radio. KPCC, Oct. 18 2012. Web. Oct. 18 2012.

State of California. Proposition 30. Sacramento, California: State of California, 2012. PDF.

State of California. Proposition 38. Sacramento, California: State of California, 2012. PDF.

[worldthisweek-blog]

Our exciting fourth episode: an exclusive interview with Brooks Allen, director of education advocacy at the Southern California ACLU, and we reflect on Senate Bill 9 and efforts towards fair sentencing for minors and a better justice system in California.