Is Proposition 30 a Good Idea for California?

Is Proposition 30 a Good Idea for California?

This November, the citizens of California will have a difficult decision to make when they vote on Proposition 30. Californians do not like cuts to their education but they also do not like increasing their taxes. This November, the citizens of California must vote on whether they are going to increase taxes upon themselves or cut education.

The supporters of Proposition 30 argue that by voting yes on Proposition 30:
• We will stop the 6 billion dollars of cuts from education
• We will help balance the budget
• We are only implementing a temporary tax
• We are only taxing the rich
• We are sending money directly to the classroom

The opponents of Proposition 30 argue that by voting yes on Proposition 30:
• We do not reform waste in education
• We do not stop waste in public pensions
• This money will likely be used to backfill the underfunded public teachers’ pension funds
• We will be falling prey to the games that the legislators played, giving taxpayers an ultimatum to “vote for a tax increase or we will take it out on the children.”

Two questions every Californian should ask themselves before they vote this year: (1) If California can afford a 68+ billion dollar Boondoggle Train, why did the Democrats in the California legislature vote to cut school funding approximately 6 billion dollars? (2) If California has to cut approximately 6 billion dollars in the budget from schools, why did the Democrats in the California legislature vote to build a train to nowhere?

Before we the taxpayers vote for a tax increase of any kind, let us take a look at the financial track record of the state. Has the state been a wise steward with the tax revenue that we have already given to them? In a word, NO! Think of it this way. Would you recommend giving another credit card to someone who has already “maxed out” four credit cards and can barely make the minimum payments on the four? Any person (or state) who has shown such financial irresponsibility will not suddenly become prudent with another credit card (tax increase).

It seems we are asked to believe that presently there is an inadequate method to fund schools. I do not agree. Over one half of California’s budget is dedicated to public education. How many of you remember the promises made in 1984 when you were encouraged to vote for Proposition 37? Do you remember the promises that if we voted for the California State Lottery that we would never again have to worry about the funding of public education? What happened to that money?

Furthermore, why do we need a constitutional amendment for a temporary tax increase? Proposition 30 is an amendment to the constitution of California. It will be added under section to our constitution. Yet very little is mentioned concerning this. If all of this is a temporary tax, why does it have to be an amendment? Molly Munger’s Proposition 38 did not require an amendment to the constitution and it is also a tax for education. California already has one of the longest Constitutions in the entire world (only Alabama and India have longer Constitutions).

It is important to note that the legislature did not have to make cuts in education in order to balance the budget. There were other options where cuts were made to other government agencies and education was left at the current levels. However, the legislature had already decided that they wanted the voters to increase taxes upon themselves so the legislature voted to cut education to give the taxpayers an ultimatum.

I personally will vote against both Propositions 30 and 38. By simply voting for more tax increases, we literally enable an out-of-control spending machine another credit card. If spending and tax increases are not stopped now, when will they be? There have been reports recently that California’s public debt is now larger than the country of Greece. The time has come for the citizens of California to vote for leaders who will be willing to reduce the size of government rather than continue to come to the people and ask for more of their money because of their inability to say no to special interests.

This post was written by

Leave Your Comment

9 − = seven