Posted by Deb McCurdy, a resident of another community, on Mar 10, 2012 at 8:10 pm
The Molly Munger/PTA initiative, "Our Children, Our Future", is the ONLY one that funnels money directly to school sites and mandates parent and community input re how the money should be spent. Local control is the only way to go. Any initiative that gets money to the schools directly and avoids the black hole that is Sacramento gets my vote. PTA lobbying for our kids - for free -- for 115 years.
Today, our state ranks 47th nationally in what we invest to educate each student. We have the largest class sizes in America. Over the last three years, more than $20 billion has been cut from California schools and over 40,000 educators have been laid off. We are shortchanging our early childhood development programs, which are some of the best educational investments we can make. Our underfunded public preschool programs serve only 40 percent of eligible 3 and 4 year olds, and only five percent of very low-income infants and toddlers have access to early childhood programs.
"Our Children, Our Future" asks Californians to join together to invest in our children and our schools because we all share in the benefits of better schools and a better-educated workforce. Our Children, Our Future will also reduce the cost of education bonds to help end the state deficit and protect our children and schools from further budget cuts.
The measure will raise $10 to $11 billion annually in new revenue through a sliding scale income tax increase that varies with taxpayers' ability to pay. For couples, the increases range from 4/10ths of 1% on incomes after all deductions under $35,000 to 2.2% for couples with income after all deductions over $5 million. Couples would pay nothing on the first $15,000 of their income after all deductions, and existing tax credits will offset increases for most couples with income after all deductions of $40,000 or less. A couple earning $75,000 in income after all deductions would pay an additional $428 each year, while a couple earning $1.5 million after all deductions would pay $27,266 more.
The money will be placed in a separate trust fund that can only be spent as authorized by the provisions of the Act. The Governor and Legislature are prohibited from using the money. It cannot be used to increase current teacher salaries, but can be used to hire additional teachers, i.e., P.E. and staff, i.e., school nurses and to support programs that have been lost, i.e., the arts.
No more than 1% of money raised by the The Molly Munger PTA "Our Children, Our Future" initiative will go towards administrative costs -- mandated. The initiative will raise $10 billion for schools per year for twelve years. Every child in the state will benefit. The money goes into a trust and does not pass through Sacramento. Parent, teacher, community input re how money will be spent at each school site is mandated as well. At this point in time, CA would need to spend an additional $60,000 a year, per classroom, just to catch up to the national average -- that is a fact. CA has the highest ratios of students to teachers, students to counselors, students to administrator in the country -- that is a fact. We are shortchanging all of our kids and have been for many years.
PTA, the largest volunteer organization lobbying for children, supports "Our Children, Our Future". PTA has been in the trenches advocating for kids -- for free -- for 115 years -- my vote goes with them. Web Link
Posted by curious, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 10, 2012 at 8:55 pm
A few questions.
I would be VERY happy to support anything that will protect and enhance programs as long as it can't be misused or used to increase benefits while we are in such a dire state.
Does this go straight to school sites or to the school district? Can it be used for facilities studies, administrative car allowances, increased benefits that can be negotiated away from the classroom or will it be used to protect programs?
I've noticed some of our bond payments can be collected from the general fund if we can't pay - would this tax revenue be given to the general fund or would it be protected?
Posted by Been There, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 10, 2012 at 10:42 pm
I'm sorry. I looked at the Munger proposal and found the tax increases on my struggling 20-somethings to be absurd.
Here we have our newly graduated-hired young kids who can barely afford an apartment and food and clothes, gas,etc. who are being asked for a few hundred more dollars that *they don't have*. While Molly Munger, aka daughter of Warren Buffet's partner (Charlie Munger) live in amazingly comfortable circumstances.
Well, you can't draw blood from a stone. Let Molly Munger eat cake for goodness sake!