Town Square

Post a New Topic

Gas prices too high, vote NO on prop 30, 38

Original post made by Resident, Another Pleasanton neighborhood, on Oct 8, 2012

Maybe the fact that we have really high gas prices already will encourage voters to vote NO on prop 30, 38 and any proposition that raises taxes:

Web Link

Comments (36)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Onboard
a resident of Del Prado
on Oct 8, 2012 at 7:54 am

That's a great suggestion and hopefully many will agree. The primary reason are gas prices are so high...is thanks to the special formula gasoline required by the State of California. Everyone wants to reduce our impact on the environment but at what cost...and for how much benefit? Gas at $5 a gallon is a tremendous burden on the poor and middle class.

Reject the tax increases and bonds and demand our representatives take action to liv within our budgets and make changes to our environmental regulations that will allow us to import fuel from neighboring states.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Makes sense to me
a resident of Downtown
on Oct 8, 2012 at 8:30 am

Oh... that makes sense to me....<insert sarcascm>
... the refineries have messed up so let's not fund education.

Vote YES on PROP 38.... the money is only allowed to be used for schools!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cleaner Tri-Valley
a resident of Amador Estates
on Oct 8, 2012 at 8:41 am

You short-timers have no clue how bad the air was in Tri-Valley in the sixties. If you were standing on Stanley next to the gravel pits, now called Shadow Cliffs, in the month of August you would not see the Pleasanton ridge due to smog. It was that bad.

The amazing thing is that adults would call it haze and never had a clue it was man-made smog. It was "normal." Your lungs hurt.

What does Prop 30 & 38 have to do with taxes? Your logic is irrational.

I prefer Prop. 30, BTW.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 8, 2012 at 9:27 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Why have a winter blend at all?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Well
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2012 at 9:33 am

38 or nothing for me. No to everything else (except for 32, which is a big yes). Still can't decide on 38. Intentions are good, but could the politicians then steal general funding for education for other purposes?

Ultimately the next budget is based on a huge % increase in overall spending. why? Why can't costs be controlled? Why are our salaries the highest in the nation and services amongst the poorest? Why do we pay people so much not to work that they say no to lower salary jobs? Why are public sector workers allowed to retire a decade before the rest of us on much better packages than the rest of us? Why are we paying for all this when we, who are working hard, are struggling?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by dublinmike
a resident of Dublin
on Oct 8, 2012 at 10:18 am

dublinmike is a registered user.

I agree with Cleaner. The air was awful in the 1960s.

Stacy, there is weather inversion in the winter sometimes that traps the air. That's the reason that there are spare the air days during the winter.

Gas price increases are due to market conditions and good old fashion greed.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 8, 2012 at 10:48 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

The problem with 38 is the governor will still have to cut money from education (1. It doesn't help the state with its budget problems, and 2. You can raise dollars for education with 38 and the governor can then try to cut the same amount from the state's education budget). The problem with 30 is the governor is using education/children to push through increased taxes with no real guarantee the new funds will go to educating children. So, NO to both. We don't need another Prop 13--the wrong answer to a real problem. Neither of these propositions, 30 or 38, solve the problem of funding education.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Oct 8, 2012 at 12:40 pm

Cleaner said: "You short-timers have no clue how bad the air was in Tri-Valley in the sixties. If you were standing on Stanley next to the gravel pits, now called Shadow Cliffs, in the month of August you would not see the Pleasanton ridge due to smog. It was that bad. The amazing thing is that adults would call it haze and never had a clue it was man-made smog. It was "normal." Your lungs hurt."

My father was in the Air Force serving as a meteorologist in Tokyo in the 1960's. He said that some days there would be a heavy fog all over Tokyo in the middle of the day, but when he looked at his instruments that the local temperature was ABOVE the dew point temperature, which is the temperature at which the humidity reaches 100% and fog can start to form. In other words, it wasn't fog - just a heavy smog.

Pleasanton is pretty dry with a low air humidity in August so, yeah, if you were to see a haze in the air between you and the ridge at any time other than early morning, then it wouldn't be fog.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Makes sense to me
a resident of Downtown
on Oct 8, 2012 at 12:44 pm

Kathleen

I'm newer to this site. Do you have school aged children?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Oct 8, 2012 at 12:59 pm

"Makes sense" said: "Kathleen. I'm newer to this site. Do you have school aged children?"

Ouch! You have no idea what a sharp pinprick you just innocently delivered to Kathleen. No, she doesn't. But that doesn't stop her from trying to tell all of us who do what decisions we should make concerning our children's education.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 8, 2012 at 1:01 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Makes sense, I have a grandchild in the district. Put all three of our children through Pleasanton schools. Served on the board of PUSD. Worked in PUSD and then Palo Alto USD. Feel free to call if you have other questions.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 8, 2012 at 1:08 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Sam, I'm still a taxpayer. And I have said that current parents should determine what they value for the parcel tax. We'll vote; we'll see what the outcome is. So, where is it I've told you what to do?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2012 at 1:31 pm

"Kathleen

I'm newer to this site. Do you have school aged children?"


That question is irrelevant. All taxpayers, not only those of us with children, will be affected if the propositions pass.

Imagine what gas prices will be like if they increase the sales tax, yet again!

No on 30, NO on 38, NO on anything that tries to raise taxes. Brown needs to control spending first, then ask for more revenue. If the propositions pass, they may "solve" the budget problem temporarily, but with increasing pension liabilities, they would eventually use the money, yet again, to fund pensions and services including education would, AGAIN be cut

NO on more taxes, get the spending under control first!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Oct 8, 2012 at 1:38 pm

Yes, Kathleen, you are indeed a taxpayer. Kind of an empty statement since we all are, but true nonetheless. I think that the question by "Makes sense" was a well targeted one because it helped bring together and crystallize some of the many thoughts that I've had on reading your many posts on education on these forums. You promote yourself as a champion of education for Pleasanton's children, but there's always been something to the way you express your views that I've found a bit off-kilter, a bit too laissez faire to come from a real parent with real children in school. Those of us that do have children in school and deal with the realities of the cuts in education daily have a different perspective. While acknowledging that no school system and no government system and no tax system is perfect, we see how desperate the situation is in our schools and act accordingly. But you come from a different direction and a different perspective. I'm fine with that. As you yourself have said, you are a taxpayer (and, yes, I did take special note that that is how you chose to identify yourself in the very first sentence of your rebuttal.). If you want to present your views here as the views of another Pleasanton taxpayer, fine. Just don't try to present yourself as a champion for education for my daughter or for the sons and daughters of other Pleasanton parents. You're not real.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Makes sense to me
a resident of Del Prado
on Oct 8, 2012 at 1:50 pm

Thank you, Sam. You summed up my feelings very well.
Those of us with children in the schools do know how desperate the situation is.

Im not sure how the price of gas relates to Prop 30 and 38.
Gas is sky high because of refinery issues and the fact that California has their own bled of gasoline. It has skyrocketed BEFORE 30 or 38 have been voted on.

Please don't make the children pawns any more than they already are in these politic gains. They are the future of this country.



YES, YES, YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES on 30 AND 38.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2012 at 2:42 pm

"Those of us that do have children in school and deal with the realities of the cuts in education daily have a different perspective."

I have children in school, and I am voting NO on the propositions, and so do many other parents I know.

There is no reason why we, the parents, should continue to fund the pension liabilities, and each year, be told X or Y will be cut. Last year, the teachers in Pleasanton chose to keep their step and column at the expense of CSR. Things like this happen too often in California. Cities are going bankrupt, and Brown refuses to deal with the issue of unfunded liabilities, pensions, unions. He continues to threaten us with education.

NO on 30, 38. And yes I have school age children. And yes, I donate to the PTA, PPIE, but will vote NO because they refuse to deal with the real problem: spending, unreasonable pensions, etc.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2012 at 2:46 pm

"Those of us with children in the schools do know how desperate the situation is."

Then you must also know about people retiring with six figure income. Remember Mr. Rad from Walnut Grove? Six figure income and now retired, and Casey? Deal with the real problem first, then let's talk revenue.

"Im not sure how the price of gas relates to Prop 30 and 38."

Because they are planning to increase income tax AND sales tax. That means a bigger bill at the gas station.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2012 at 2:54 pm

"They are the future of this country. "

Yet the teachers union would rather cut student services than give up their precious pensions.

And how about all the retired public employees enjoying six figure pensions at the expense of our kids and at the expense of cities going banrupt and cutting services?

I will not have my income taxed even more because I need that money to send my kids to an out of state and/or private college, because California even though the tuition at the UCs has increased so much, the number of classes continue to be cut, all while the top admin at the UCs and CSUs make more than half a million in annual salary/compensation.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by b
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2012 at 2:54 pm

This post is hilarious. We should not pay more money for schools, so that we can afford to pay more money to the oil companies?!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2012 at 4:48 pm

"This post is hilarious. We should not pay more money for schools, so that we can afford to pay more money to the oil companies?!"

No, the point is: we should not pay more money to CALIFORNIA so that they can continue to fund pensions, etc. Brown and the legislature must address the real problems. After that, we can talk about additional revenue if needed.

Gas is just an example of the many higher bills we will see if we increase the sales tax even more (we already have a tax higher than any state in the US)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 8, 2012 at 5:27 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Actually, my first post was that I'm a grandmother of a PUSD student. The answer to you was secondary.

"Just don't try to present yourself as a champion for education for my daughter or for the sons and daughters of other Pleasanton parents." --Sam

If we do not demand more from our legislature, the funding for schools will never be changed and your children's children will be facing the same issues. Adding another layer of imperfect state funding will not solve the problems. Give me a parcel tax for a specific area that current parents have chosen (CSR, reading specialists, library hours, off-the-salary schedule bonuses for teachers, additional custodial time), and I'll see you down at the Farmer's Market to fight for it.

"Please don't make the children pawns any more than they already are in these politic gains. They are the future of this country.

"YES, YES, YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES on 30 AND 38." -- Makes sense

First, the governor chose to make children the pawns.

Voting for both props doesn't make sense. If 30 wins, there is no guarantee most, all, or even some of the money gets to K-12 schools. If 38 wins, the state WILL cut funding to schools. If both pass, only the one with the most votes wins. Reread from the beginning of the paragraph.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Makes sense to me
a resident of Downtown
on Oct 8, 2012 at 6:53 pm

To 'Resident'
what is the % sales tax increase under prop 30? How much will that add to a gallon of gas?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by john
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2012 at 8:16 pm

There is such a ridiculous conflation and co-mingling of issues on this post as to make it nonsense.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2012 at 9:47 pm

"To 'Resident' what is the % sales tax increase under prop 30? How much will that add to a gallon of gas?"

You can do the math yourself. Per gallon is not significant, it's the overall bills each time. So right now, we saw the price go up by cents, but you see it in the overall bill when you go to the gas station.

In my case, my income would be taxed even more, and I would have to pay more sales tax. NO! Enough is enough, and I am tired of being taxed so public employees can enjoy retirement at an early age and with six figure incomes, WITHOUT having contributed that much to their own pensions. Here is the summary of prop 30:

prop 30:

""Increases taxes on earnings over $250,000 for seven years and sales taxes by cent for four years, to fund schools. Guarantees public safety realignment funding. Fiscal Impact: Increased state tax revenues through 2018–19, averaging about $6 billion annually over the next few years. Revenues available for funding state budget. In 2012–13, planned spending reductions, primarily to education programs, would not occur." "

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2012 at 9:48 pm

and pro 38 even says they will allocate 30 percent of the revenue to pay for state debt!

" Increases personal income tax rates on annual earnings over $7,316 using sliding scale from .4% for lowest individual earners to 2.2% for individuals earning over $2.5 million, for twelve years.
During first four years, allocates 60% of revenues to K–12 schools, 30% to repaying state debt, and 10% to early childhood programs. Thereafter, allocates 85% of revenues to K–12 schools, 15% to early childhood programs.
Provides K–12 funds on school-specific, per-pupil basis, subject to local control, audits, and public input.
Prohibits state from directing new funds. "

Web Link


NO on prop 38, NO on prop 30!!!!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Makes sense to me
a resident of Downtown
on Oct 8, 2012 at 9:54 pm

See resident... you need better schools so you can do the math. You probably spend more than the increase will be going out to eat every month.

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES ON PROP 30 and PROP 38.

OUR CHILDREN NEED AND DESERVE better. NOW... not in 3 or 4 years but NOW


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2012 at 9:54 pm

Pay special attention to the fine print - prop 30 says:

"Revenues available for funding state budget. In 2012–13, planned spending reductions, primarily to education programs, would not occur." ""

So funding for education is guaranteed only in 2012-13, and revenues can (and will) be used "FOR FUNDING STATE BUDGET" (aka debt, pensions)


READ READ READ and UNDERSTAND, then vote NO like any reasonable person that can do math and understand how Brown is just playing games and threatens education so he can raise enough funds to avoid the issue of unfunded liabilities which contribute to more and more state debt each year.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2012 at 10:00 pm

"You probably spend more than the increase will be going out to eat every month. "

I earn that money, and I have the right to spend it as I wish. Only fools (or those who are milking the system, perhaps you are one of the lazy ones?) would agree to more taxes so public employees can continue with fat pensions they did not earn.

Why should private sector employees continue to both save for their own retirement while financing the public sector's retirements? NO, and I have the feeling the propositions will fail.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2012 at 10:01 pm

"not in 3 or 4 years but NOW"

Yet prop 38 allocates 30 percent of the revenue to pay state debt the first 4 years! Can you read and understand the text of the propositions?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Voter
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2012 at 11:26 pm

I'm with you, Well....A big yes on 32, no on everything else, except maybe 38, haven't decided. But, yes on 32. If a worker does not want political contributions taken out of their paychecks, for candidates they don't even like, they should not be forced to contribute with money the family may very well need. Freedom! Not extortion!
So right Stacy. Why have a winter blend at all. Our extreme costly 'summer' blend is also made in/for Washington state, and they probablty would sell us some for awhile. Otherwise, switch to our recipe for winter fueld. Sad all that playing around is even allowed.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Makes sense to me
a resident of Downtown
on Oct 9, 2012 at 12:05 am

Wow Resident... if you can't get me to agree with you...you have to insult me. I'm either a fool or lazy? Geeze...aren't we all entitled to our opinion? Isn't that a right guaranteed under the constitution that everyone likes to rally around?
I work for a private business and I'm not in a union and I don't get a pension. And I do plenty of work to help raise money at my kids schools.
If you think teaching is such a great deal for the employees... why don't you teach? I think our teachers earn every dollar they get. Is every PUSD employee getting a six figure pension? Exactly how many employees get that? Every single one?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Well
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 9, 2012 at 12:08 am

Just look it up "makes sense to me" . . . There are databases available all over the place. Just do a search. Check out the prison dentists while you are at it . . .


 +   Like this comment
Posted by well
a resident of Downtown
on Oct 9, 2012 at 12:20 am

I don't need to look it up. I'm not the one it bothers.
I don't believe that every PUSD employee is getting 6 figure pensions.
I wasn't here when all this mess happened. It's not my fault. But my kids are paying for it.... with all the mess in the schools.
Furlough days, no money for copies in the schools, 30+ kids in a class, staggered reading, HS kids not getting classes they want because the school had to do away with sections, stress around scheduling (the HS was adding back sections after school started), stress around whether or not sports will happen. California can do better than this... there is so much money in this state. It is WRONG that are kids are going through this. Whatever the political issues are ... it doesn't have to do with the kids.
If I have to pay more taxes to get a better education for our kids, then I will. Sorry if that makes me dumb or lazy or whatever all you haters want to say... go ahead... call me names. It doesn't really bother me. I know that I VALUE education for our community.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Well
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 9, 2012 at 12:32 am

I value education too. I have kids in school. I may vote for 38. I know throwing money at a problem doesn't always solve the problem. I am teaching my kids at home to supplement school. I lthink Pleasanton teachers are great.

I want my children to have a future that does not involve paying every penny they earn to people who retire early on huge pensions. They deserve a future and I am upset with the generation that is bankrupting them in advance (I am not talking about teachers). I will not vote for 30 as it does not solve the problem at all.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 9, 2012 at 9:11 am

Makes sense to me:

It is not just PUSD or the teachers union. It is about the public employee pension system in California. That is why they are pushing for these propositions: to pay the unfunded liabilities. Read the fine print, because that money can be used to pay state debt (pensions). It is no wonder that the unions are backing these propositions: they are looking after themselves, could care less about the kids (they have shown their lack of concern for students year after year).

I found this interesting article/opinion in a left-leaning paper:

"This summer will bring a showdown. That's because the budget really isn't complete without $8.5 billion in tax increases, which voters must approve in November. California's electorate is a thrifty lot, prone to rejecting tax increases, especially if Sacramento neglects obvious and pressing reforms to its pension system."

"For years, the problem has deepened. Public employee unions pressed politicians for bigger benefits. The state's major retirement kitty, the California Public Employees' Retirement System, invested so well that workers and state employers could skip paying into the pool. But beginning with the recession in 2008, the flaws became apparent. Last year a state watchdog panel found that 10 of state's biggest pension funds had run up $240 billion in unfunded debt."

Web Link

So it is not just about cuts to education. They are cutting services, cities are going bankrupt, and all because of a pension system we CAN NO LONGER afford. We can't afford to have public employees retire so young, put so little into their retirement funds, retire with six figure incomes. Yes, google the public employee database and see for yourself. We have plenty of people (educators included) retiring with a generous six figure pension financed by us the taxpayers. In 2008 when my 401K lost value, I did not expect anyone to bail me out, yet Calpers demanded that the taxpayers stepped in so the public employees' pensions remained intact. Why? May not bother you, but I certainly do not want to finance these guys anymore.

Even if the propositions were passed, you would still see the cuts that bother you so much: CSR would still be gone (and may get worse as the step and column each year must be funded), HS sections will still be gone, etc. It is a game they are playing in Sacramento, manipulating the emotions of parents. Do what the rest of us do: supplement at home and through private and/or enrichment programs outside of school.

NO on 30, NO on 38. Once they reform the pension system and get spending to a healthy level, we can talk about revenue needed. Until then, NO MORE TAX INCREASES TO FINANCE UNFUNDED LIABILITIES/PENSIONS.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2012 at 6:56 am

Someone posted this on a different forum: (it is an editorial/recommendation from the Contra Costa Times about voting no on prop 30 and 38)

"Contra Costa Times editorial: Proposition 30 is not way to solve California's fiscal crisis"

Web Link


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Vote YES on Measures 45, 46, & 47, NO on 48
By Roz Rogoff | 30 comments | 2,088 views

Prop 47: not perfect, just preferable.
By Tom Cushing | 2 comments | 763 views

The Vranesh situation heads to court
By Tim Hunt | 6 comments | 600 views