http://pleasantonweekly.com/square/print/index.php?i=3&d=&t=9341


Town Square

Prop 30 and prop 38

Original post made by Sandy, Mohr Park, on Sep 4, 2012

Both proposition 30 and proposition 38 have implications for our local schools, and next Tuesday night, the school board will decide whether to endorse them. Here's a summary of the discussion from the August 21 meeting: Web Link

Proposition 30, Temporary Taxes to Fund Education and Guarantee Local Public Safety Funding, is at the top of the ballot because it includes provisions that require constitutional amendment.

Governor Brown is emphasizing the benefits of the measure for K-12 public education and for community colleges, and its temporary nature. Prop 30 proposes raising sales taxes for 4 years, by .25 percent, and also raising income taxes for 7 years, but only for those with incomes of $250,000 or more.

Proposition 38, Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs, does not affect sales taxes. It generates revenue via income taxes over the next 12 years, proposing increased rates for anyone with income over $7316 per year, with greater increases for individuals at higher income levels.

Molly Munger and the California PTA are emphasizing the local control over funds that would be ensured via proposition 38, since school districts would be required to conduct open forums at each school and to report on expenditures at the school level. This level of community input in the school budgeting process goes beyond current practice, and is intended to ensure that funds benefit students directly. School boards would be given much more autonomy about how to budget. None of the proposition 38 funds would be subject to any of the restrictions on use that have historically applied on categorical funds awarded by the state to school districts.

The Secretary of State's website includes links to the summary and analysis of both measures that will appear in ballot information mailings, here: Web Link

A recent survey indicates that support for prop 30 is stronger, at 54.5%, and 39.9% of those polled support both measures.
(San Jose Mercury News, Web Link )

What do you think?

Comments

 +   Like this comment
Posted by well
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 4, 2012 at 12:54 pm

I will support 38 as the money will actually go to the schools. I'm not worried about it not covering next year as the damage has already been done in Pleasanton to "prepare" for 30 failing.

I will not support 30 where the money is really going in the general fund. I don't like the strategy of denying funds to the schools because they know this is the most likely thing people will vote on. If we let them win with this strategy, they'll just do it over and over, denying funds to the schools so people will vote for more taxes "for the schools" without changing things like prison guard salaries, pensions, train to nowhere etc, etc, you know the rest.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Opinion
a resident of Del Prado
on Sep 4, 2012 at 1:24 pm

My opinion since you asked is that as long as this state does not take on the issue of pensions, both teachers and government workers, and runaway spending on dumb things like the high speed rail to nowhere then you can kiss any hope of passing a tax increase of any kind. The citizens of the state, county, and city are taxed to death and there seems to be no end in sight. Remember the story of the rat? rats will eat anything and when the food supply is used up there will start eating other rats, as soon as there are no other rats then the rat will start eating its own tail until it also dies. This state is made up of rats. I do not make anywhere near $250,000 dollars per year but the idea that people can vote to tax other peoples money not there own is disgusting. That is my opinion and both of these tax increases will go down in flames.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by 3O is NO !
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 4, 2012 at 2:15 pm

3O is NO,NO,NO. 3O is a scam for funding public pensions!. Just like Brown's hoopla designed to trick us with last WEEK's scam that Legis & Brown's Bill was going to 'FIX' the PUBLIC PENSION PROBLEM. Well, maybe in THIRTY years ! No much talk about that little detail !!
Prop 3O is like that 3O year scam, which will START in 30 years. Last week's bill ONLY applies to NEW hires. WE are on the hook for 30 years for those hired this year. WE are still on the hook for 29 yrs for those hired last year (unless we change that).
Prop 30 is dressed up like a fix-all, and educ will get some crumbs if the public unions don't use it all.
3O is Bad, Bad, Bad....another scam, scam, scam,.
38 is a bit more taxes than 30, so I still have to think about 38. But, I really resent that it's rigged so that we're stuck with whichever one gets the highest votes. Which means our ONLY PROTECTION is to vote them BOTH DOWN. 30 is dressed up like goodies for all. But, no more thinking needed on prop 3O for more public union $$$$$$, which is what brought CA down in the first place. Not a question IF, only WHEN.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jillian
a resident of Danbury Park
on Sep 4, 2012 at 2:50 pm

Am I correct in thinking that both of these require 66.7% yes votes to approve?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Be prepared
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Sep 4, 2012 at 2:57 pm

If the propositions don't pass, be prepared for up to 15 furlough days from January to June 2013. I'm sure there will be a ton of complaints from people when they are announced.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jillian
a resident of Danbury Park
on Sep 4, 2012 at 3:08 pm

I was just reading a few articles about this issue and it does not seem that anyone is very confident that this is even going to be close to passing. That said, what is the next step or ideas? Have the unions talked about negotiating down their salaries and benefits to a more reasonable level based on what this state can afford.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by well
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 4, 2012 at 3:39 pm

"If the propositions don't pass, be prepared for up to 15 furlough days from January to June 2013. I'm sure there will be a ton of complaints from people when they are announced"

Your statement is completely untrue. Please call the district and get yourself informed. You're not doing yourself any favors by spouting nonsense. This is the second time you've posted this incorrect statement.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by vote no
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 4, 2012 at 3:43 pm

Wasting public meeting time on figuring out what ballot measures to endorse or to not endorse is a waste of staff time and money. Why put this on an agenda for a public meeting? They put this political matter on the agenda, yet don't put anything on the agenda to discuss the pros and cons of Staggered Reading.

I'm voting No for all of them.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Sep 4, 2012 at 4:06 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

While Munger's Prop 38 is slightly better, I don't think I can vote for it and certainly not for Prop 30. Also agree with vote no above . . . let board members campaign as individuals. Signing a resolution in the hopes it will sway voters is a pipe dream. And it doesn't bind or reflect how the five individuals will vote once they get their personal ballots. Why do they have to be unanimous on this? Let staff lobby through their respective administrative groups/unions.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by 3O is NO !
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 4, 2012 at 5:35 pm

Aw, Be Prepared, I don't suppose you might be a public union member, trying to scare people, are you??
Jokester Jillian, surely you jest ... 'Have unions talked about negotiating down to more reasonable....what the state can afford'. Sadly, they'd have to stand taller than they are in pushing for prop 30. Fist FULL in the candy jar is just to big to get out, and not about to let go.
Funny how 30% adamently opposed to 38... is the same as strongly supporting prop 30.....the same PUBLIC UNION MEMBERS ! ! so coy, they think we're idiots, and can't spot 'em...they're wrong ! ! The replies and tactics are SO obvious !


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ronald R.
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 4, 2012 at 8:29 pm

No, Jillian--The proposition needs a simple majority to pass. Thank goodness. That means Proposition 30 has better chances of passing than a parcel tax would in Pleasanton.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by GX
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 4, 2012 at 9:35 pm

Let's interject some actual data into this debate:

Web Link

Isn't it interesting how the State's revenue continues to increase and yet we are still in a crisis?

Rather than acknowledging that the rest of CA's inefficient State government is crowding out investments in our future (e.g. education), we are threatened with cuts of what we hold most important if we don't offer up more revenue.

It would be great to get the take of defenders of 30 and 38 on the above data taken directly from a CA government source. Please help us understand why increasing revenues to a proven grossly inefficient government entity makes sense.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Sep 4, 2012 at 9:39 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

GX,

No graph of that data?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by 3O is NO !
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 4, 2012 at 10:43 pm

GX, yes our revenue continues to increase, yet our problems mount...perfect illustration, there is no way to satisfy the PUBLIC UNION beast...never enough!! never satisfied !!! Their increases are greater than our money...we have our limits.
The monster will devour us. It grows larger, while we shrink.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by GX
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 5, 2012 at 7:18 am

I'm not aware of a graph of the information I presented>

I do know that through an analysis I performed (which anyone can do) that total CA revenue has grown dramatically faster than the baseline of inflation/population increase.

It is very unfortunate that our press can't/doesn't perform this simple analysis to show people what is actually going on in our state: grossly inefficient government operations crowding out investments in our future. If they did educate the public, maybe we'd put pressure on the right places to right this sinking ship.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by tim
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Sep 5, 2012 at 8:26 am

anyone who votes to increase their own taxes is a fool.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by shadowbozo
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 5, 2012 at 8:42 am

shadowbozo is a registered user.

No on both. Until we have cuts in all programs in Sacramento, no additional funding should be taken from working people. Cut the bloated staffs in all State agencies. I saw this first hand working at LLNL.

I will support real fiscal reform. These measures do nothing to address the underlying issues.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Chris
a resident of Stoneridge
on Sep 5, 2012 at 8:51 am

No meaningful public employee pension reform = NO on any new taxes.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jaclyn F.
a resident of Foothill High School
on Sep 5, 2012 at 10:34 am

It is just so sad that this administration has the audacity to even attempt to propose a pair of taxes so thinly veiled as "educational support" when they have made not even the slightest gesture to address the runaway state pension dilemma, rampant spending and don't even get me started on the boondoggle of all boondoggle's, the HSR project.

My family will not vote for either of these measures and will work to support our local schools at a level where we know the money that is collected is working for projects that we can see direct results.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by 3O is NO !
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 5, 2012 at 11:41 am

Like I commented above, regarding last week's RAM-thru of Brown/ Legis FAUX pension fix on the 'LAST' DAY of legislative session, it
was a scam...strickly 'theatre' to help pass 30, with a pretense that they're 'working on the problem' !! Actually it 'provides NEW opportunities' for pension 'spiking' according to today's Valley Times Editorial. My first comment above was from SFChron, that the scam does NOT START for 30 years !!!! This bill does not apply to any current employees !! ONLY employees YET TO BE HIRED !
Times pointed out that most employees would NOT be required the even equally SHARE in their pension plans...yet nobody flinched. Times said it was full speed ahead with ramming toward deadline, while details and fixes were insignificant. Everybody, Brown & legislature just wanted a mantle of pension 'reformer' to use in Nov. campaigns !
This fraud is all theatre...NO fix ! !
Notice our usual union flame-throwers on this site, are fairly silent. THIS dog won't hunt ! This fraud won't fly ! Nothing has been fixed. 3O is just a way to suck $$ from us, for Brown to pay on the pensions he created 30 years ago. And, now he's telling us of this NEW 3O yr fraud that he only hopes the taxpayers will buy into, and bail him out with prop 3O ! that's a big NO ! 'cause it's a NO fix ! ...it just keeps feeding the hungry beast.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by 3O is NO !
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 5, 2012 at 12:07 pm

We haven't even talked numbers. The CA state pension SHORTFALL is conservatively $257 Billion ! which averages $20,700. PER HOUSEHOLD.
The actual CaPublicEmployeeRetirement, CalPERs, largest plan in US, DEBT is $117 Billion. A quickie analysis of estimated value from the bill, at best, only $15 Billion, and I don't know how long a time period it would take to even generate that minimal savings.
From the Times Editorial, "assuming all savings from the bill went back into paying on that debt (they won't be), the bill would only reduce the SHORTFALL by 13 percent, at best."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of Highland Oaks
on Sep 5, 2012 at 3:37 pm

First fix the hole in your bucket, then ask for a sip of my water.


Mike


 +   Like this comment
Posted by J
a resident of another community
on Sep 5, 2012 at 4:35 pm

Why on earth would anyone want to pay higher taxes for something like education and schools? Haven't most voters already finished K-12 and college where there indoctrinated by socialist unionist thug teachers?

Founding Fathers, truth be told, wanted all children to be home schooled. Financing public education with tax dollars is socialism in the extreme, and thats bad, really bad.

Worse, we let all the little one's get indoctrinated and then they go out and act like deseased liberals that don't believe in God and think Adam and Eve were Adam and Steve. They expect us to give money to there cause? LOL


 +   Like this comment
Posted by buy a vowel
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 5, 2012 at 8:47 pm

"Posted by J, Why on earth would anyone want to pay higher taxes for something like education and schools?"

You seem to miss the point. Is the solution to everything increasing taxes? Is it possible that education reform is a better solution? Just asking...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by well
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 5, 2012 at 9:04 pm

J's the union troll that hangs out here under different names. Ignore.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by J
a resident of another community
on Sep 6, 2012 at 4:30 am

Yes, why on earth pay higher taxes for improvements in education when instead we can cut school budgets, remove socialist teachers, and call it education reform?

Fact is we shouldn't be giving our taxes to these socialist scum elitist teachers who think they deserve to make a decent living wage. Those that teach are those who are able to do anything else. Why give them a decent living wage when they just indoctrinate our children?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by GX
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 6, 2012 at 6:42 am

You have set up a false trade-off. Unchanged taxation does not need to mean reduced spending on education.

If you actually looked at the CA government data I presented, you will see that total CA government spend has increased almost every single year even during this most recent recession.

How about making the rest of government more efficient and then apply those savings to education? Why does the answer always need to be increased taxes?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by well
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 6, 2012 at 7:29 am

See below and so one. It's why it's hard to justify tax increases. Just a small sampling of the news this week. I'm sure you've seen the 200k+ retirement lists that are out there too. Is this what you call a living wage? Given the average salary in the US is way under 100k, I'm thinking some savings could be made before taxing more in this already high tax state. And for those of us who make way less than the public sector definition of a living wage and retirement, I guess we're just trying to keep some of our salaries . . .to live and retire.

Web Link

Contra Costa Times / AP press:

"A new report released Wednesday by the state controller's office found that the nation's largest teacher pension fund has been so lax about detecting pension spiking at California school districts that it is on pace to audit each district once every 48 years.

For example, the San Francisco Unified School District wasn't able to explain why one executive received a 26 percent pay increase six months before retirement and another received a 20 percent increase a year before retirement."

Web Link

SACRAMENTO, Calif.—For nearly a decade, California's top-paid school administrators got to collect six-figure lump sum cash payments in addition to their pensions by taking advantage of a little-known legislative provision that was intended to help retain and recruit teachers during the dot-com boom