Letter: No votes on Props. 30 and 38 are bad for Californians
To the community,
California schools are in trouble. For the past four years, the state has been cutting and “deferring” payments to school districts, requiring the local school districts to operate with fewer and fewer funds. Schools all over California have cut expenses by every means possible to keep their doors open.
Lake Tahoe Unified School District alone, a small district when compared to other California communities, has experienced nearly $4 million in state cuts, but has managed to protect most of its programs and small class sizes by reducing costs in every “non-teaching” department.
The superintendent, for example, also fills the roles of assistant superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, Human Resources director, and principal of the magnet school.
Many California schools have already been forced to increase class size, reduce the number of days of teaching, and cut sports and arts programs.
The state’s newest school budget calls for another $1.6 million cut to South Lake Tahoe if Proposition 30 fails … a cut that the district can no longer absorb without drastic consequences. To make ends meet, the district may have to reduce the school year by 12 class days in addition to cuts in other areas. We cannot let this happen.
Propositions 30 and 38 have been put before the voters to stop these continued budget cuts and restore funding to schools. Neither proposition replaces the funds that have already been cut. Both are designed to stop the bleeding. These two propositions address the increased taxes in different ways.
Prop. 30 imposes a four-year statewide one-quarter cent sales tax increase plus an additional income tax on individual earnings above $250,000. Prop. 38 imposes a 12-year income tax increase for all persons earning more than $7,316 per year … basically, everyone paying income tax.
Each of these propositions will generate about $6 billion annually for schools K-12. Prop. 30 also generates additional funding for community and state colleges, and funding for fire and police protection. Prop. 38 adds a provision for early childhood development, but does not provide funding for colleges or fire and police safety.
Hopefully, as least one of the propositions will pass, and if both pass, the proposition with the greatest vote will take effect. But, having both measures on the ballot has the potential of splitting the “yes” vote and allowing the “no” vote to beat down both measures.
If you agree that we cannot allow any more cuts to education, then I urge you to vote “yes” on both propositions, and do not vote against either. An alternative is to vote “yes” on the proposition you prefer, and simply not vote on the other. But most important is that you do not mark a “not” on either proposal.
There are many voters who automatically vote “no” on any tax measure and will vote “no” on both propositions. We cannot afford to split the “yes” vote between the two propositions. If the majority of voters support education, but split the vote between the two propositions, the “no” voters will win and our children and future generations will lose.
Barry Keil, South Lake Tahoe
While voting yes will provide more education funds, why aren’t you attacking the State for cutting the education funds? The State didn’t reduce taxation, they just took the money to spend elsewhere. I’m angry with them.
Yes 30, no 38
Yes on 30! Only 30 will stop mid year cuts to education and help LTUSD and LTCC.
Advocate, they did the same with our new fire “fee”. They money they are illegally demanding from every dwelling in “rural” California was first taken out the back door of the existing fund and put into the general fund to be used for ANYTHING Sacramento wants to spend it on.
Anyone who voluntarily votes to give any more of their own hard earned money to the politicians in California thinking that they will wisely use that money for the betterment of the people is NUTS. They’ve proven over and over again that regardless of how much we give them, they will always overspend their budget and waste money on themselves and their cronies before they fix the state’s many problems.
By virtue of the well-paid position of this gentleman’s relative, he is a beneficiary of higher taxes so of course supports these ballot measures. Along with the head of the union.
California taxpayers do not deserve to be forced to pay the highest taxes in the nation. Don’t reward Sacramento’s legislators for their bungling. Vote No on both 30 and 38.
Yes Steve, a bit of a conflict of interest with his opinion!
I think very few people at this point are going to change their minds about PROP 30, but I think those who support 30 have been brainwashed by the State. I support school too, but I do not support this shell game.
Nothing in Prop 30 reforms our education system to cut the waste, eliminate bureaucracy or cut administrative overhead. Instead of supporting education, the new tax money raised by Prop 30 would really go to backfill the insolvent teacher’s pension fund.
JB, politicians and special interests behind Prop 30 threaten voters saying “vote for our massive tax increase or we’ll take it out on schools”, but at the same time, they refuse to reform the education or pension systems to save money.
Politicians would rather raise taxes instead of streamlining THOUSANDS of state-funded programs. Just one example…politicians authorized start up for a $100 billion bullet train to nowhere. I think we should use those dollars for schools! Instead, the politicians have given us a false choice — raise sales taxes by $1 billion per year and raise income taxes on small businesses OR cut schools.
NO ON PROP 30.
Mike Patterson the teachers union rep who is allowed to keep his $80000. year job with benefits who can not be fired for only being in the classroom 40% of the time. The school district had to hire another auto shop teacher to cover all the days you are absent supporting your teachers union at the state capitol. You want us to vote to pay more taxes for reckless spending for your special interest along with the amounts of money thrown at useless net books the kids don’t use and all the other wasteful spending.
Now that you mention it, most of the folks who are writing in support of these tax increases are the same people who stand to benefit from them.
Everyone will benefit from them Dog…not just those with kids or with jobs at schools. These are the people who will be taking care of you in old age, running our governments, agencies, running your bank, creating your high tech gear and so on…..
30yr, that’s a very broad, sweeping statement.
EVERYONE will benefit from a tax increase with little or no control over where the money goes, nor much oversight over how the legislature makes its determinations for spending?
Nope. I think not.
As far as needing big daddy government to educate our children, regulate our banks, care for us in our old age, well, we’ve seen how efficiently they’ve done that in the past. What makes you think raising taxes will make them any better at it?
The logic and assumptions made by “no tax” voters continues to amaze me. Yes, I do have a vested interest in seeing this school measure pass….but not because of the assumptions cited. I have grandchildren in California schools. I want them to have the opportunity to receive an education as good or better than I received in California schools and colleges. I want this for all California school kids.
I am all in favor of cutting the excess expenses of State and Federal government. Cutting expenses for education is not how to do it.
A provision of Prop 30, which I support, specifically prohibits the use of these funds “…for salaries or benefits of Administrators or any other administrative costs.” Read it. I did. It’s in the text of the proposed law…not from biased campaign propaganda. Since my “relative” works directly for the District Superintendent, her salary is part of administrative costs, and will not benefit from passage of Prop 30. So where is this “conflict of interest”? I am, and have always been an avid supporter of public education. If I have any conflict of interest, it is my conflict with members of the community who don’t seem to care.
Ahhh, the bureaucratic shell game!! It may be in the language that money can’t be used for admin. expense. But the new tax revenue then frees up other money that can then go to admin!
And Mr. Keil, sorry, I’m not saying you don’t care about children. But c’mon, this is too much of a conflict of interest!
You know the old saying, “Where there’s a will there’s a lawyer”. Well, it’s the same with these bills. Either way, the people who will make the most money, pass or fail, will be the lawyers and the legislators and the beaurocrats. I no longer trust the state of California to be wise or honest in its dealings with other people’s money. They have too long a history of doing otherwise. We all want what’s best for our children. And leaving them with gazillions of dollars in debt and a sub-standard education is not what’s best.
Sorry Barry, I just cannot afford to pay anymore taxes…period! I think everyone is in favor of supporting education but you know, if you give government a dollar…they will find a way to mostly waste it. They have shown no ability to spend our tax dollars wisely. The State already has enough revenue to provide for our schools if they didn’t waste so much of what they are already being given.
Two words: BULLET TRAIN! California is experiencing our nation’s worst fiscal crisis…And what does Sacramento do? Led by Jerry Brown, they start a $100 billion train construction project. This is even against the advice of those who originally supported it. The bullet train is a 300+ mile long monument to Sacramento’s fiscal irresponsibility on a multi-billion dollar scale.
Sacramento needs more tax money like Rush Limbaugh needs more donuts.
VOTE NO ON PROP 30 and 38.
aaarrrgh! The Teabaggery! Make it Stop!…. Forget it Dr. Keil, you’re attempting to communicate with the alternative reality inhabited by the foxNfriends-limbaughites, it’s pointless.
Hi Barry and TeaT….
Telling the truth is always the best way to deal with all issues!! You and the union and the Sacto gods need to cover their butts. You all took and spent everything you have gotten on everything BUT what THOSE taxes were supposed to cover in the name of “CHILDREN, FIRE, POLICE, LIBRARIES and what other LIES were dispensed in the past. Well now it’s all come back to bite the liars, with Moonbeam out in front – by the way, the hypocrite that started this Unionizing of public workers mess 40 years ago!!!!!
Moonbeam is married to a millionairess, have her redistribute ALL her $$$$$$ to help cover his mistakes. Then — let’s start passing the hat amungst the retired admin’s with the overbloated 3,4,$500,000. yearly pensions, health coverage, etc., that in addition, are back as salaried “Consultants”!!!!
What a scam all you liberal Gov. wonks have perpetrated on the working public.
You ALL have a lot of BA**s getting on your soapboxes again in the name of schools, children and whatever drivel your ladeling out this time around.
The cutbacks should start at the top. You are pretty useless – it is proven daily!!