|
Lawmakers calling Gov. Brown’s bluff on Prop. 30 revenues
Jan. 8, 2013 By Katy Grimes On the first day of the new legislative session on Monday, two Republican lawmakers wasted no time introducing legislation to add some necessary spending restrictions to Proposition 30. Passed by California voters in November, Prop. 30 increased the income tax on individuals with income of $250,000 or more, and upped the sales tax on everybody in the state. The tax proposition was primarily sold to voters as a promise of new funding to be funneled into California public schools. The new taxes are supposed to raise $50 billion over seven years. But the number might not be that high if job creators and business owners will stop hiring or leave the state. It’s also not clear how much money will go to education. Promises, promisesGov. Jerry Brown campaigned relentlessly for Prop. 30′s passage, spending much of his time on college campuses and at public schools. Perhaps calling the governor’s bluff, Assemblyman Jeff Gorell, R-Camarillo, and state Sen. Anthony Cannella, R-Ceres, introduced Assembly Bill 67 and Senate Bill 58 Monday to deal with the promised educational funding. They said that while there already is a provision in Prop. 30 to ensure this new revenue flows directly to schools, there is also a counter provision in the measure “which allows the Legislature to reduce current General Fund dollars for K-14 education. As a result, schools will see just a $2.6 billion increase in funding in 2012-13, even though Proposition 30 will generate $5.3 billion in new revenue,” their press release said. Gorell and Canella added, “[T]here is no provision in it guaranteeing that there will be funding increases for California State University or University of California campuses, despite what proponents of the measure said to taxpayers and students during the campaign.” While the 2013-14 budget increases funding by $125 million for each system, this is never guaranteed money and is usually reversed by the Legislature. Additionally, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst recently announced that funding for the UC and CSU systems will remain relatively flat over the next five fiscal years, even with the Prop. 30 money. “The proponents of Prop. 30 traveled to many college campuses telling students there would be no new fee increases if it passed,” Cannella said in the press release. “As we have seen so many times before, money that should go to our public colleges and universities could easily be transferred to fund other programs. This bill makes that promise a guarantee. I hope that all legislators understand the importance of this bill so we can uphold the promise to our students, and give peace of mind that there will be no tuition increases, period.” The bills would ensure that what voters were sold with Prop. 30 is actually upheld. One way to do this is by requiring that there be no mandatory tuition and fee increases for CSU and UC campuses in the current academic year. Additionally, the measure says it would be the intent of the Legislature that funding for CSU and UC campuses be increased while Prop. 30 is in effect.
Tags: budget deficit, California, California budget, California Legislature, Democrats, Education, government, Jerry Brown, jobs, Katy Grimes, legislature, pensions, Public Employee Unions, recession, regulations, Republicans, Sacramento, tax increases, Taxes Comments(56) |
June 18, 2013


Rex:
I don’t regard all public employees as such. Most of them are decent folks just trying to make a living. My contempt is for the administrators and politicians who use the rank and file public employees as pawns to hide behind to cover up their own shenanigans, theft and misuse of public money. They are the real domestic enemies you should direct your enmity at.
In my ever so humble opinion, ALL politicians are sociopaths. They lie, they cheat & steal and have no problems with throwing whomever they need to under a bus to absolve themselves of any blame and make themselves look good.
What you and I can probably agree on is why public employees let politicians use them this way and willingly allow themselves to be thrown under a bus by people who’s only interest in them is as political pawns to be used & abuse when it suits them.
Seesaw,
I’m sure you will obey the laws however irksome. I suspect your tune will change when the code enforcement officer with a chip on his shoulder shows up at your door to challenge you on the things you enjoy doing.
ftheunions, I wish the code enforcement officers would do their jobs more efficiently, than they do. Then, I wouldn’t have to look at all the illegal signs that are taped and tacked on the lighting standards. Fortunately though, the code enforcement officers in my town do not have chips on their shoulders. I can’t imagine anything I enjoy doing being illegal, so I don’t expect to have to give any thing up.
It appears that a 30% percent reduction has pushed the irksome button.
How about a 30% increase to assist the gov t with some societal reengineering efforts?
That would be very irksome!
“I can’t imagine anything I enjoy doing being illegal, so I don’t expect to have to give any thing up.”
———————
Dear Prudence:
I can imagine there are PLENTY of things you enjoy doing that at one time were illegal in this country……and may be to this day in other countries.
That holier-than-thou routine is wearing a tad thin.