Now that we’ve debated Propositions 30 and 38, a pair of competing tax initiatives that would restructure the way California’s tax structure pays for its education system, let’s take a step back and examine the common link between both initiatives.
Governor Jerry Brown’s plan to pay for education in the Golden state is Prop 30, which features an incremental sales and personal income tax increase. Pasadena attorney Molly Munger has been stumping for the California PTA supported Prop 38, which would use a sliding scale income tax increase to raise more funding for the state’s struggling schools. But California voters will likely note what both plans have in common: a tax increase.
Organizations like the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association stand in opposition to both initiatives because of that commonality and the belief that higher taxes would imperil California’s economic climate.
Is this hard-line no-new-taxes stance a viable path forward for funding California’s schools? Where can lawmakers turn to find enough places to cut spending and close loopholes to balance the budget and pay for education?
David Spady, California state director of Americans for Prosperity