Skip to main content

The Sacramento  Bee in both its editorial position on Sunday, July 8,  and its news reporting name  the fall California  initiative tax measure  to preserve  funding for  our schools  Governor Brown's Tax proposal.   This naming, this framing, is selected to defeat the proposal.  It is not Governor Brown's proposal- it is a proposal from all of us who worked on the Millionaires Tax, from teachers, union members,  the majority in the California legislature and all of those who wish to save our schools from further devastation.
 The legal  title  is  the  Schools and Local Public Safety Act and it will be on the November ballot.  We should insist that the press use the proper title for this tax initiative.   If passed it would prevent  $4.8 billion in cuts from our  k-12 schools and $1.3 billion in cuts from our colleges and universities.

California voters  are faced with a choice.  Shall we raise taxes and fund the schools, or shall we continue the current practice of cut, cut, cut ?  In the fall election we will be faced with at least three choices.  Continue the present austerity program  or choose between two tax proposals.  If the anti tax forces have their way and we do not pass new taxes the effects on the schools will be devastating – as will be effects on public safety, health clinics and local services.
What is in it ? What is not?
        The Schools and Public Safety proposal is  the new combination of the Governor Brown’s  tax proposal as merged with the Millionaires Tax proposal.  The  merger is a modest proposal.  Sales tax would go up ¼ cent ( as opposed to the ½ cent originally proposed by the governor)for a temporary period  and the taxes of the very well off would be increased.  In the Millionaires Tax this increase would have been starting at at incomes of one million per year, in the merged proposal there would be higher taxes in steps for persons receiving $250,000 for singles and $500,000 for couples.  Thus, it is no longer a millionaires tax, it is a tax  increase for the well off.   By the way, some 93% of all the recent wealth generated in the economy has gone to this top 4% of  the wealthy.  They are doing just fine.
On the ballot the  merged proposal is called,  The Schools and Local Public Safety Act.  It would prevent  $ 4.8  billion cuts from our schools. and 1.3 billion in further cuts to colleges and universities. The effort would not restore the schools to their 1980’s level of funding.  It would only reduce the bleeding.  Class room conditions  would not get worse next year.  California would still rank 47th. out of the 50 states in per pupil spending.
            Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters, a frequent voice of the anti tax crowd, calls this a “soak the rich” proposal.  That is a slogan to mobilize the right wing.  It is not an analysis.  The  Bee editorial board complains that this form of taxation will not end the volatility of tax collections – an accurate criticism.  However, you can’t expect  that emergency measures achieve all of your goals.  The volatility issue is real and needs to be addressed in the tax code.  For example, we could re-establish the vehicle license fee, or we could re-evaluate commercial property regularly for property taxes.  Both would reduce the volatility of tax receipts.  
        In the meantime we need to pass The  Schools and Local Public Safety Act to  prevent  $4.8 billion in cuts from our  k-12 schools and $1.3 billion in cuts from our colleges and universities.

Originally posted to dcampbell on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 08:37 PM PDT.

Also republished by California politics.

Poll

If the election were held today, how would you vote on the Schools and Local Public Safety Act ?

76%10 votes
23%3 votes
0%0 votes

| 13 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Back-of-the-Envelope calculation indicates... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Killer of Sacred Cows, ybruti

    ..that only 15% of the incremental revenues will be raised via the regressive sales tax, while 85% from the income tax hike.

    Vote yes on the Future of California.

    Vote yes on the Proposal.

    p.s.  If anyone has better numbers regarding the amount expected to be raised via the sales tax vs income tax, please provide link.  I searched and searched and couldn't find any data.  In the end, I had to look at State of California controllers site and calculate the figures on my own.  

    Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

    by PatriciaVa on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 09:00:32 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site