I had frankly expected better from concerned parents than a mauled state government!
I don’t often get e-mail any longer at my Jerry Brown for Governor address from 2010, used when I wasn in charge of making it look like the campaign was actually present and active in Orange County (but not so much so as to invite an even bigger response from Meg Whitman), so when one arrived in my Inbox today I immediately rushed to my closet, pulled out my Brown campaign uniform (made of genuine sackcloth and fastened with real yellowed scotch tape and by now ossified rubber bands — and still itchy as hell) and prepared to read it!
It was from political consultant Ace Smith, who is apparently politically consulting (and if Gov. Brown is true to form, not making a dime off of it) for Brown’s Yes on 30 effort to hook the state up to a winch and pull it out of the much with a temporary “millionnaire’s tax” and minimal sales tax. What villainy could possess Ace to drag so old a mailing list out from the archives, calling us everyday heroes into action?
It was … THE PTA!
“C’mon, Ace,” I said to myself, absent-mindedly fingering the frayed edge of the hole left from that time I was bitten by a Fiorina supporter, “the PTA? What could they possibly be doing to warrant this sort of general call to arms?”
But it turned out that Ace had a point.
The PTA, you see, is practically the only organization other than those opposed to — well, to the continued existence of the California State Government — that still favors Proposition 38 over the Governor’s Prop 30. Prop 38 is the creature of liberal civil rights attorney Molly Munger — sister of wildly spending Leslie Daigle admirer Charles Munger Jr. and duaghter of top-flight attorney Charles Munger Sr. — who want a new tax to fund elementary and seconday education and nothing else! Munger’s proposal has been languishing in the public opinion doldrums while the Governor’s has a fighting chance. Only one can win — and while most of us (including both major teacher’s unions) support Prop 30, most of us have wanted a fair battle of ideas to assure that at least one of them will win.
However Molly Munger herself, having failed to get the endorsement of the California Democratic Party or much else, is apparently pissed. And if Molly can’t have her way, nobody gets their way either.
The main institutional support for the Munger initiative comes from the state’s Parent-Teachers Association. One would expect the PTA — the PTA, for crying out loud! — to play nice when it comes to a battle between two well-intentioned initiatives that seek to serve largely similar ends. But Ace says otherwise:
We need your help today – please contact the PTA and tell them they need to stop their negative campaign against Prop. 30.
Gov. Jerry Brown is leading a positive, grassroots campaign that asks Californians to take a stand against further school cuts by supporting Prop. 30.
Right now, the voters are with us. They know we can’t keep cutting our schools and expect our economy to grow.
Unfortunately the Prop. 38 campaign has pursued a different path, signaling their intent to run a harsh and negative campaign even if it means neither Prop. 30 nor their measure prevails.
We should all agree that the worst outcome for our kids is another $6 billion hit to our schools when we will face a shorter school year, more teachers laid off, and more tuition hikes on university students when their families are still struggling to stay afloat.
Senators Feinstein, Boxer and legislative leaders have called on both campaigns to adopt a Positive Campaign Compact.
We already accepted.
But in a letter today, the State PTA refused to commit to these most basic rules: to “refrain from attacking or referring to” our campaign in “all advertisements, public statements and voter contact materials.”
Will you contact your local PTA and ask them to join the Positive Campaign Compact?
It’s fine to have different views about a solution, but the worst outcome for our kids would be a negative campaign that results in both measures losing, and our schools and colleges taking another $6 billion cut this year.
As Senators Feinstein and Boxer said, “Let’s allow each initiative to stand on its positive merits, and let’s all stand together to do what’s right for our kids.”
Ace Smith
Yes on Prop. 30For more information visit yesonprop30.com
Twitter YesOnProp30 | Facebook Yes On Prop 30 | Google+ Yes On Prop 30
Paid for by Yes on Prop. 30–to Protect our Schools and Public Safety, a broad coalition of business, labor, law enforcement, teachers and Governor Brown. Major funding by Californians Working Together to Restore and Protect Public Schools, Universities and Public Safety, Coalition of Educators, School Employees, Working Men/Women, Doctors, Speaker Perez & Community Org. Yes on Proposition 30 and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.
Authorized by Jerry Brown
One would think that one of the most absurd things that could ever happen in politics is for someone to actually have to send out an e-mail asking people to contact their local PTA and ask them to call off the dogs so as to benefit the greater good. Yet that’s what Ace Smith has just found himself forced to do. And I echo his claim — not only because he and Sens. Boxer and Feinstein are right, but because it’s the only way I get to change back out of this blasted sackcloth.
So, yes — call your PTA and tell them to tell the State PTA to chill. Better Prop 30 than Prop Nothin’, right, parents?
Internecine:
1. mutually destructive or ruinous; maiming both or all sides internecine war
2. of or relating to slaughter or carnage; bloody
3. of or involving conflict within a group or organization
[from Latin internecīnus, from internecāre to destroy, from necāre to kill]
One can only hope.
In addition to CA PTA, Prop 38 actually has the endorsement of the California School Boards Association (they are supporting both education initiatives) along with many school districts throughout the state. The PTA is not running a negative campaign. Quite the contrary. Supporters of Prop 30 have actually created anti-prop 38 groups with the sole purpose of shooting down Prop 38. These groups are hoping to shoot down the only initiative that will bring money to our schools — which now rank 47th in the nation in per pupil funding.
PTA has advocated for children — for free — for over 100 years. Hot lunch in school — that was PTA. Separate juvenile justice system — that was PTA. The recent anti-bullying bill that was recently passed — that was CA PTA. PTA is not about to shy away from a campaign that will help children. PTA is not a union, nor does it have paid lobbyists in Sacramento. It simply read the initiatives and made an educated choice to support the one that actually would help kids.
With the governor’s initiative student funding will remain flat — still 47th in the nation in per pupil funding. Prop 38 will bring money to our schools that is over and above the minimum the governor decides to send down — Guaranteed. This is money that will make a difference — even with the governor’s threatened draconian trigger cuts.
It seems like the governor is trying to paint the PTA in a negative light due to the fact that Prop 38 is gaining in the polls. Surely, Prop 30 supporters can handle a little healthy competition.
From the e-mail:
Fix that and I’m fine with you. Fail to fix it and I’m not.
Here is the actual word for word response from CA PTA indicating that it will continue to run a mutually respectful campaign. Nowhere does it contain the quote that Greg Diamond states above. Please keep it real and honest people. Our kids will benefit in the long run.
August 17, 2012
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein United States Senator for California
The Honorable Barbara Boxer United States Senator for California
The Honorable John A. Pérez Speaker of the Assembly of California
The Honorable Darrell Steinberg Senate President pro Tempore of California
Dear Senators Feinstein and Boxer, Senate President pro Tempore Steinberg and Speaker Pérez,
Thank you for reaching out to me yesterday afternoon regarding the critical November statewide ballot measures.
I am heartened to read the comment at the end of your letter that we should “allow each initiative to stand on its own merits.” PTA has been advocating for this approach all along – even early on when some urged us to drop our support for Proposition 38 before it had a chance to qualify for the ballot and more people could learn about it.
We all agree our state needs to invest more in our public schools. As you know, adequate school funding is a top priority for California State PTA and our nearly 900,000 members. The traumatic economic events of the past five years have resulted in unacceptable cuts to public education in the amount of $20 billion. We cannot wait any longer to reverse this.
Proposition 38 identifies increasing education funding as the top priority and provides guaranteed additional revenues to every local public school to start to restore the programs and services our children need and deserve.
We deeply respect the Governor and his commitment to addressing California’s challenges. While we support a different measure this November, we understand that both of us have the best interests of California at heart. Similarly, we think voters understand that in a state as large as California, there is room for more than one idea about how best to fund our schools and help revive our economy.
Because of the significance of the decision voters face, they deserve straightforward and clear information about each of the initiatives without the distraction of negative campaigning.
While California State PTA strongly supports Proposition 38 because we feel it is the best course for children and our state, our association has not taken a position in opposition to Proposition 30. To the best of my knowledge, the many education, civil rights, business, service and other organizations that have joined our growing coalition have also not taken an opposed position to Proposition 30.
In contrast, some supporters of Proposition 30 are formally and actively opposed to Proposition 38. Some even formed a political committee and also submitted ballot arguments against Proposition 38 and testified publicly against Proposition 38.
Perhaps a good first step in creating a positive environment is to urge supporters on both sides to agree not to formally and actively oppose each other’s initiatives.
I can assure you that California State PTA will continue to advocate on behalf of all children in a manner that is mutually respectful and aimed at educating voters in a constructive, fact-based manner about the vital policy issues and solutions presented by the initiatives.
We ask all who are involved in these campaigns to make the same commitment.
Senators and Mr. Speaker, once again I truly appreciate your reaching out to the PTA. We have always worked closely with you and your offices, and we greatly value the work you do on behalf of all Californians.
We are always willing to engage in dialogue with you as well as with the Governor.
Sincerely,
Carol Kocivar President
Let me explain my thinking about publishing this: The message I (and others) received says what it says. If it’s a fair statement, that speaks for itself. If it’s an unfair statement, that gives Prop 38’s advocates an opportunity to rebut it. Either way, this advances the debate.
You’re presumably well aware why groups such as the California Democratic Party advocate voting against Prop 38: because they address overlapping issues in inconsistent ways only the one with more votes (if either or both exceed 50%) can take effect. The propositions are in competition; the question is the nature of that competition — respectful or destructive. My sense of the Prop 30 campaign is that while they do oppose Prop 30, they do so without rancor; it just so happens that both cannot prevail. If the Prop 38 campaign does likewise, which is what the message I repeat says is not the case, then there’s no problem. If, however, the trailing Prop 38 campaign tries to stay afloat by attacking Prop 30 in a destructive way — which I grant is not what you exhibit here — then it will ceate a potential disaster.
I appreciate your assurance that that won’t happen; if you think that the suggestion that you have not made that assurance is unfair or incorrect, you’re now well-placed to challenge it. May the best Proposition — but at least one of them — win.
Here’s the part of Carol Kocivar’s letter you need to reread:
“I can assure you that California State PTA will continue to advocate on behalf of all children in a manner that is mutually respectful and aimed at educating voters in a constructive, fact-based manner about the vital policy issues and solutions presented by the initiatives.
We ask all who are involved in these campaigns to make the same commitment.”
That means PTA will continue campaigning in a positive way.
I have been following both campaigns closely and nowhere have I seen a negative ad from CA PTA and at no time has the CA PTA acted disrespectfully. If you have found otherwise, please post a link.
Accusing a group of negative campaigning when they are in fact NOT engaging in negative campaigning is actually a form of negative campaigning. The supporters of Prop 30 and the groups that have been formed to officially oppose Prop 38 know this very well. It would serve them well to stop this preemptive “smearing” of a completely volunteer organization that has collectively donated hundreds of thousands of hours to our children and our schools.
And yes, may the best proposition for our students win in November.
I did see that part of the letter. I find it hard to square with the Prop 38 proponents’ alleged refusal to agree to a Positive Campaign Compact as outlined in the letter (unless Ace Smith is referring to actors other than the PTA itself, and merely wishes the PTA to lean on them.)
Some side either has a misconception or is making a deliberate misrepresentation. Perhaps alerting all signs to this will help to parse it out. If the Prop 38 proponents have agreed to whatever it is Ace Smith says that they haven’t agreed to, I’m happy to so note it here. What I don’t know is whether the statement you cite above falls short of doing that. I’ll send your comments to Ace Smith and hope for a reply.
I don’t see how beating up on a group of parent volunteers is going to help your cause.
I must challenge your characterization of this story. I’m illustrating the charge made by the author of the message. If it’s untrue, and remains untrue, then I’m happy to see it.
The graphic atop this article is more offensive than anything the CA PTA has said or done with respect to the tax initiatives. In the future, please try to set a better example for a positive debate.
“More offensive”? It’s absurd and satirical, playing against the mild-mannered reputation of the PTA, as well expressed in the graphic I adapted. For the record, I do not think that PTA members have fangs. I do think that Prop 38, following Molly Munger, and making a political mistake, albeit with good intentions, that may have tragic consequences for the state — and I feel entitled to use such relatively gentle (because silly) visual humor to illustrate that proposition.
I take hope that with both initiatives on the ballot and the bitter “internecine” dispute being waged – that voters will say “a pox on both of your houses” and vote NO on both measures.
I suspect Brown will head back to the the CNA soon, and perhaps the CTA to drum up another two million to blitz the airwaves (which cummulous is counting on according to the latest 10Q (initiatives are exempt from ad caps) and scare everyone into a yes vote.
Meanwhile he is avoiding mention of the HSR, the parks scandal or the 900 capitol staffers who got raises, count on him claiming this is “ALL ABOUT SCHOOLS”.
And side by side Munger will claim her plan does more to help schools now.
Preety disgusting, what the PTA (and Govenror Brown) have come to: Basically using kids as a human sheild for the General Fund.
I’m voting NO until I can be convinced this makes sense (or trust Sacramento again).
I know that skally is hopeless in this respect, but what do you see as the consequences of a “no” vote?
The CA PTA has already said in its reply — very clearly — that it will continue to run a respectful campaign. So I ask you, Ace, to please underline in the letter where PTA says it intends to run a “harsh and negative campaign” — or even as you say is “signaling” that it will do so.
Sending out a letter asking others to ask a group to refrain from doing something they are not doing is irresponsible at best and is a kind of bullying at worst.
Also, the $6 billion worth of cuts that our schools will face is the invention of Jerry Brown. There is no logical basis for cutting schools in this disproportionate and unfair manner.
As a Standard & Poor’s analysis of the governor’s budget acknowledged, “(T)he automatic trigger cuts included in the final fiscal year 2013 budget will likely serve a different purpose than they did for 2012. Whereas . . . the purpose of the midyear trigger cuts in fiscal year 2012 was to partially offset the risk associated with optimistic revenue assumptions, in fiscal year 2013 we anticipate the trigger cuts will be designed to mitigate the potential for voters to reject the governor’s tax initiative.”
In other words, the trigger cuts are there to force voters to endorse the governor’s tax measure. They are not the natural result of the tax measure failing. The governor and supporters of his initiative are using this $6 billion cut as a hammer. Only time will tell if this harsh tactic will backfire.
Asking supporters of Prop 38 to refrain from even mentioning the governor’s initiative in ads is somewhat unreasonable. The campaign would simply be drawing truthful distinctions between two extremely important measures.
As the parent of two children in CA public schools I would love to see funding increase to be at least in line with the national average — and not 47th in per pupil spending — so I will be voting for Prop 38. If it doesn’t pass, I would hope that our schools can at least collect the consolation prize of flat funding that the governor’s initiative offers.
I appreciate your stating your position (and your challenge to Ace Smith) so clearly. I do have a question for you.
Many experienced political observers (whose opinions you may of course choose not to credit) think that it’s hard enough to ask voters to increase taxes once on a given ballot and that asking them to do so twice significantly raises the likelihood that they will reject both requests. (This is why the Governor’s original plan was combined with the Millionaire’s Tax to begin with — and why many people expected aspects of Molly Munger’s proposal would have been included in a compromise as well.)
Is it your opinion that this belief is untrue or that it is (or may be) true but that its truth doesn’t matter? If not, how else do you reconcile the prospect that while Prop 38 may be entirely worthwhile in its own right it may “break the camel’s back” and lead to no increased state funding at all? (I presume that you’re aware that schools would benefit from Prop 30 due to the state’s payment of overdue Prop 98 funds.)
I believe CA is in a unique situation at this point. Our school funding is at an all time low — 47th in the nation, per pupil. We have the highest student to teacher, student to counselor and student to administrator ratios in the nation. CA public schools used to be a golden example for the rest of the country. Now our children and our children’s children are getting short changed. Parents are becoming aware of these dire facts and parents are becoming angry. I get the sense that we are treading new ground here and new scenarios are emerging. All bets could very well be off. What some consider common wisdom about how voters will vote is, I believe, on a trajectory out the window. Prop 38 is the only initiative that guarantees money for our schools. I think that unique provision will resonate with parents who are fed up with $20 billion cut from our schools over the last four years — and more threatened absurd and devastating cuts coming if the governor doesn’t get his way. I think voter anger over all the above will shatter conventional wisdom. For the sake of our children, I hope it does.
An institution forced to reflect on consequences, Hopefully a lesson learned by future legislators, some sense of responsibility by elected people and powerful organizations.
For Example, I would hope Governor Brown steps up and says, ” As much I believe that California needs to move forward with infastructure projects like HSR, we just can not afford to focus on that right now.
Secondly, I would like to see him address meaningful education reform at the Community College level. Perhaps one of the biggest culprits in wasted, misguided public funds.
If we need to close the door on some social programs like WIC and/or Medi-Cal, so be it. Even if it means refusing Federal money.
I don’t believe for a minute that the CTA will allow a month to be cut from the school year for three simple letters: ADA. The lifeblood of education is attendance.
If you want to save money in education, there is only ONE way: Address teacher pay/pensions. Thats where the oney is, not books, not buildings. In exchange, perhaps we explore aboloshing redundant agencies, like the County Offices of Education OR roll independent school districts into the COE’s. California has 58 counties and something like 999 school districts. That’s a lot of fat.
If we have to stop providing BREAKFAST and LUNCH all summer to certain segments of society (a program I think you support and I know Sharron Quirk Silva does), then thats one consequense.
The Governor has staked this as an education issue PERIOD. But, we all know this is going to end up in the General Fund. Which is why I am opposed.
To be clear, I am not opposed to a tax increase on anyone OR everyone if we fix some of the problems. I say go after PROP 10 cash first. RAID THAT SHUT DOWN PRE-K for ten years. It’s a huge waste of cash. When we are financially able start it up again.
TAX MILK! That way we can recycle some of the “black cash” back into the system.
In addition to CA PTA these groups and people also support Prop 38 . . . with more school districts taking votes in the coming weeks . . .
State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Torlakson
California Retired Teachers Association
California School Boards Association
California Head Start Association (CHSA)
Child Care Alliance of Los Angeles
Former L.A. Mayor Richard Riordan
Alameda Unified
Hayward Unified
Metropolitan Education District
Oxnard Elementary School District
Paradise Unified
Pasadena Unified
Sacrament Board of Education
Sacramento City Unified
San Diego Unified
San Francisco Unified
Santa Monica-Malibu Unified
Stockton Unified
Summerville Union High School District
Torrance Unified
nameless is correct – it’s the pensions.
Calstrs is now so far behind its forecast that the stock market would have to be almost 2.5 times higher than it is today in order for the system to meet that forecast, and from that point would have to double every nine years to keep pace. As a result, 6 million schoolchildren will get no benefit from the proposed tax increase. Worse, unless accompanied by a systemic solution, the tax increase will simply mask the problem and enable it to grow.
The problem was caused by politicians who made — and are still making — promises without contributing sufficient amounts to meet those promises.
Solving the problem requires sacrifices from all Californians, which means some combination of the steps taken by courageous leaders in states such as Rhode Island and Colorado to address the source of their pension problems. Those steps include reasonable taxe incrreases in return for lower benefits for newer and current teachers, higher employee contributions and lower cost-of-living adjustments for retirees.
Unless addressed, more and more tax dollars will go to pension costs instead of to the classroom. In fact, not only would the proposed tax increase provide just two-thirds of the Calstrs request but a recent study from Stanford University says the system actually needs to triple, not just to double, its current contributions. That means even less money will make it to the classroom.
No pension reform – no higher taxes.
So basically, is your position that even IF there were theoretically a reasonable and painless tax that could be imposed to solve California’s current fiscal problems, you would rather see the state government founder and sink than to enact that tax in the absence of “pension reform”?
Before I name that approach, I want to make sure that I understand you correctly.
correct-a-mundo
OK. The kind term for that is “playing chicken.” The less kind terms are “blackmail” and “extortion.”
I’ll consider pension reforms in due course. For now, I’d like to save the flippin’ state government, if it’s not too traumatic for you.
It’s called tough love. For an addict the first thing that must be done is to remove access to the drug – which in this case is taxpayer money.
As PJ O’Rourke says, “Giving money to legislators is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenagers.”
It’s not love of any kind, skally, it’s “tough beans.”
Would you call the governor’s threatened $6 billion cuts (90% of cuts, when schools get 40% of the budget) if his initiative doesn’t prevail “blackmail and extortion” as well, or is he just “playing chicken” with the voters too? I know what I call it.
I think that he’s being frank. He’s looking at where in the budget the state could possibly cut. Where do you think he should talk about cutting instead — not paying bondholders? (I actually do have an answer to this, but it’s not politically feasible.)
Not falling into that trap, there, Greg. If you say, the governor is not “playing chicken”, but merely being “frank” — you go with that. The governor is holding our students hostage just the same as those who refuse to vote for any tax increase. You can call it what you like . . . “tough love”, “tough beans” or being “frank”. The result will be the same. A public education system that is too damaged to recover and students who are ill prepared for a competitive market place. The result will be a state that cannot sustain itself and becomes permanently stuck in its downward spiral.
It would also be helpful for the governor to remember that education is cheaper than incarceration.
Incarceration is the other main pot of money that could be cut. The public is — unfortunately, in my view — apparently less willing to cut down on prisons than on schools. That’s a political reality that I would hope that the likes of you and I could help change. (It would be wonderful, for example, to see the PTA get behind a “Regulate Marijuana Like Wine” proposal that would massively reduce the prison population. Dedicate the whole cash flow from taxes and fees to education, so far as I’m concerned.)
I don’t know why the Governor is threatening students but not prisons — unless, as I suspect, it’s simple candor on his part that he won’t be successful in cutting prisons. If that’s true — a political judgment that the Governor is far better situated to make than am I — then all he’s doing is telling the truth. I hate that it’s true, but my displeasure doesn’t change the fact of it. What else would you have him do?
Supporting both measures when only one can take effect strikes me as disingenuous. I strongly wish that Molly Munger had cut a deal with the Governor earlier this year — but she didn’t. So I can only support one — and hope that something like Prop 38 gets its place in line ASAP thereafter.
That sounds perfect – a “Regulate Marijuana Like Wine” earmarked toward education. Bob Dylan can sing “EEEVRYBODY must get schooled!”
PS – ten minutes later – someone must have been listening – that old song JUST came on at the hamburger joint I’m at.
Nobody addresses the responsibility of government, which chokes me. Two swift examples before us will be exploited ad-nauseam (HSR and the State Parks fiasco), politically, the Governor will make those (or try to) make those go away.
But, the fact is: in the face of unprecedented budget shortfalls, Sacramento (the legislature) gave raises to more than 900 people, many high paid employyes already, approved BILLIONS in an unproven, frankly unbelieveable project in HSR, Embark on another “pipe dream” supposedly protecting the California Delta for a few billion.
Meanwhile, a simple heatwave shut down the DMV for a day last week.
Sacramento is broken. and throwing more money at the problem is not the answer.
That’s why Prop 38 is great. It sends the money to schools and mandates strict local oversight without funneling it through Sacramento where it is vulnerable to — all that is Sacramento.
HSR is “frankly unbelievable”? You mean that China, Japan, France, Germany, etc. are fooling us with their shiny trains? Clever bastids!
Mistakes and misappropriations are in the nature of large organizations. Why, I hear that even private companies have experienced them.
Greg,
I have riden (is that a word) all of those trains you mention. In fact, I spent a great deal of time riding two of them.
There is a BIG difference between the governments that you mention and California’s. China has no union labor, slaves built that. Imigrants built the systems in Europe (save Germany, which was fraught with technical problems….but thats Germany).
To suggest that large projects are routinely faced with the problems I mentioned is a weak arguement. HSR is a BAD MOVE for California right now. I was a huge proponent of it at one time, until I studied it. Have you?
What are the ridership estimates? How accurate are they? California is larger and completely different fro the lines you describe. You should back off and study this.
If a single person could tell me how to conquer the Tehachipi’s I’d listen. I’d rather see the Corona to Irvine tunnel.
The best thing Govenor Brown, was force out the lying crooked politico, Tom Umberg. Another politically connected thief. This man is dishonest. PERIOD. To think that he was in charge of a BILLION DOLLAR project is laughable, if not scary.
Let me remind you: A BILLION is a THOUSAND MILLION.
The project is upward of $20,000,000,000
And we can’t fund schools????????
Get disgraceful democrats like Umberg out of the picture and maybe people will start to listen. I can not be bought off with tax dollars like Robin, but most people can.
Honestly, ‘less, I think that we can generate revenue in various good ways. I think that HSR is not only important as a jobs and manufacturing program, but that it’s sort of an “entry fee” into continuing to be taken seriously in the 21st century. After a while — as with national health care and the metric system — the question of why it is conspicuously absent becomes larger. I’m not normally a big one for “national greatness” thinking, but in this case I think that there’s something to it. My sense is that the technological challenges (e.g. the Tehachipis) can be resolved.
I’m happy to see people acting as watchdogs over corruption and such, but I do think that it is a greater need for future competitiveness than you think. I’m not going to defend Umberg, whom I don’t think I’ve ever met.
Yes, let’s spend all those billions on high speed rail and not education . . . because everyone in L.A. needs to get to Fresno in an hour and a half. Fresno — gotta love it.
San Francisco and Sacramento, eventually.
You know that a massive amount of the money is coming from the federal government, making this a very good deal — possibly not one to be available again anytime soon — for the state, right? Saving money on building HSR, which will happen eventually, means more money for righteous causes like education.
A better use of the money (than HSR) would be going to putting a man on Mars. More technology would be developed than building a train that will “eventually” go to San Francisco.
But to my other point, wasteful spending and decieit, I saw this in the weekends Bee:
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/18/4736869/testimony-chief-told-of-parks.html
So here we have a high level official “playing chicken”, threatening to close parks, allthewhile hiding $20 Million. Chump change to be sure, but, representitive of my position regarding Prop 30.
You can call it by any name you like, but it just doesn’t make sense to raise taxes, while spending BILLIONS on an umproven entity like HSR.
More technology developed going to Mars? What about the spinoffs from the Tehachapi dilemma – such as eventually helping to propel everybody over their livingroom sofas?
Eventually it will go to S. F. and Sacramento — or never.
Not gonna hold my breath on the PTA spearheading a “Regulate Marijuana Like Wine” proposal with all taxes going to education, but it’s a novel idea. Then perhaps someone can redo your pta graphic and replace the snarling fangs with pta members holding bongs.
It is interesting, in poll after poll Californians say that properly funding education needs to be a priority and yet education is traditionally the easy target. Maybe the governor is using this polling information to add drama to his threats of more cuts, who knows? But we all know that it is cheaper to educate a person that to jail them and that people with a good education are less likely to need public assistance and entitlements.
Also, I do recall hearing that the governor was not interested in compromising with Molly. He simply wanted her to abandon her initiative. There was no offer of compromise. It’s too bad, a blend of the two could have worked, i.e. use the the guarantee part of Prop 38 (it’s the only initiative that guarantees the money will actually go to our schools), along with the mandated community input part and mandated transparency part of Prop 38 — that would have been a good start.
What the governor needs to do, if he wants his initiative to win, is to be completely honest about it. So far he isn’t. His initiative does not guarantee money for our schools as he says it does. It only guarantees money for our prisons. He claims that all the money is for our schools, when it is not. He also leads people to believe that the money schools will get (if they get it) is money that is above the usual amount. It isn’t. All he is doing is starting to pay back money that schools have been owed. He’s also planning to borrow billions more money from schools — even if his initiative passes. This all feels very shady and people are catching on. The governor needs to come clean if he wants voters to trust him.
“Poll after poll” — you remember, don’t you, that the Field poll tested both propositions several times. To put it mildly, Munger’s bigger tax hike was frowned upon.
“All he is doing is starting to pay back money that schools have been owed.” As if that’s chopped liver?
You know very well why the prison funding guarantee is there: to get conservative votes. Get rid of Prop 13’s 2/3 requirement and we see a different proposition, a different appeal, and a different style from the Governor. Munger doesn’t seem to care about the difficulty of passing a bill, which is why she’s happy to see people tear Prop 30 down, as you do here. I guess now we know why there was no Positive Campaign pact.