California 30-38

No, "California 30-38" is not a sports score, and, no, it's not a highway designation. 30 and 38 are competing propositions in the November 6 election, and Californians are in such agreement about the problem they each seek to address, that we're going to send them each down to defeat. But let me explain what they are first, and then tell you why we're probably screwed.

Here's the basic problem: Our state is broke. Our June 2012 budget gap was about $16.6 billion. The budget deal worked out between Governor Brown and the legislature balanced the budget with about $8.1 billion in spending cuts, $2.5 billion in "transfers," and the last $6 billion in new taxes "pending voter approval."

Prop 30 was placed on the ballot by the Governor as part of that budget deal. The $6 billion hole is filled by increasing the tax on incomes over $250,000 (or $500,000 for couples filing jointly) for a period of seven years, and a 1/4 cent per $1 increase in sales tax for four years. The funds go into an "Education Protection Account" within the state General Fund. Because it's within the General Fund, it increases the Prop 98 guarantees to education (K-12, plus Community Colleges), but also frees up some existing funds for other purposes.

The Prop 30 taxes go into effect immediately to cover the $6 billion gap in the current year's budget. If it fails, the budget deal included "trigger cuts." We will have a balanced budget this year, no matter what. Those $6 billion in automatic cuts include $5.3 billion from public schools for the current school year. Ever wondered what would happen if thousands of teachers got laid off in the middle of the school year? Or if your local school district defaulted on its bond payments? You might just find out if Prop 30 fails to pass.

Prop 38 is an alternative tax plan, not negotiated by the legislature, but put on the ballot by Molly Munger, who has spent about $33 million of her own money to pass it.  (Coincidentally, Molly's brother, Charles Munger Jr., has spent about $22 million of his own to lead the fight against Prop 30). Prop 38 raises income taxes on just about everybody (incomes over $7,000) for twelve years, but leaves sales tax alone. The money goes into an "Education Trust Fund," but this one is outside of the General Fund, so it is in addition to the Prop 98 guaranteed funding from the (diminished) General Fund. Prop 38 does not include Community College funding, but does include early childhood education.

Prop 38 could be an interesting alternative to the Governor's plan, except for one fatal flaw: It takes effect next year, leaving the "trigger cuts" in place for this year. Prop 38 might help in the future, but the chaos the trigger cuts would cause in education this year would do incredible harm to 100% of public school students in the state this generation. But I will vote for it anyway.

Yes, I will vote for 38, AND I will vote for 30. The proponents of each have campaigned as though we have to make a choice, and can only vote for one or the other. That is not true. And this is why I say we are doomed.

California law provides for a way to reconcile two propositions passing which each address the same issue: The one with the most votes prevails. Yes, if you vote for 30 & 38, and they both pass, you don't get two tax increases, you only get the one with the most support.

Prop 30 was headed for victory, until the Mungers, Molly and Charles, put over $55 million of their fortunes into ads against 30 and for 38. Now support for 30 has dipped to 46% approval. Meanwhile, Prop 38 only has 39% of voter approval in current polling. Now, it's been a while since I was in school, but in the old days 46+39 equaled 85% in favor of one or the other. Even if we assume there's some overlap in support, there's clearly a majority in favor of some tax increase.

Despite the fact that the majority of Californians agree that we need to enact one or the other tax increase to save our schools, and our state's competitive edge, both propositions will fail because we're being presented with the election as a "choose one only" option. The majority are for saving the state, but those who would rather destroy California than pay one cent more in taxes win by dividing and conquering the majority. Which, the conspiracy-minded might wonder, may have been what the Mungers had in mind all along.

If you're a Californian voter, I hope that you'll join me in voting for both propositions, 30 & 38, and may the better solution prevail.

Here's my quickie ballot guide to the rest of the California initiatives:

30 - taxes/budget	Yes
31 - budget reform	No
32 - special exemptions	No
33 - auto Insurance	undecided
34 - end death penalty	Yes
35 - human trafficking	Yes
36 - 3 strikes reform	Yes
37 - GMO labeling	Yes
38 - tax rates	Yes
39 - business tax	Yes
40 - redistricting	Yes

Standing Up for California's Schools

About a year ago I blogged about "Pink Friday" - the designation given last year to the March 15 deadline to give teachers layoff notices, or "pink slips," due to California state budget cuts in education.

Well, this year, March 15 falls on a Monday, and the pink slips have already begun appearing. So far, statewide, over 18,000 teachers have been told that their services will not be required for the next school year. That number will increase over the next twelve days. Of course, the number of children in school will not be likewise cut. Instead, class sizes will increase and services will be cut.

In my wife's school, second grade classrooms will increase from 20 to 30 students each, and teachers will have less time to prep lessons and grade work because they'll each have additional yard duty to fill in for other adjunct staff who have also been pink slipped. Oh, and she'll take home less money as health insurance premiums increase and the district considers whether to enact three or five mandatory furlough days.

Yes, this is obviously personal to me, but if you have children in California's schools, or you run a business that hires graduates of California's schools, or you see the benefits of an educated population on such things as civil participation and crime prevention, it should be personal to you too.

A few things to consider:
• Lawmakers have cut more than $17 billion from public schools and colleges in the last two years and more cuts have been proposed.
• Class sizes have increased to unmanageable numbers, denying students the one-on-one attention they need. More than 70 percent of elementary schools reported class size increases.
• Art, music, PE, career technical education and summer school programs have been eliminated.
• California spends $2,400 less per student than the national average and ranks 46th in per-pupil funding.

This is not just about K-12 education either, but our state colleges and universities:
• Student enrollment fees increased more than 30% this year. Rising student fees and reduced course offerings mean fewer students can go to college.

So, what can you do? Tomorrow, Thursday, March 4, there will be Stand Up For Schools rallies throughout the state. From silent protests in the morning before classes begin, to informational meetings in the evening where you can learn how to fight Sacramento and demand a quality education for your community, there's something you can do.

Search the events page at Stand Up For Schools to see what's happening in your community. If you don't see anything listed on the website, contact your child's teacher, school, or district office.

Another nice thing about these events is the teamwork behind them. These are not just organized by the teacher's unions, or just a few administrators working together, but a collaboration between the unions, the districts, the administrators, and other education staff and groups.

Many times we say things like, "Our state's future depends on this." Well, it may be trite to say it again, but this time, I really mean it.

Happy [Fiscal] New Year?

July 1 is the start of the fiscal year for many businesses, as well as the state of California and our neighbor, Arizona. Besides a border and fiscal year, CA and AZ share another thing in common: they will each begin issuing IOUs to their employees, vendors, contractors, and others due to the inability of our elected representatives to agree on a state budget. In fact, 19 states are on the verge of such financial calamity.

Some cheer this as a bit of political anarchy and showmanship. I, however, am not alone in finding this grandstanding mockery of the democratic process to be an irresponsible dereliction of duty.

My friend in Arizona, JR Snyder, Jr., has blogged about his thoughts on the state government shutdown. Although from the opposite side of the political spectrum on many issues, JR and I are agreed on this fact. From JR's blog:

If you choose to take the position that the state needs a shutdown to get it's house in order, know the consequences no matter which side you're on. Social services may be distasteful but the answer is not abruptly halting them without some thoughtful unwinding. The chaos ensuing affects all citizens, because the ripple of destruction will run through the state economy on all levels.

Destruction is not the same as Disruption.

There are good reasons why even a partial shutdown is a very bad idea right now. A shutdown will destroy the state's credit rating. We are already insolvent and any money borrowed to operate will have to be paid back at higher interest rates due to bad credit. The entire state economy is in a precarious position and even a 24 hour shutdown will have a negative impact and far worse if protracted. The law suits against the state alone will hinder us for decades.

Many find these state shutdowns to acceptable because of the assumption that it will only hurt either "welfare queens" or faceless bureaucrats. And wouldn't it be fun to think of this as our way of getting revenge on that idiot at the DMV who kept me waiting in line for three hours?

But, as I commented on JR's blog, the IOUs will be going to more than just these usual political scapegoats. They'll be going to suppliers and contractors to all sorts of state run or funded institutions and offices. The companies that supply food to the prisons, or who have maintenance contracts with the universities, or provide linens to hospitals (etc., etc.).

Those suppliers, in turn, cannot pay their staff with IOUs; they need money. Many of them are small, local businesses that will be forced to lay off staff, and possibly shut their doors for good, if the budget impasse continues for more than a couple of weeks. This will slow down local spending and hurt the economy in communities up and down each of the 19 budgetless states, and far beyond the state capitals or the homes of bureaucrats from the other party.

Demand your representatives do their jobs and pass a budget! Whichever side of the political fence you're on, our legislators have a duty to run their states in a responsible manner. Political grandstanding that costs regular citizens their livelihood is wrong, from the left or the right.

California Über Alles ~ We've Got a Bigger Problem Now

From the San Francisco Chronicle, Monday, May 21, 2007:

As the costs for fixing the state's troubled corrections system rocket higher, California is headed for a dubious milestone -- for the first time the state will spend more on incarcerating inmates than on educating students in its public universities.

Based on current spending trends, California's prison budget will overtake spending on the state's universities in five years. No other big state in the country spends close to as much on its prisons compared with universities.

Our wondrous state legislature has decided to spend $7.4 billion to build 40,000 new prison beds - all in addition to the current annual prisons budget of more than $10 billion. "Interest payments alone on the billions of dollars of bonds that will be sold to finance the new construction will amount to $330 million a year by 2011."

Does the fact that we'll be investing in prisons far more than we'll be investing in higher education say anything about our priorities? Let's ask Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez:

"I'll tell you what, it's clearly not a statement of our priorities. Our policies are hurting the economy of California. This is a disservice to our economy."

Well then, surely the new spending is supported by the legislators that oversee prison spending. Let's check in with Assemblyman Todd Spitzer, chairman of the committee overseeing the state's prison construction efforts:

"I'm not defending the damn department. The department is a shambles. They couldn't build their way out of a paper bag. Everyone has a reason to be skeptical. Everyone is holding their breath, hoping that this time they're successful."

Well, I feel much better knowing that prison spending is not a higher priority than higher education (even though we're spending more on it), and that we don't actually believe that throwing money at the prison system will fix it (even though that's what we're doing instead of looking for solutions).

This is probably a very good thing, actually. Because when we allow our educational systems to go to hell, we'll have a higher and higher percentage of our population in prisons, and it will become a higher priority than education. And then, once everybody' in prison, we can educate them there! It all makes perfect sense.

NOTE: This post's title is in reference to two songs by the Dead Kennedys - California Über Alles and its sequel We've Got A Bigger Problem Now.