Difference between revisions of "California Proposition 30, Sales and Income Tax Increase (2012)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Donors)
m (Text replace - "charter school" to "charter schools")
(48 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
 
  referred  = Petition signatures |
 
  referred  = Petition signatures |
 
  topic = [[:Category:Taxes, California|Taxes]] |
 
  topic = [[:Category:Taxes, California|Taxes]] |
  status = On the ballot|
+
  status = {{approved}} |
}}{{tnr}}'''Proposition 30, a Sales and Income Tax Increase Initiative,''' is on the [[California 2012 ballot propositions|November 6, 2012 ballot]] in [[California]] as an {{icafull}}.<ref name=certified>[http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/21/4577951/jerry-browns-proposal-and-two.html ''Sacramento Bee'', "Jerry Brown's proposal and two other tax measures qualify for November ballot", June 21, 2012]</ref>
+
}}{{tnr}}'''Proposition 30, a Sales and Income Tax Increase Initiative,''' was on the [[California 2012 ballot propositions|November 6, 2012 ballot]] in [[California]] as an {{icafull}}, where it was '''approved.'''<ref name=certified>[http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/21/4577951/jerry-browns-proposal-and-two.html ''Sacramento Bee'', "Jerry Brown's proposal and two other tax measures qualify for November ballot," June 21, 2012]</ref>
  
Gov. [[Jerry Brown]] is leading the charge for Proposition 30, which is a merger of two previously competing initiatives; the [[California "Millionaire's Tax Initiative" (2012)|"Millionaire's Tax"]] and [[Jerry Brown's California Tax Increase Initiative (2012)|Brown's First Tax Increase Proposal]].<ref name=merge>[http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-15/brown-reaches-deal-with-union-on-tax-increase-compromise ''Business Week'', "Brown Reaches Deal With Union on Tax-Increase Compromise", March 15, 2012]</ref>
+
Gov. [[Jerry Brown]] led the charge for Proposition 30, which was a merger of two previously competing initiatives; the [[California "Millionaire's Tax Initiative" (2012)|"Millionaire's Tax"]] and [[Jerry Brown's California Tax Increase Initiative (2012)|Brown's First Tax Increase Proposal]].<ref name=merge>[http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-15/brown-reaches-deal-with-union-on-tax-increase-compromise ''Business Week'', "Brown Reaches Deal With Union on Tax-Increase Compromise," March 15, 2012]</ref>
  
Provisions of Proposition 30 include:
+
Proposition 30:
  
* Raises California’s sales tax to 7.5% from 7.25%, a 3.45% percentage increase over current law. (Under the [[Jerry Brown's California Tax Increase Initiative (2012)|Brown Tax Hike]], the sales tax would have increased to 7.75%)<ref name=nbc/><ref>[http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i1057_12-0009_governors_initiative_v3.pdf ''California Secretary of State'', "The Schools and Public Safety Protection Act of 2012, Version 3", March 14, 2012], pages 8-9.</ref>
+
* Raises California’s sales tax to 7.5% from 7.25%, a 3.45% percentage increase over current law. (Under the [[Jerry Brown's California Tax Increase Initiative (2012)|Brown Tax Hike]], the sales tax would have increased to 7.75%)<ref name=nbc/><ref>[http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i1057_12-0009_governors_initiative_v3.pdf ''California Secretary of State'', "The Schools and Public Safety Protection Act of 2012, Version 3," March 14, 2012], pages 8-9.</ref>
* Creates four high-income tax brackets for taxpayers with taxable incomes exceeding $250,000, $300,000, $500,000 and $1,000,000. This increased tax will be in effect for 7 years.<ref name=nbc/><ref>[http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i1057_12-0009_governors_initiative_v3.pdf ''California Secretary of State'', "The Schools and Public Safety Protection Act of 2012, Version 3", March 14, 2012], pages 9-10.</ref><ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-brown-taxes-california-20120316,0,6549021.story ''Los Angeles Times'', "Jerry Brown, tax realist", March 16, 2012]</ref>  
+
* Creates four high-income tax brackets for taxpayers with taxable incomes exceeding $250,000, $300,000, $500,000 and $1,000,000. This increased tax will be in effect for 7 years.<ref name=nbc/><ref>[http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i1057_12-0009_governors_initiative_v3.pdf ''California Secretary of State'', "The Schools and Public Safety Protection Act of 2012, Version 3," March 14, 2012], pages 9-10.</ref><ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-brown-taxes-california-20120316,0,6549021.story ''Los Angeles Times'', "Jerry Brown, tax realist," accessed March 16, 2012]</ref>  
* Imposes a 10.3% tax rate on taxable income over $250,000 but less than $300,000--a percentage increase of 10.6% over current policy of 9.3%.  The 10.3% income tax rate is currently only paid by taxpayers with over $1,000,000 in taxable income.<ref name=taxfoundation_states>[http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/228.html ''Tax Foundation'', "State Individual Income Tax Rates, 2000-2012", February 16, 2012]</ref>.
+
* Imposes a 10.3% tax rate on taxable income over $250,000 but less than $300,000--a percentage increase of 10.6% over current policy of 9.3%.  The 10.3% income tax rate is currently only paid by taxpayers with over $1,000,000 in taxable income.<ref name=taxfoundation_states>[http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/228.html ''Tax Foundation'', "State Individual Income Tax Rates, 2000-2012," February 16, 2012]</ref>.
 
* Imposes an 11.3% tax rate on taxable income over $300,000 but less than $500,000--a percentage increase of 21.5% over current policy of 9.3%.  
 
* Imposes an 11.3% tax rate on taxable income over $300,000 but less than $500,000--a percentage increase of 21.5% over current policy of 9.3%.  
 
* Imposes a 12.3% tax rate on taxable income over $500,000 up to $1,000,000--a percentage increase of 32.26% over current policy of 9.3%.   
 
* Imposes a 12.3% tax rate on taxable income over $500,000 up to $1,000,000--a percentage increase of 32.26% over current policy of 9.3%.   
Line 23: Line 23:
 
* Based on California Franchise Tax Board data for 2009<ref name="ftb_2009">[https://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutFTB/Tax_Statistics/Reports/2010_B-4A.pdf ''California Franchise Tax Board'', "Table B-4A.1: Personal Income Tax Statistics for Resident Tax Returns (Tax Year 2009), 2010 Annual Report]</ref>, the additional income tax is imposed on the top 3% of California taxpayers.   
 
* Based on California Franchise Tax Board data for 2009<ref name="ftb_2009">[https://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutFTB/Tax_Statistics/Reports/2010_B-4A.pdf ''California Franchise Tax Board'', "Table B-4A.1: Personal Income Tax Statistics for Resident Tax Returns (Tax Year 2009), 2010 Annual Report]</ref>, the additional income tax is imposed on the top 3% of California taxpayers.   
  
Estimated revenue from Proposition 30 vary from Jerry Brown's $9 billion estimate to the $6.8 billion estimated by the non-partisan [[California Legislative Analyst's Office|Legislative Analysts Office (LAO)]].<ref>[http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/03/california-budget-analyst-lao-says-tax-revenue-less-than-jerry-brown-projects.html ''Sacramento Bee'', "Budget analyst: Tax revenue less than Jerry Brown projects", March 16, 2012]</ref>.  The difference stem for the volatility caused by capital gains income from high-income earners, an issue in California's tax system previously identified by the Legislative Analysts Office (LAO).<ref>[http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/rev_vol/rev_volatility_012005.pdf ''California Legislative Analysts Office (LAO), Elizabeth G. Hill'', "Revenue Volatility in California", January, 2005]</ref>
+
Estimated revenue from Proposition 30 vary from Jerry Brown's $9 billion estimate to the $6.8 billion estimated by the nonpartisan [[California Legislative Analyst's Office|Legislative Analysts Office (LAO)]].<ref>[http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/03/california-budget-analyst-lao-says-tax-revenue-less-than-jerry-brown-projects.html ''Sacramento Bee'', "Budget analyst: Tax revenue less than Jerry Brown projects," accessed March 16, 2012]</ref>.  The difference stem for the volatility caused by capital gains income from high-income earners, an issue in California's tax system previously identified by the Legislative Analysts Office (LAO).<ref>[http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/rev_vol/rev_volatility_012005.pdf ''California Legislative Analysts Office (LAO), Elizabeth G. Hill'', "Revenue Volatility in California," January, 2005]</ref>
 +
 
 +
==Election results==
 +
:: ''See also: [[2012 ballot measure election results]]''
 +
 
 +
{{Short outcome
 +
| title = California Proposition 30
 +
| yes = 7,014,114
 +
| yespct = 55.4
 +
| no = 5,653,637
 +
| nopct = 44.6
 +
| image = {{approved}}
 +
| unresolved =
 +
}}
 +
[[Category:Approved, general, 2012]]
 +
[[Category:Approved, notable, 2012]]
 +
:''These final, certified, results are from the [http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2012-general/sov-complete.pdf California Secretary of State].''
 +
 
 +
==Aftermath==
 +
 
 +
In the aftermath of the approval of Proposition 30, pundits across the country debated whether Proposition 30's higher taxes on wealthy individuals would lead any of those individuals to decide to leave the state.<ref name=pdleave>[http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/ci_22555254/higher-taxes-rich-california-residents-consider-move-cheaper ''The Daily Democrat'', "With higher taxes, rich California residents consider move to cheaper pastures," February 9, 2013]</ref>
 +
 
 +
Chris Plastiras, the owner of a real estate company in Nevada, since that since Proposition 30 passed, 14 of the 27 high-end homes he sold between the election and the end of January 2013 were to wealthy individuals leaving California for Nevada. He said, "They're buying fast and furious, absolutely. I've never seen anything quite like this. Prop. 30 really got a lot of people upset and they feel like they're being singled out, and that was pretty much the straw that broke the camel's back for them."<ref name=pdleave/>
  
 
==Text of measure==
 
==Text of measure==
Line 35: Line 57:
 
===Summary===  
 
===Summary===  
  
The [[California Voter Guide (official)|state's official voter guide]] includes two summaries for each statewide ballot measure. One summary, in bullet-point format, appears in the long-form description of each measure. A shorter form of the summary appears on the ballot label in the front of the voter guide, where there is a short description of each measure.
+
The [[California Voter Guide (official)|state's official voter guide]] included two summaries for each statewide ballot measure. One summary, in bullet-point format, was in the long-form description of each measure. A shorter form of the summary was on the ballot label in the front of the voter guide.
  
The long-form summary for Proposition 30 says:
+
The long-form summary for Proposition 30 said:
  
 
{| style="width:85%; background:#F5F5DC; margin-top:.1em; border:2px solid #cccccc; solid;"
 
{| style="width:85%; background:#F5F5DC; margin-top:.1em; border:2px solid #cccccc; solid;"
Line 51: Line 73:
 
|}
 
|}
  
The short-form (ballot label) summary for Proposition 30 says:
+
The short-form (ballot label) summary for Proposition 30 said:
  
 
{| style="width:85%; background:#F5F5DC; margin-top:.1em; border:2px solid #cccccc; solid;"
 
{| style="width:85%; background:#F5F5DC; margin-top:.1em; border:2px solid #cccccc; solid;"
Line 77: Line 99:
 
==Constitutional changes==
 
==Constitutional changes==
  
If Proposition 30 is approved, it will change the [[California Constitution]]. It will do this by adding a [[Text of California Proposition 30 (November 2012)#SEC. 4.|proposed new Section 36]] to [[Article XIII, California Constitution|Article XIII]] of the [[California Constitution]].
+
Proposition 30 changed the [[California Constitution]]. It did this by adding a [[Article XIII, California Constitution#Section 36|new Section 36]] to [[Article XIII, California Constitution|Article XIII]] of the [[California Constitution]].
  
 
==Support==
 
==Support==
 
[[File:Yes on Proposition 30 California 2012.PNG|thumb|400px|"Yes on Prop 30" website logo]]
 
[[File:Yes on Proposition 30 California 2012.PNG|thumb|400px|"Yes on Prop 30" website logo]]
 
===Supporters===
 
===Supporters===
Supporters include:
+
Supporters included:
  
 
* [[Jerry Brown]]
 
* [[Jerry Brown]]
 
* [[League of Women Voters of California]]<ref>[http://ca.lwv.org/action/prop1211/flyer.html ''League of Women Voters of California - November 12, 2012 Vote With The League Flyer'']</ref>
 
* [[League of Women Voters of California]]<ref>[http://ca.lwv.org/action/prop1211/flyer.html ''League of Women Voters of California - November 12, 2012 Vote With The League Flyer'']</ref>
* [[California Democratic Party]]<ref>[http://walnut.patch.com/articles/democratic-party-picks-state-ballot-measures-to-support ''Walnut Patch'', "Democratic Party Picks State Ballot Measures to Support", July 30, 2012]</ref>
+
* [[California Democratic Party]]<ref>[http://walnut.patch.com/articles/democratic-party-picks-state-ballot-measures-to-support ''Walnut Patch'', "Democratic Party Picks State Ballot Measures to Support," July 30, 2012]</ref>
 
* [[California Teachers Association]] (CTA)
 
* [[California Teachers Association]] (CTA)
 
* [[California State Council of Service Employees]] (SEIU)
 
* [[California State Council of Service Employees]] (SEIU)
Line 103: Line 125:
 
===Arguments in favor===
 
===Arguments in favor===
  
The arguments presented in favor of Proposition 30 in the [[California Voter Guide (official)|state's official voter guide]] include:
+
The arguments presented in favor of Proposition 30 in the [[California Voter Guide (official)|state's official voter guide]] included:
  
 
* "Without Prop. 30, our schools and colleges face an additional $6 billion in devastating cuts this year. Prop. 30 is the only initiative that prevents those cuts and provides billions in new funding for our schools starting this year—money that can be spent on smaller class sizes, up-to-date textbooks and rehiring teachers."
 
* "Without Prop. 30, our schools and colleges face an additional $6 billion in devastating cuts this year. Prop. 30 is the only initiative that prevents those cuts and provides billions in new funding for our schools starting this year—money that can be spent on smaller class sizes, up-to-date textbooks and rehiring teachers."
Line 121: Line 143:
  
 
|-
 
|-
| colspan="2" style="background-color:#FBEC5D; color:black;" align="center" | '''Total campaign cash''' [[File:Invest.png|21px]]<br><small>''as of October 14, 2012''</small>
+
| colspan="2" style="background-color:#FBEC5D; color:black;" align="center" | '''Total campaign cash''' [[File:Campaign Finance Ballotpedia.png|21px]]<br><small>''as of November 3, 2012''</small>
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| style="background-color:white; color:black;" | {{support}} '''Support:'''
 
| style="background-color:white; color:black;" | {{support}} '''Support:'''
| align="right" | '''$51,800,000'''
+
| align="right" | '''$67,100,000'''
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| style="background-color:white; color: black;" | {{oppose}} '''Opposition:'''  
 
| style="background-color:white; color: black;" | {{oppose}} '''Opposition:'''  
| align="right" | '''$30,800,000'''
+
| align="right" | '''$53,400,000'''
 
|}
 
|}
About $51.8 million has been contributed to the "yes" campaign as of '''October 14, 2012.'''
+
About $67.1 million had been contributed to the "yes" campaign as of '''Saturday, November 3, 2012.'''
  
Twenty-two different campaign committees have registered in support of Proposition 30. The main campaign organizations supporting it are:
+
Twenty-two different campaign committees registered in support of Proposition 30. The main campaign organizations supporting it are:
  
 
* [http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1343257&session=2011&view=general Brown; Californians To Protect Schools, Universities And Public Safety, A Ballot Measure Committee Supported By Governor Jerry Brown (1343257)]<ref name="electiontrack_1343257">[http://www.electiontrack.com/lookup.php?committee=1343257 ''ElectionTrack.com'', "Contributions to Brown; Californians To Protect Schools, Universities And Public Safety, A Ballot Measure Committee Supported By Governor Jerry Brown"]</ref>
 
* [http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1343257&session=2011&view=general Brown; Californians To Protect Schools, Universities And Public Safety, A Ballot Measure Committee Supported By Governor Jerry Brown (1343257)]<ref name="electiontrack_1343257">[http://www.electiontrack.com/lookup.php?committee=1343257 ''ElectionTrack.com'', "Contributions to Brown; Californians To Protect Schools, Universities And Public Safety, A Ballot Measure Committee Supported By Governor Jerry Brown"]</ref>
Line 140: Line 162:
 
Donors of $250,000 and more to Proposition 30 are listed below.
 
Donors of $250,000 and more to Proposition 30 are listed below.
  
These numbers are current '''as of October 1, 2012''':
+
These numbers are current '''as of Saturday, November 3, 2012''':
  
 
{{donor box}}
 
{{donor box}}
 
|-
 
|-
 
| [[California Teachers Association]]
 
| [[California Teachers Association]]
| align="right" | $7,739,080
+
| align="right" | $11,439,297
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| [[SEIU|SEIU]]/[[California State Council of Service Employees]]
 
| [[SEIU|SEIU]]/[[California State Council of Service Employees]]
| align="right" | $6,471,858
+
| align="right" | $10,746,928
 +
 
 +
|-
 +
| [[California Democratic Party|Democratic State Central Committee of California]]
 +
| align="right" | $5,089,646
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| [[California Federation of Teachers|American Federation of Teachers]]
 
| [[California Federation of Teachers|American Federation of Teachers]]
| align="right" | $3,858,700
+
| align="right" | $4,179,229
 +
 
 +
|-
 +
| The Coca-Cola Company
 +
| align="right" | $2,072,793
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems
 
| California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems
 
| align="right" | $2,000,000
 
| align="right" | $2,000,000
 +
 +
|-
 +
| Pepsico Incorporated
 +
| align="right" | $1,633,863
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| [[California School Employees Association|PACE of California School Employees Association]]
 
| [[California School Employees Association|PACE of California School Employees Association]]
| align="right" | $1,500,000
+
| align="right" | $1,500,495
  
 
|-
 
|-
| [[California Democratic Party|Democratic State Central Committee of California]]
+
| California Beer & Beverage Distributor's
| align="right" | $1,046,172
+
| align="right" | $1,094,311
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| [[California Nurses Association]]
 
| [[California Nurses Association]]
| align="right" | $1,003,669
+
| align="right" | $1,106,417
 +
 
 +
|-
 +
| [[Reed Hastings]]
 +
| align="right" | $1,000,000
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 186: Line 224:
 
| Laborers' Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition
 
| Laborers' Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition
 
| align="right" | $600,000
 
| align="right" | $600,000
 
|-
 
| The Coca-Cola Company
 
| align="right" | $592,708
 
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 198: Line 232:
 
| United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America
 
| United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America
 
| align="right" | $500,000
 
| align="right" | $500,000
 
|-
 
| Pepsico Incorporated
 
| align="right" | $469,063
 
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 222: Line 252:
 
| PICO California
 
| PICO California
 
| align="right" | $259,000
 
| align="right" | $259,000
 
|-
 
| California Beer & Beverage Distributor's
 
| align="right" | $255,000
 
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 259: Line 285:
 
| align="right" | $250,000
 
| align="right" | $250,000
 
|}
 
|}
 
According to [[Dan Morain]], the state's public employee unions, who could ordinarily be counted on to invest significantly in the campaign to pass Proposition 30, may find themselves torn between donations to support the tax hike, and donations to defeat another measure on the {{nov06ca2012}}, the [[California Proposition 32, the "Paycheck Protection" Initiative (2012)|"Paycheck Protection" Initiative]]. Morain says, "To help fund the campaign, Brown needs the help of organized labor. But unions will be busy trying to kill a separate initiative promoted by conservatives that would strip them of their ability to raise and spend money on campaigns."<ref>[http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/10/4549083/the-heat-is-on-jerry-brown-and.html ''Sacramento Bee'', "Dan Morain: The heat is on Jerry Brown and the Democrats", June 10, 2012]</ref>
 
  
 
==Opposition==
 
==Opposition==
Line 275: Line 299:
 
* Kenneth Payne. Payne is the president of the Sacramento Taxpayers Association.<ref>[http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/vig-public-display/110612-general-election/prop-30/prop-30-rebut-arg-in-favor.pdf ''California Secretary of State'', "Rebuttal to arguments in favor of Proposition 30"]</ref>
 
* Kenneth Payne. Payne is the president of the Sacramento Taxpayers Association.<ref>[http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/vig-public-display/110612-general-election/prop-30/prop-30-rebut-arg-in-favor.pdf ''California Secretary of State'', "Rebuttal to arguments in favor of Proposition 30"]</ref>
  
Other opponents include:
+
Other opponents included:
  
* The [[California Republican Party]].<ref name=walpatch>[http://walnut.patch.com/articles/california-republicans-oppose-proposed-tax-measures ''Walnut Creek Patch'', "California Republicans Oppose Proposed Tax Measures", August 12, 2012]</ref>
+
* The [[California Republican Party]].<ref name=walpatch>[http://walnut.patch.com/articles/california-republicans-oppose-proposed-tax-measures ''Walnut Creek Patch'', "California Republicans Oppose Proposed Tax Measures," August 12, 2012]</ref>
  
 
* [http://www.stopprop30.com/about-us/ Full list of opponents]
 
* [http://www.stopprop30.com/about-us/ Full list of opponents]
Line 283: Line 307:
 
===Arguments against===
 
===Arguments against===
  
The arguments in opposition to Proposition 30 presented in the [[California Voter Guide (official)|state's official voter guide]] include:
+
The arguments in opposition to Proposition 30 presented in the [[California Voter Guide (official)|state's official voter guide]] included:
  
* There is no guarantee in the way it is written that the money would be used for schools. Thus, opponents say, it is a "$50 million shell game." To buttress this argument, opponents quote the California School Boards Association, which in May 2012 said, "the Governor's initiative does not provide new funding for schools."<ref name=argagainst/>
+
* There is no guarantee in the way it is written that the money would be used for schools. Thus, opponents say, it is a "$50 billion shell game." To buttress this argument, opponents quote the California School Boards Association, which in May 2012 said, "the Governor's initiative does not provide new funding for schools."<ref name=argagainst/>
 
* "Nothing in Prop 30 reforms our education system to cut waste, eliminate bureaucracy or cut administrative overhead."<ref name=argagainst/>
 
* "Nothing in Prop 30 reforms our education system to cut waste, eliminate bureaucracy or cut administrative overhead."<ref name=argagainst/>
 
* Instead of supporting education, the new tax money raised by Proposition 30 will really go to "backfill the insolvent teacher's pension fund."<ref name=argagainst/>
 
* Instead of supporting education, the new tax money raised by Proposition 30 will really go to "backfill the insolvent teacher's pension fund."<ref name=argagainst/>
Line 291: Line 315:
 
* "Politicians would rather raise taxes instead of streamlining thousands of state-funded programs...look at what they just did: politicians authorized nearly '''$5 billion''' in California bonds for the 'bullet train to nowhere', costing taxpayers $380 million a year. Let's use those dollars for schools! Instead, the politicians gave us a false choice -- raise sales taxes by $1 billion per year and raise income taxes on small businesses OR cut schools."
 
* "Politicians would rather raise taxes instead of streamlining thousands of state-funded programs...look at what they just did: politicians authorized nearly '''$5 billion''' in California bonds for the 'bullet train to nowhere', costing taxpayers $380 million a year. Let's use those dollars for schools! Instead, the politicians gave us a false choice -- raise sales taxes by $1 billion per year and raise income taxes on small businesses OR cut schools."
  
Other arguments that have been made against Proposition 30 include:
+
Other arguments made against Proposition 30 included:
  
* The [[Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association]] conducted a "Don't Sign the Petition" campaign, urging people to decline to sign the petition. On their website devoted to encouraging people not to sign the petition, they said, "Petition gatherers may tell you their measure is to increase school funding. But simply put, It’s a Tax Increase! California is already a poorly managed state. We have a $15 billion budget deficit - a result of overspending - $500 billion in unfunded pension liabilities, a tax and regulatory climate that drives businesses away, wasteful and ineffective use of our tax dollars and a political system unduly influenced by special interests. We do NOT need higher taxes. Join us by telling everyone you know not to sign Jerry Brown's tax initiative."<ref>[http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/10/4401824/the-buzz-as-jerry-brown-seeks.html ''Sacramento Bee'', "As Jerry Brown seeks tax signatures, the opposition emerges", April 10, 2012]</ref>
+
* The [[Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association]] conducted a "Don't Sign the Petition" campaign, urging people to decline to sign the petition. On their website devoted to encouraging people not to sign the petition, they said, "Petition gatherers may tell you their measure is to increase school funding. But simply put, It’s a Tax Increase! California is already a poorly managed state. We have a $15 billion budget deficit - a result of overspending - $500 billion in unfunded pension liabilities, a tax and regulatory climate that drives businesses away, wasteful and ineffective use of our tax dollars and a political system unduly influenced by special interests. We do NOT need higher taxes. Join us by telling everyone you know not to sign Jerry Brown's tax initiative."<ref>[http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/10/4401824/the-buzz-as-jerry-brown-seeks.html ''Sacramento Bee'', "As Jerry Brown seeks tax signatures, the opposition emerges," April 10, 2012]</ref>
  
 
* The income tax will be retroactive back to the first of the year (2012), a fundamentally unfair ploy that would not be tolerated if it happened to you as an individual.
 
* The income tax will be retroactive back to the first of the year (2012), a fundamentally unfair ploy that would not be tolerated if it happened to you as an individual.
  
* California is already a very high tax state.  We already have the 2nd highest state income tax rate, as well as THE highest state sales tax rate. <ref>[http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/ff2012.pdf  ''Tax Foundation'', "How Does Your State Compare?" Table #11]</ref> <ref>[http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-and-local-sales-tax-rates-january-1-2012 ''Tax Foundation'', "State and Local Sales Tax Rates, As of January 1, 2012", published February 16, 2012]</ref>
+
* The dire "trigger cuts" threatened by proponents are NOT mandated if this measure does not pass.  They are NOT automatic.  The legislature can choose a number of options to protect and reform education spending if they wish.  The touted "trigger cuts" are a political ploy -- nothing more.
 +
 
 +
* Prop 30 funds can free up EXISTING general budget spending on education -- allowing those education funds to then be spent on state worker pay increases, pensions -- and high speed rail to nowhere.
 +
 
 +
* California is already a very high tax state.  We already have the 2nd highest state income tax rate, as well as THE highest state sales tax rate.<ref>[http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/ff2012.pdf  ''Tax Foundation'', "How Does Your State Compare?" Table #11]</ref><ref>[http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-and-local-sales-tax-rates-january-1-2012 ''Tax Foundation'', "State and Local Sales Tax Rates, As of January 1, 2012," published February 16, 2012]</ref>
  
 
* If Proposition 30 is approved, California will be '''by far''' #1 in income tax rates.  It will be 21% higher than the 2nd highest state (Hawaii), 34% higher than the 3rd highest state (Oregon), and FAR higher than all the rest – including seven states with zero state income tax.<ref>[http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/ff2012.pdf  ''Tax Foundation'', "How Does Your State Compare?" Tables #11 and #13]</ref>
 
* If Proposition 30 is approved, California will be '''by far''' #1 in income tax rates.  It will be 21% higher than the 2nd highest state (Hawaii), 34% higher than the 3rd highest state (Oregon), and FAR higher than all the rest – including seven states with zero state income tax.<ref>[http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/ff2012.pdf  ''Tax Foundation'', "How Does Your State Compare?" Tables #11 and #13]</ref>
  
* Proposition 30 is opposed by columnist Debra Saunders, who says, "I fear [it will] drive golden geese out of the state. Sure, most families earning $500,000 or more aren't going to move over a lousy $5,000, but moguls who make 20 times that and own multiple homes just might decide to migrate. And there go all their tax dollars."<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2012/03/16/INLN1MNUDJ.DTL ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "Jerry Brown's tax plan breaks faith with California", March 17, 2012]</ref>
+
* Proposition 30 is opposed by columnist Debra Saunders, who said, "I fear [it will] drive golden geese out of the state. Sure, most families earning $500,000 or more aren't going to move over a lousy $5,000, but moguls who make 20 times that and own multiple homes just might decide to migrate. And there go all their tax dollars."<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2012/03/16/INLN1MNUDJ.DTL ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "Jerry Brown's tax plan breaks faith with California," March 17, 2012]</ref>
  
* Some people who generally support tax increases in California say that they have problems with the specifics of Proposition 30. An example of this is [[Molly Munger]], who says, "You sort of hope that the Democrats are the party that stand up for investment in children and in education. Those are two bedrock principles of the Democratic Party. It is a little bit ironic that so many elements of the Democratic Party are, you know, supporting an initiative that does not invest in the main engine we have for social mobility and opportunity in our society, which is our K-12 schools."<ref name=bedrock>[http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-03/D9TMDM6G3.htm ''Business Week'', "AP Exclusive: Munger says Brown tax claims untrue", March 23, 2012]</ref> Another example is columnist George Skelton, who says, "Brown wants voters to believe that all the billions raised by his tax hike would go to K-12 schools and community colleges. They won't. And he knows that as well as anyone."<ref>[http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20120325/WIRE/120329720/1036/business?Title=Brown-s-tax-plan-pitch-misleads ''Press Democrat'', "Brown's tax plan pitch misleads", March 25, 2012]</ref>
+
* Some people who generally support tax increases in California said that they have problems with the specifics of Proposition 30. An example of this was [[Molly Munger]], who said, "You sort of hope that the Democrats are the party that stand up for investment in children and in education. Those are two bedrock principles of the Democratic Party. It is a little bit ironic that so many elements of the Democratic Party are, you know, supporting an initiative that does not invest in the main engine we have for social mobility and opportunity in our society, which is our K-12 schools."<ref name=bedrock>[http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-03/D9TMDM6G3.htm ''Business Week'', "AP Exclusive: Munger says Brown tax claims untrue," March 23, 2012]</ref> Another example is columnist George Skelton, who said, "Brown wants voters to believe that all the billions raised by his tax hike would go to K-12 schools and community colleges. They won't. And he knows that as well as anyone."<ref>[http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20120325/WIRE/120329720/1036/business?Title=Brown-s-tax-plan-pitch-misleads ''Press Democrat'', "Brown's tax plan pitch misleads," March 25, 2012]</ref>
  
* [[Molly Munger]] has additionally said, "Under [[California Proposition 38, State Income Tax Increase to Support Education (2012)|our proposal]], virtually all the cuts that the schools have suffered in the last four years would all be restored—and under the governor's initiative, virtually none would be."<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303812904577289551658827684.html?mod=googlenews_wsj ''Wall Street Journal'', "California Democrats Duel Over Taxes, Budget", April 1, 2012]</ref>
+
* [[Molly Munger]] additionally said, "Under [[California Proposition 38, State Income Tax Increase to Support Education (2012)|our proposal]], virtually all the cuts that the schools have suffered in the last four years would all be restored—and under the governor's initiative, virtually none would be."<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303812904577289551658827684.html?mod=googlenews_wsj ''Wall Street Journal'', "California Democrats Duel Over Taxes, Budget," April 1, 2012]</ref>
  
 
===Donors===
 
===Donors===
Line 311: Line 339:
  
 
|-
 
|-
| colspan="2" style="background-color:#FBEC5D; color:black;" align="center" | '''Total campaign cash''' [[File:Invest.png|21px]]<br><small>''as of October 14, 2012''</small>
+
| colspan="2" style="background-color:#FBEC5D; color:black;" align="center" | '''Total campaign cash''' [[File:Campaign Finance Ballotpedia.png|21px]]<br><small>''as of November 3, 2012''</small>
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| style="background-color:white; color:black;" | {{support}} '''Support:'''
 
| style="background-color:white; color:black;" | {{support}} '''Support:'''
| align="right" | '''$48,750,000'''
+
| align="right" | '''$67,100,000'''
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| style="background-color:white; color: black;" | {{oppose}} '''Opposition:'''  
 
| style="background-color:white; color: black;" | {{oppose}} '''Opposition:'''  
| align="right" | '''$5,209,000'''
+
| align="right" | '''$53,400,000'''
|}
+
|}The "No on 30" campaign raised about $53.4 million as of November 3, 2012. That amount, however, included well over $40 million in contributions to a joint campaign committee (the [[Small Business Action Committee]]) that is simultaneously [[California Proposition 32, the "Paycheck Protection" Initiative (2012)#Donors|supporting Proposition 32]] and opposing Proposition 30.<ref name=donors/><ref name=junedonations/>
These are the $25,000 and above donors to the "no" campaign '''as of October 14, 2012'''. If an individual gave money to a campaign committee or PAC, and that campaign committee or PAC then gave a contribution to a campaign committee in opposition to Proposition 30, the amount that an individual gave to the "feeder" campaign organization is reflected here in its totality, even if the "feeder" committee did not give the totality of all its funding to defeat Proposition 30. The "total donations" amount reflected in the icon to the right will be lower than the total of donations shown in the chart below when a "feeder" campaign committee did not disburse all the money from an individual donor to a particular campaign committee. At least one campaign committee has been organized to spend money to defeat Proposition 30 and support [[California Proposition 32, the "Paycheck Protection" Initiative (2012)|Proposition 32]]. It is not always possible to determine how much of a given joint contribution will go to defeat Proposition 30 or support Proposition 32, when the contribution was made to a joint committee.  
+
 
 +
The donors listed in the chart below are the $20,000 and over donors to the "No on 30" campaign '''as of Saturday, November 3, 2012'''. Some of these donors gave their money to a committee that was simultaneously supporting or opposing more than one of the ballot propositions on the {{nov06ca2012}}. When that is the case, it is not generally possible to break down how much of that donor's money specifically was spent on the campaign for a particular proposition. Those contributions are listed below with <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #B2EC5D">shading</SPAN>; readers should not assume that all or even most of a donation to a multi-purpose committee was used for expenditures related to this particular proposition.
  
 
{{donor box}}
 
{{donor box}}
|-
+
|- style="background-color:#B2EC5D"
 
| [[Charles Munger, Jr.]]
 
| [[Charles Munger, Jr.]]
| align="right" | $12,887,922
+
| align="right" | $35,075,000
  
|-
+
|- style="background-color:#B2EC5D"
| William Oberndorf
+
| [[Americans for Responsible Leadership]]
| align="right" | $1,000,000
+
| align="right" | $11,000,000
  
|-
+
|- style="background-color:#B2EC5D"
 +
| [[William Oberndorf]]
 +
| align="right" | $1,100,000
 +
 
 +
|- style="background-color:#B2EC5D"
 +
| [[Jerrold Perenchio]]
 +
| align="right" | $750,000
 +
 
 +
|- style="background-color:#B2EC5D"
 
| John Scully
 
| John Scully
 
| align="right" | $500,000
 
| align="right" | $500,000
  
|-
+
|-  
 +
| Margaret Bloomfield
 +
| align="right" | $500,000
 +
 
 +
|- style="background-color:#B2EC5D"
 
| [[Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association]]
 
| [[Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association]]
| align="right" | $389,220
+
| align="right" | $440,249
 +
 
 +
|- style="background-color:#B2EC5D"
 +
| New Majority California PAC
 +
| align="right" | $350,000
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 344: Line 389:
 
| align="right" | $200,000
 
| align="right" | $200,000
  
|-
+
|- style="background-color:#B2EC5D"
| [[Jerrold Perenchio]]
+
| T. Boone Pickens
| align="right" | $200,000
+
| align="right" | $100,000
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 364: Line 409:
 
| align="right" | $99,000
 
| align="right" | $99,000
  
|-
+
|- style="background-color:#B2EC5D"
 
| Craig McCaw
 
| Craig McCaw
 
| align="right" | $75,000
 
| align="right" | $75,000
Line 410: Line 455:
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Jeffrey Ubben
 
| Jeffrey Ubben
| align="right" | $50,000
 
 
|-
 
| New Majority California PAC
 
 
| align="right" | $50,000
 
| align="right" | $50,000
  
Line 443: Line 484:
 
==California tax policies==
 
==California tax policies==
  
The following table summarizes the proposed state income tax increases compared to existing tax policy.  The table includes the following information:
+
The following table summarizes the Proposition 30 tax increases compared to existing tax policy.  The table includes the following information:
  
 
* The starting income for the bottom end of the tax bracket (for single-filer taxpayers)
 
* The starting income for the bottom end of the tax bracket (for single-filer taxpayers)
Line 597: Line 638:
 
==="Yes on 30"===
 
==="Yes on 30"===
  
* The '''''Bay Area Reporter:''''' "We support Prop 30 for several reasons, not the least of which is that it is the product of the political process (although attempts to reach a legislative compromise failed) in which the governor, the Democratic majorities in the Legislature, and affected stakeholders were all part of the negotiations and compromise that resulted in the proposition before the voters."<ref>[http://ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=68054 ''Bay Area Reporter'', "Yes on 30, No on 38", September 13, 2012]</ref>
+
* The '''''Bay Area Reporter:''''' "We support Prop 30 for several reasons, not the least of which is that it is the product of the political process (although attempts to reach a legislative compromise failed) in which the governor, the Democratic majorities in the Legislature, and affected stakeholders were all part of the negotiations and compromise that resulted in the proposition before the voters."<ref>[http://ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=68054 ''Bay Area Reporter'', "Yes on 30, No on 38," September 13, 2012]</ref>
  
* The '''''Daily Democrat''''' (Woodland, California): "This tax increase is supported by Gov. Jerry Brown and would avoid deep cuts to public schools, community colleges and universities."<ref>[http://www.dailydemocrat.com/editorial/ci_21770457/democrat-endorsements-propositions ''Daily Democrat'', "Democrat endorsements: Propositions", October 14, 2012]</ref>
+
* The '''''Daily Democrat''''' (Woodland, California): "This tax increase is supported by Gov. Jerry Brown and would avoid deep cuts to public schools, community colleges and universities."<ref>[http://www.dailydemocrat.com/editorial/ci_21770457/democrat-endorsements-propositions ''Daily Democrat'', "Democrat endorsements: Propositions," October 14, 2012]</ref>
  
* The '''''Lompoc Record:''''' "...a tax increase to avoid calamity for school funding."<ref>[http://www.lompocrecord.com/news/opinion/editorial/the-shift-to-stronger-fiscal-policy/article_f2bd5816-1038-11e2-b869-0019bb2963f4.html ''Lompoc Record'', "The shift to stronger fiscal policy", October 7, 2012]</ref>
+
* The '''''Fresno Bee:''''' "California's fiscal house remains shaky. Prop. 30 offers a way for the state to start climbing out of its pit. It's not ideal. But it is the best available option."<ref>[http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/10/16/3030367/editorial-prop-30-is-states-best.html ''Fresno Bee'', "EDITORIAL: Prop. 30 is state's best option to move forward," October 16, 2012]</ref>
  
* The '''''Los Angeles Daily News:''''' "Yes, our schools are being held hostage. The right thing to do is pay up -- and then demand that the reforms begun in Sacramento this year with pension and workers' comp reform continue. Proposition 30 lets our children -- not lawmakers -- off the hook."<ref>[http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci_21762140/endorsements-yes-prop-30-no-prop-38 ''Los Angeles Daily News'', "Endorsements: Yes on Prop. 30, No on Prop. 38", October 13, 2012]</ref>
+
* The '''''Lompoc Record:''''' ."..a tax increase to avoid calamity for school funding."<ref>[http://www.lompocrecord.com/news/opinion/editorial/the-shift-to-stronger-fiscal-policy/article_f2bd5816-1038-11e2-b869-0019bb2963f4.html ''Lompoc Record'', "The shift to stronger fiscal policy," October 7, 2012]</ref>
  
* The ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'': "Two years of belt-tightening have left parts of the state safety net in tatters and pushed college costs out of the reach of many families. Cuts in aid to the poor and working poor in this year's budget eliminated child-care subsidies for 14,000 children and preschool slots for 12,500 children. State aid for low-income seniors and the disabled is now as low as it was in 1983; welfare checks are smaller than they were 25 years ago. And K-12 spending per pupil remains $1,000 less than it was five years ago. California now spends less per student than all but three states."<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-end-prop-30-prop38-20121002,0,2923644.story ''Los Angeles Times'', "Yes on Proposition 30, no on Proposition 38", October 2, 2012]</ref>
+
* The '''''Long Beach Press-Telegram:''''' "Proposition 30 lets our children -- not lawmakers -- off the hook."<ref>[http://www.presstelegram.com/opinions/ci_21762140/endorsements-yes-prop-30-no-prop-38 ''Long Beach Press Telegram'', "Endorsements: Yes on Prop. 30, No on Prop. 38," October 13, 2012]</ref>
  
* The '''''Marin Independent Journal:''''' "Passage of Proposition 30 would protect public schools and our children's educational foundation and opportunities — from being slashed."<ref>[http://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci_21743902/editorial-ij-recommendations-state-propositions-30-35 ''Marin Independent Journal'', "Editorial: IJ recommendations on state Propositions 30-33", October 11, 2012]</ref>
+
* The '''''Los Angeles Daily News:''''' "Yes, our schools are being held hostage. The right thing to do is pay up -- and then demand that the reforms begun in Sacramento this year with pension and workers' comp reform continue. Proposition 30 lets our children -- not lawmakers -- off the hook."<ref>[http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci_21762140/endorsements-yes-prop-30-no-prop-38 ''Los Angeles Daily News'', "Endorsements: Yes on Prop. 30, No on Prop. 38," October 13, 2012]</ref>
  
* The '''''Modesto Bee:''''' <ref>[http://www.modbee.com/2012/10/13/2412776/yes-on-proposition-30.html ''Modesto Bee'', "Proposition 30 best option available to fund schools", October 13, 2012]</ref>
+
* The ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'': "Two years of belt-tightening have left parts of the state safety net in tatters and pushed college costs out of the reach of many families. Cuts in aid to the poor and working poor in this year's budget eliminated child-care subsidies for 14,000 children and preschool slots for 12,500 children. State aid for low-income seniors and the disabled is now as low as it was in 1983; welfare checks are smaller than they were 25 years ago. And K-12 spending per pupil remains $1,000 less than it was five years ago. California now spends less per student than all but three states."<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-end-prop-30-prop38-20121002,0,2923644.story ''Los Angeles Times'', "Yes on Proposition 30, no on Proposition 38," October 2, 2012]</ref>
  
* The '''''Redding Record Searchlight:''''' "The truth is there's not enough money for the state to do everything its citizens demand. The state frankly overspent straight through the Schwarzenegger administration, even in good years, and now we're at a moment of truth."<ref>[http://www.redding.com/news/2012/sep/30/editorial-cost-of-saying-no-to-prop-30-just-too/ ''Redding Record Searchlight'', "Editorial: Cost of saying No to Prop. 30 just too steep", September 30, 2012]</ref>
+
* The '''''Marin Independent Journal:''''' "Passage of Proposition 30 would protect public schools — and our children's educational foundation and opportunities — from being slashed."<ref>[http://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci_21743902/editorial-ij-recommendations-state-propositions-30-35 ''Marin Independent Journal'', "Editorial: IJ recommendations on state Propositions 30-33," October 11, 2012]</ref>
  
* The ''[[Sacramento Bee]]'': "Gov. Jerry Brown's initiative to raise taxes by $6 billion a year is vital to California's future on many different levels."<ref>[http://www.sacbee.com/2012/10/07/4886193/endorsements-yes-on-jerry-browns.html# ''Sacramento Bee'', "'Yes' on Jerry Brown's Prop. 30; 'No' on Munger's Prop. 38", October 7, 2012]</ref>
+
* The '''''Merced Sun-Star:''''' "Some entities, notably the California School Boards Association, recommends a 'yes' vote on both measures. We think it's more likely voters will support only one, and we think that Proposition 30 is preferable of the two."<ref>[http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2012/10/15/2592502/our-view-prop-30-is-best-option.html ''Merced Sun-Star'', "Our View: Prop. 30 is best option for schools," October 15, 2012]</ref>
  
* The '''''San Bernardino Sun:''''' "California already ranks among the lowest in per-pupil spending. The state's largest school district, Los Angeles Unified, already has the shortest school year in the nation. There's too much at stake to oppose this measure on principle."<ref>[http://www.sbsun.com/editorial/ci_21766265/yes-prop-30-pay-save-schools-then-demand ''San Bernardino Sun'', "Yes on Prop. 30: Pay to save schools, then demand reforms", October 13, 2012]</ref>
+
* The '''''Modesto Bee:'''''<ref>[http://www.modbee.com/2012/10/13/2412776/yes-on-proposition-30.html ''Modesto Bee'', "Proposition 30 best option available to fund schools," October 13, 2012]</ref>
  
* The '''''San Francisco Bay Guardian:''''' "And in a state with more billionaires than any other place in America, a fabulously rich place with the world's eighth-largest economy, the notion that we have to argue about raising $6 billion in taxes is farcical."<ref>[http://www.sfbg.com/2012/10/03/endorsements-2012-state-ballot-measures ''San Francisco Bay Guardian'', "Endorsements 2012: State ballot measures", October 3, 2012]</ref>
+
* The '''''Redding Record Searchlight:''''' "The truth is there's not enough money for the state to do everything its citizens demand. The state frankly overspent straight through the Schwarzenegger administration, even in good years, and now we're at a moment of truth."<ref>[http://www.redding.com/news/2012/sep/30/editorial-cost-of-saying-no-to-prop-30-just-too/ ''Redding Record Searchlight'', "Editorial: Cost of saying No to Prop. 30 just too steep," September 30, 2012]</ref>
  
* The ''[[San Francisco Chronicle]]'': "The governor and the ruling Democrats in the Legislature have given Californians who care about schools and the current-year deficit only one real choice: support Prop. 30, which would raise taxes on incomes starting at $250,000 for individuals, $500,000 for married couples, and the state portion of the sales tax (now 7.25 percent) by a quarter cent ... Prop. 30 provides a necessary budget patch - especially with the Legislature's Republicans unwilling to consider any tax increases."<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Editorial-Chronicle-recommends-3923462.php ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "Editorial: Chronicle recommends", October 5, 2012]</ref>
+
* The ''[[Sacramento Bee]]'': "Gov. Jerry Brown's initiative to raise taxes by $6 billion a year is vital to California's future on many different levels."<ref>[http://www.sacbee.com/2012/10/07/4886193/endorsements-yes-on-jerry-browns.html# ''Sacramento Bee'', "'Yes' on Jerry Brown's Prop. 30; 'No' on Munger's Prop. 38," October 7, 2012]</ref>
  
* The '''''San Gabriel Valley Tribune:''''' "The overall tax burden will still be lower than it was two years ago."<ref>[http://www.sgvtribune.com/editorial/ci_21769100/our-view-yes-prop-30-no-prop-38 ''San Gabriel Valley Tribune'', "Our View: Yes on Prop. 30, no on Prop. 38", October 13, 2012]</ref>
+
* The '''''San Bernardino Sun:''''' "California already ranks among the lowest in per-pupil spending. The state's largest school district, Los Angeles Unified, already has the shortest school year in the nation. There's too much at stake to oppose this measure on principle."<ref>[http://www.sbsun.com/editorial/ci_21766265/yes-prop-30-pay-save-schools-then-demand ''San Bernardino Sun'', "Yes on Prop. 30: Pay to save schools, then demand reforms," October 13, 2012]</ref>
  
* The ''[[San Jose Mercury News]]'': "Proposition 30 is no substitute for long-term reforms in education funding, pensions and other areas, but it is a measured and sensible response to this crisis."<ref>[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_21655412/mercury-news-editorial-vote-yes-prop-30-no ''San Jose Mercury News'', "Mercury News editorial: Vote yes on Prop. 30, no on Prop. 38", September 28, 2012]</ref>
+
* The '''''San Francisco Bay Guardian:''''' "And in a state with more billionaires than any other place in America, a fabulously rich place with the world's eighth-largest economy, the notion that we have to argue about raising $6 billion in taxes is farcical."<ref>[http://www.sfbg.com/2012/10/03/endorsements-2012-state-ballot-measures ''San Francisco Bay Guardian'', "Endorsements 2012: State ballot measures," October 3, 2012]</ref>
  
* The '''''Santa Cruz Sentinel:''''' "Critics of the measure say the governor won't dare administer such cuts. So far, however, we're unaware of any alternative plan for making up the $6 billion."<ref>[http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/opinion/ci_21753679/editorial-yes-30-no-38 ''Santa Cruz Sentinel'', "Editorial: Yes on 30; No on 38", October 11, 2012]</ref>
+
* The ''[[San Francisco Chronicle]]'': "The governor and the ruling Democrats in the Legislature have given Californians who care about schools and the current-year deficit only one real choice: support Prop. 30, which would raise taxes on incomes starting at $250,000 for individuals, $500,000 for married couples, and the state portion of the sales tax (now 7.25 percent) by a quarter cent ... Prop. 30 provides a necessary budget patch - especially with the Legislature's Republicans unwilling to consider any tax increases."<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Editorial-Chronicle-recommends-3923462.php ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "Editorial: Chronicle recommends," October 5, 2012]</ref>
  
* The '''''Ventura County Star''''': "It is a reasonable, well-thought-out approach to an interim fix for the state's recurring deficit, thus giving lawmakers time to seek a long-term solution."<ref>[http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/sep/22/editorial-education-is-at-risk-yes-on-prop-30-no/ ''Ventura County Star'', "Editorial: Education is at risk; Yes on Prop. 30, No on Prop. 38", September 22, 2012]</ref>
+
* The '''''San Gabriel Valley Tribune:''''' "The overall tax burden will still be lower than it was two years ago."<ref>[http://www.sgvtribune.com/editorial/ci_21769100/our-view-yes-prop-30-no-prop-38 ''San Gabriel Valley Tribune'', "Our View: Yes on Prop. 30, no on Prop. 38," October 13, 2012]</ref>
 +
 
 +
* The ''[[San Jose Mercury News]]'': "Proposition 30 is no substitute for long-term reforms in education funding, pensions and other areas, but it is a measured and sensible response to this crisis."<ref>[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_21655412/mercury-news-editorial-vote-yes-prop-30-no ''San Jose Mercury News'', "Mercury News editorial: Vote yes on Prop. 30, no on Prop. 38," September 28, 2012]</ref>
 +
 
 +
* The '''''Santa Cruz Sentinel:''''' "Critics of the measure say the governor won't dare administer such cuts. So far, however, we're unaware of any alternative plan for making up the $6 billion."<ref>[http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/opinion/ci_21753679/editorial-yes-30-no-38 ''Santa Cruz Sentinel'', "Editorial: Yes on 30; No on 38," October 11, 2012]</ref>
 +
 
 +
* The '''''Vallejo Times-Herald:''''' "Proposition 30 is no substitute for long-term reforms in education funding, pensions and other areas, but it is a measured and sensible response to this crisis."<ref>[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/editorial/ci_21822002/yes-prop-30-no-prop-38-no-easy ''Vallejo Times-Herald'', "'Yes' on Prop. 30, 'no' on Prop. 38: No easy answers at California's crossroads," October 21, 2012]</ref>
 +
 
 +
* The '''''Ventura County Star''''': "It is a reasonable, well-thought-out approach to an interim fix for the state's recurring deficit, thus giving lawmakers time to seek a long-term solution."<ref>[http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/sep/22/editorial-education-is-at-risk-yes-on-prop-30-no/ ''Ventura County Star'', "Editorial: Education is at risk; Yes on Prop. 30, No on Prop. 38," September 22, 2012]</ref>
  
 
==="No on 30"===
 
==="No on 30"===
  
* The '''''Bakersfield Californian:''''' "As desperate as the state is for money, we oppose Prop. 30 because it promotes the same bad budgeting policies that pushed the state into the mess it's in today."<ref>[http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/opinion/our-view/x371314329/No-on-30-Weve-got-a-better-option ''Bakersfield Californian'', "No on 30: We've got a better option", September 22, 2012]</ref>
+
* The '''''Bakersfield Californian:''''' "As desperate as the state is for money, we oppose Prop. 30 because it promotes the same bad budgeting policies that pushed the state into the mess it's in today."<ref>[http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/opinion/our-view/x371314329/No-on-30-Weve-got-a-better-option ''Bakersfield Californian'', "No on 30: We've got a better option," September 22, 2012]</ref>
  
* The '''''Contra Costa Times:''''' "Proposition 30 is like taking an Alka-Seltzer for your aching head when you need brain surgery. Sure, the pain might lessen for a while, but the root cause remains. Proposition 30 is not so much a solution as it is a cynical political calculation meant to determine just how much the voters will tolerate. And those voters have had to tolerate a lot recently. While claiming poverty, the Legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown forged ahead with the ill-advised and costly high-speed rail boondoggle."<ref>[http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_21709479/contra-costa-times-editorial-proposition-30-is-not ''Contra Costa Times'', "Contra Costa Times editorial: Proposition 30 is not way to solve California's fiscal crisis", October 7, 2012]</ref>
+
* The '''''Contra Costa Times:''''' "Proposition 30 is like taking an Alka-Seltzer for your aching head when you need brain surgery. Sure, the pain might lessen for a while, but the root cause remains. Proposition 30 is not so much a solution as it is a cynical political calculation meant to determine just how much the voters will tolerate. And those voters have had to tolerate a lot recently. While claiming poverty, the Legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown forged ahead with the ill-advised and costly high-speed rail boondoggle."<ref>[http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_21709479/contra-costa-times-editorial-proposition-30-is-not ''Contra Costa Times'', "Contra Costa Times editorial: Proposition 30 is not way to solve California's fiscal crisis," October 7, 2012]</ref>
  
* The '''''North County Times:''''' "The utter failure of Brown to fulfill his primary campaign promise and institute some kind of meaningful public pension reform means that any money raised from Prop. 30 is simply going to feed the beast. For voters to approve Prop. 30 at this time, when no real reform has been passed, would be to reward Sacramento's wasteful, irresponsible behavior."<ref>[http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/editorial-no-on/article_1ec29629-084d-55dc-96c0-ac9b6e953ce4.html ''North County Times'', "No on 30, 38", September 20, 2012]</ref>
+
* The '''''North County Times:''''' "The utter failure of Brown to fulfill his primary campaign promise and institute some kind of meaningful public pension reform means that any money raised from Prop. 30 is simply going to feed the beast. For voters to approve Prop. 30 at this time, when no real reform has been passed, would be to reward Sacramento's wasteful, irresponsible behavior."<ref>[http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/editorial-no-on/article_1ec29629-084d-55dc-96c0-ac9b6e953ce4.html ''North County Times'', "No on 30, 38," September 20, 2012]</ref>
  
* The ''[[Orange County Register]]'': "The tax-and-spend culture in Sacramento needs a complete overhaul. Voters might be agreeable to paying more if they saw true reform, such as freeing families from underperforming public schools with tuition vouchers or enough charter schools to meet demand. Maybe if there were genuine reform to public-sector pensions. Or, if meaningful reform in providing public services could be achieved, rather than merely promised, or, if new spending meant equal reductions in old spending, perhaps voters would have reason to give more. We don't see these reforms ahead. As always, instead, we hear pleas to increase taxes for a broken system those in charge refuse to fix."<ref>[http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/prop-373394-tax-taxes.html ''Orange County Register'', "Editorial: No on Prop. 30 & Prop. 38 tax hikes", October 2, 2012]</ref>
+
* The ''[[Orange County Register]]'': "The tax-and-spend culture in Sacramento needs a complete overhaul. Voters might be agreeable to paying more if they saw true reform, such as freeing families from underperforming public schools with tuition vouchers or enough [[charter schools]] to meet demand. Maybe if there were genuine reform to public-sector pensions. Or, if meaningful reform in providing public services could be achieved, rather than merely promised, or, if new spending meant equal reductions in old spending, perhaps voters would have reason to give more. We don't see these reforms ahead. As always, instead, we hear pleas to increase taxes for a broken system those in charge refuse to fix."<ref>[http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/prop-373394-tax-taxes.html ''Orange County Register'', "Editorial: No on Prop. 30 & Prop. 38 tax hikes," October 2, 2012]</ref>
  
* The '''''Press-Enterprise:''''' "California would be foolish to raise taxes without providing real and enduring solutions to the state’s chronic budget shortfalls. Yet Props. 30 and 38 would increase taxes on Californians without putting state finances on a sustainable course. Voters should demand a comprehensive fix to the state’s yearly budget turmoil, and reject the flawed half-measures offered by Props. 30 and 38."<ref>[http://www.pe.com/opinion/editorials-headlines/20121007-election-no-on-3038.ece ''Press-Enterprise'', "No on 30, 38", October 7, 2012]</ref>
+
* The '''''Press-Enterprise:''''' "California would be foolish to raise taxes without providing real and enduring solutions to the state’s chronic budget shortfalls. Yet Props. 30 and 38 would increase taxes on Californians without putting state finances on a sustainable course. Voters should demand a comprehensive fix to the state’s yearly budget turmoil, and reject the flawed half-measures offered by Props. 30 and 38."<ref>[http://www.pe.com/opinion/editorials-headlines/20121007-election-no-on-3038.ece ''Press-Enterprise'', "No on 30, 38," October 7, 2012]</ref>
  
* The ''[[San Diego Union-Tribune]]'': "California voters have a crucial choice this November. On Propositions 30 and 38, they can vote for higher taxes and accept the premise that this won’t hurt the struggling economy and that the main problem with our already-high-tax state is that its government doesn’t get enough money from its residents. Or they can vote no and force change in our broken status quo, starting with the public schools that eat up by far the biggest chunk of the state budget."<ref>[http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/sep/30/tp-no-on-props-30-38-state-status-quo-must-go/ ''San Diego Union-Tribune'', "NO ON PROPS. 30, 38: STATE STATUS QUO MUST GO", September 30, 2012]</ref>
+
* The ''[[San Diego Union-Tribune]]'': "California voters have a crucial choice this November. On Propositions 30 and 38, they can vote for higher taxes and accept the premise that this won’t hurt the struggling economy and that the main problem with our already-high-tax state is that its government doesn’t get enough money from its residents. Or they can vote no and force change in our broken status quo, starting with the public schools that eat up by far the biggest chunk of the state budget."<ref>[http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/sep/30/tp-no-on-props-30-38-state-status-quo-must-go/ ''San Diego Union-Tribune'', "NO ON PROPS. 30, 38: STATE STATUS QUO MUST GO," September 30, 2012]</ref>
  
* The '''''Victorville Daily Press:''''' "Proposition 30 on November's ballot would raise money by increasing the California sales tax by a quarter cent. That doesn't sound like much, until you recall that California’s sales tax rate is already the highest in the United States. Couple that with the fact that the Congressional Budget Office says median U.S. family income has declined more than $4,000 a year since the advent of Obama nearly four years ago, and it’s easy to understand why none of us needs the additional burden. Gov. Jerry Brown argues that the money will go to California’s public schools, but that’s dishonest at best. He wants you to believe that when he says “schools” he means students. He doesn’t; he means teachers’ benefits, mostly pensions."<ref>[http://www.vvdailypress.com/opinion/california-36991-doesn-tax.html ''Victorville Daily Press'', "Not only no, but double no", October 8, 2012]</ref>
+
* The '''''Victorville Daily Press:''''' "Proposition 30 on November's ballot would raise money by increasing the California sales tax by a quarter cent. That doesn't sound like much, until you recall that California’s sales tax rate is already the highest in the United States. Couple that with the fact that the Congressional Budget Office says median U.S. family income has declined more than $4,000 a year since the advent of Obama nearly four years ago, and it’s easy to understand why none of us needs the additional burden. Gov. Jerry Brown argues that the money will go to California’s public schools, but that’s dishonest at best. He wants you to believe that when he says “schools” he means students. He doesn’t; he means teachers’ benefits, mostly pensions."<ref>[http://www.vvdailypress.com/opinion/california-36991-doesn-tax.html ''Victorville Daily Press'', "Not only no, but double no," October 8, 2012]</ref>
  
 
==Polling information==
 
==Polling information==
 
::''See also: [[Polls, 2012 ballot measures]]''
 
::''See also: [[Polls, 2012 ballot measures]]''
  
A USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll was conducted from March 14-19, 2012.<ref>[http://www.fox40.com/news/capitolpulse/la-me-state-poll-20120326,0,7732175.story ''Fox 40'', "Strong majority backs Jerry Brown's tax-hike initiative", March 25, 2012]</ref> A [[Public Policy Institute of California|PPIC]] poll was conducted in early April.<ref>[http://www.thereporter.com/news/ci_20484876/slim-majority-favor-tax-hike ''The Reporter'', "Slim majority favor tax hike", April 26, 2012]</ref> PPIC also conducted a poll from May 14-20.<ref>[http://www.ppic.org/main/pressrelease.asp?i=1236 ''Public Policy Institute of California'', "Drop in Support for Cigarette Tax, Most Back Term Limits Change", May 23, 2012]</ref>
+
A USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll was conducted from March 14-19, 2012.<ref>[http://www.fox40.com/news/capitolpulse/la-me-state-poll-20120326,0,7732175.story ''Fox 40'', "Strong majority backs Jerry Brown's tax-hike initiative," March 25, 2012]</ref> A [[Public Policy Institute of California|PPIC]] poll was conducted in early April.<ref>[http://www.thereporter.com/news/ci_20484876/slim-majority-favor-tax-hike ''The Reporter'', "Slim majority favor tax hike," April 26, 2012]</ref> PPIC also conducted a poll from May 14-20.<ref>[http://www.ppic.org/main/pressrelease.asp?i=1236 ''Public Policy Institute of California'', "Drop in Support for Cigarette Tax, Most Back Term Limits Change," May 23, 2012]</ref>
  
A [[Field Poll]] conducted in late May indicated declining support.<ref name=mayfield>[http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2413.pdf ''Field Poll'', "Voters favor Governor Brown's Tax Initiative 52% to 35%, but evenly divided on Munger Plan. Seven in ten hold similar voting preferences toward both measures", June 9, 2012]</ref> The ''[[Sacramento Bee]]'' described the results of that poll as "public support for Gov. Jerry Brown's effort to raise taxes hangs precariously above 50 percent, with confidence in Brown slipping."<ref>[http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/09/4549500/gov-jerry-browns-tax-measure-holds.html ''Sacramento Bee'', "Gov. Jerry Brown's tax measure holds uneasy lead in latest polling", June 9, 2012]</ref>
+
A [[Field Poll]] conducted in late May indicated declining support.<ref name=mayfield>[http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2413.pdf ''Field Poll'', "Voters favor Governor Brown's Tax Initiative 52% to 35%, but evenly divided on Munger Plan. Seven in ten hold similar voting preferences toward both measures," June 9, 2012]</ref> The ''[[Sacramento Bee]]'' described the results of that poll as "public support for Gov. Jerry Brown's effort to raise taxes hangs precariously above 50 percent, with confidence in Brown slipping."<ref>[http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/09/4549500/gov-jerry-browns-tax-measure-holds.html ''Sacramento Bee'', "Gov. Jerry Brown's tax measure holds uneasy lead in latest polling," June 9, 2012]</ref>
  
 
In August, a poll released Wednesday by the Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE)/USC Rossier School of Education indicated 55% support for Proposition 30.<ref>[http://www.m4strategies.com/uploaded/12%2007%20936%20USC%20Education%20Poll%20August%202012%20TOPLINE_FINAL.pdf ''M4 Strategies for Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE)/USC Rossier School of Education'']</ref>
 
In August, a poll released Wednesday by the Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE)/USC Rossier School of Education indicated 55% support for Proposition 30.<ref>[http://www.m4strategies.com/uploaded/12%2007%20936%20USC%20Education%20Poll%20August%202012%20TOPLINE_FINAL.pdf ''M4 Strategies for Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE)/USC Rossier School of Education'']</ref>
Line 664: Line 713:
 
* [[California signature requirements|807,615 valid signatures]] were required for qualification purposes.
 
* [[California signature requirements|807,615 valid signatures]] were required for qualification purposes.
 
* The 150-day circulation deadline for #12-0009 was August 13, 2012.
 
* The 150-day circulation deadline for #12-0009 was August 13, 2012.
* Signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot were filed on May 4.<ref name=submit>[http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/05/jerry-brown-says-tax-signatures-in-hand.html ''Sacramento Bee'', "Jerry Brown says tax signatures in hand", May 3, 2012]</ref>
+
* Signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot were filed on May 4.<ref name=submit>[http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/05/jerry-brown-says-tax-signatures-in-hand.html ''Sacramento Bee'', "Jerry Brown says tax signatures in hand," May 3, 2012]</ref>
 
* On June 20, the [[California Secretary of State]] announced that the initiative had qualified for the {{nov06ca2012}}.<ref name=certified/>
 
* On June 20, the [[California Secretary of State]] announced that the initiative had qualified for the {{nov06ca2012}}.<ref name=certified/>
 +
 +
===Cost of signatures===
 +
 +
Two campaign committees ("Brown; Yes on Prop. 30 - To Protect Our Schools and Public Safety" and "Californians Working Together to Restore and Protect Public Schools, Universities and Public Safety") paid money to vendors to collect signatures to qualify Proposition 30 for the ballot.
 +
 +
The cumulative expenditure on signatures was '''$8,773,490.48.''' This amounted to a per-required-signature cost of $10.86.
 +
 +
All but $25,321 of the money spent on signatures went to [[Kimball Petition Management]].
  
 
:: ''See also: [[California ballot initiative petition signature costs]]''
 
:: ''See also: [[California ballot initiative petition signature costs]]''
 +
 
===Uphill climb===
 
===Uphill climb===
  
According to [[Joe Mathews]] of [[Prop Zero]], the initiative faced an uphill climb to get the signatures it needs to qualify for the November ballot.<ref name=nbc>[http://www.nbclosangeles.com/blogs/prop-zero/Tax-Hikes-Ballot-Initiatives-Jerry-Brown-California-Federation-Teachers-Petition-Circulators-142654926.html ''NBC Los Angeles'', "Brown's Tax Gamble", March 15, 2012]</ref> He says:
+
According to [[Joe Mathews]] of [[Prop Zero]], the initiative faced an uphill climb to get the signatures it needed to qualify for the November ballot.<ref name=nbc>[http://www.nbclosangeles.com/blogs/prop-zero/Tax-Hikes-Ballot-Initiatives-Jerry-Brown-California-Federation-Teachers-Petition-Circulators-142654926.html ''NBC Los Angeles'', "Brown's Tax Gamble," March 15, 2012]</ref> He said:
  
 
<blockquote>"The reasons are technical and complicated, but here is a brief summary. The key date to keep in mind is June 28. That's the final day -- 131 days before the election -- for the California Secretary of State to determine whether an initiative has qualified for the ballot. That date is a little more than 3 months away. But the full process takes well more than that. And the reviews and signature gathering need to be completed by early May for the measure to have a real chance.</blockquote>
 
<blockquote>"The reasons are technical and complicated, but here is a brief summary. The key date to keep in mind is June 28. That's the final day -- 131 days before the election -- for the California Secretary of State to determine whether an initiative has qualified for the ballot. That date is a little more than 3 months away. But the full process takes well more than that. And the reviews and signature gathering need to be completed by early May for the measure to have a real chance.</blockquote>
Line 682: Line 740:
 
===Cost of signatures===
 
===Cost of signatures===
  
The [[San Francisco Chronicle]] reported on March 17 that it might cost as much as $7 million to qualify the measure for the ballot. This is because signature-gatherers are likely to charge much more per signature than they normally would, because of the intense time constraints. The paper also reported that it would be the backers of the Millionaire's Tax who underwrite the expensive signature-gathering effort, while [[Jerry Brown]] sits on his campaign warchest in case the expedited signature-gathering effort for the merger initiative fails:
+
The [[San Francisco Chronicle]] reported on March 17 that it might cost as much as $7 million to qualify the measure for the ballot. The reason for this is that signature-gatherers were considered likely to charge much more per signature than they normally would, because of the intense time constraints. The paper also reported that it would be the backers of the Millionaire's Tax who would underwrite the expensive signature-gathering effort, while [[Jerry Brown]] was expected to sit on his campaign warchest in case the expedited signature-gathering effort for the merger initiative failed:
  
<blockquote>"Who's going to be raising all this money? Apparently Assembly Speaker John Pérez, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and their new partners from the former millionaires tax campaign (namely the California Federation of Teachers and the Courage Campaign). We hear the governor will reserve his war chest for his original tax plan - just in case the new, compromise measure can't get on the ballot."<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/16/BA251NLBDU.DTL&type=politics ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "Compromise tax measure needs 808,000 signatures", March 17, 2012]</ref></blockquote>
+
<blockquote>"Who's going to be raising all this money? Apparently Assembly Speaker John Pérez, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and their new partners from the former millionaires tax campaign (namely the California Federation of Teachers and the Courage Campaign). We hear the governor will reserve his war chest for his original tax plan - just in case the new, compromise measure can't get on the ballot."<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/16/BA251NLBDU.DTL&type=politics ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "Compromise tax measure needs 808,000 signatures," March 17, 2012]</ref></blockquote>
  
In early April, it was reported that signature-gatherers were being offered $3.00 per signature.<ref>[http://www.sgvtribune.com/opinions/ci_20302804/our-view-signature-gatherers-pull-back-curtain ''San Gabriel Valley Tribune'', "Our View: Signature gatherers: Pull back the curtain", April 1, 2012]</ref>
+
In early April, it was reported that signature-gatherers were being offered $3.00 per signature.<ref>[http://www.sgvtribune.com/opinions/ci_20302804/our-view-signature-gatherers-pull-back-curtain ''San Gabriel Valley Tribune'', "Our View: Signature gatherers: Pull back the curtain," April 1, 2012]</ref>
  
 
===Direct mail===
 
===Direct mail===
  
Supporters of Proposition 30 resorted to the use of direct mail to obtain signatures on the petition. According to columnist George Skelton, in so doing, they were taking a page from "the longtime GOP strategy of mailing ballot-measure petitions directly to voters for their signatures." Recipients of the direct mail package also received a follow-up robocall, asking them to sign and return the petition.<ref name=ny>[http://nydn.cms-test.dev.newscred.com/article/2981234a174de080ba08634d2f305810/los-angeles-times-george-skelton-column ''New York Daily News'', "A Wise Man Learns from His Foes", April 16, 2012]</ref>
+
Supporters of Proposition 30 resorted to the use of direct mail to obtain signatures on the petition. According to columnist George Skelton, in so doing, they were taking a page from "the longtime GOP strategy of mailing ballot-measure petitions directly to voters for their signatures." Recipients of the direct mail package also received a follow-up robocall, asking them to sign and return the petition.<ref name=ny>[http://nydn.cms-test.dev.newscred.com/article/2981234a174de080ba08634d2f305810/los-angeles-times-george-skelton-column ''New York Daily News'', "A Wise Man Learns from His Foes," April 16, 2012]</ref>
  
 
According to [[Gale Kaufman]], "Given the time frame, it seemed a combo of traditional signature-gathering and some mail would give us the quickest and best opportunity to collect signatures."<ref name=ny/>
 
According to [[Gale Kaufman]], "Given the time frame, it seemed a combo of traditional signature-gathering and some mail would give us the quickest and best opportunity to collect signatures."<ref name=ny/>
Line 700: Line 758:
 
* [http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2012/general/pdf/30-arg-rebuttals.pdf Arguments for and against Proposition 30] in the [[California Voter Guide (official)|official state voter guide]]
 
* [http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2012/general/pdf/30-arg-rebuttals.pdf Arguments for and against Proposition 30] in the [[California Voter Guide (official)|official state voter guide]]
 
* [http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i1057_12-0009_governors_initiative_v3.pdf? Letter requesting a ballot title for Initiative 12-0009]
 
* [http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i1057_12-0009_governors_initiative_v3.pdf? Letter requesting a ballot title for Initiative 12-0009]
 +
* [https://cali.livingvotersguide.org/ca_prop_30 Living Voter's Guide to Proposition 30]
 
* [http://smartvoter.org/2012/11/06/ca/state/prop/30/ Proposition 30], an overview prepared by the [[League of Women Voters of California]]
 
* [http://smartvoter.org/2012/11/06/ca/state/prop/30/ Proposition 30], an overview prepared by the [[League of Women Voters of California]]
 
* [http://votersedge.org/california/ballot-measures/2012/november/prop-30 Proposition 30 on Voter's Edge]
 
* [http://votersedge.org/california/ballot-measures/2012/november/prop-30 Proposition 30 on Voter's Edge]
Line 711: Line 770:
 
* [https://www.facebook.com/SchoolsAndSafetyProtectionAct "Yes on Prop 30" on Facebook]
 
* [https://www.facebook.com/SchoolsAndSafetyProtectionAct "Yes on Prop 30" on Facebook]
 
* [https://twitter.com/YesOnProp30 "Yes on Prop 30" on Twitter]
 
* [https://twitter.com/YesOnProp30 "Yes on Prop 30" on Twitter]
* [http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1343257 Campaign finance filings of "Brown; Yes on Prop. 30 - To Protect Our Schools and Public Safety", #1343257]
+
* [http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1343257 Campaign finance filings of "Brown; Yes on Prop. 30 - To Protect Our Schools and Public Safety," #1343257]
* [http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1346049&view=received Campaign finance filings of "Californians Working Together to Restore and Protect Public Schools, Universities and Public Safety", #1346049]   
+
* [http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1346049&view=received Campaign finance filings of "Californians Working Together to Restore and Protect Public Schools, Universities and Public Safety," #1346049]   
  
 
'''Opposition:'''
 
'''Opposition:'''
Line 719: Line 778:
 
* [https://www.facebook.com/CaliforniansForReformsAndJobsNotTaxes "No on Prop 30" on Facebook]
 
* [https://www.facebook.com/CaliforniansForReformsAndJobsNotTaxes "No on Prop 30" on Facebook]
 
* [https://twitter.com/StopProp30 "No on Prop 30" on Twitter]
 
* [https://twitter.com/StopProp30 "No on Prop 30" on Twitter]
* [http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1347735&session=2011 Campaign finance reports of "No on 30", #1347735]
+
* [http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1347735&session=2011 Campaign finance reports of "No on 30," #1347735]
* [http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1347735&session=2011 Campaign finance reports of "Small Business Action Committee PAC, No on 30/Yes on 32, Citizens for Reforming Sacramento", #1270683]
+
* [http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1347735&session=2011 Campaign finance reports of "Small Business Action Committee PAC, No on 30/Yes on 32, Citizens for Reforming Sacramento," #1270683]
 
* [http://defeat30.com/ "Defeat Prop.30"], opposition website run by the [http://www.hjta.org/ Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association]
 
* [http://defeat30.com/ "Defeat Prop.30"], opposition website run by the [http://www.hjta.org/ Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association]
  
Line 732: Line 791:
 
* [http://www.modbee.com/2012/09/15/2375330/propositions-30-and-38-offer-school.html Propositions 30, 38 offer school districts much-needed relief]
 
* [http://www.modbee.com/2012/09/15/2375330/propositions-30-and-38-offer-school.html Propositions 30, 38 offer school districts much-needed relief]
 
* [http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2012/09/the-time-for-reform-is-now-and-sbac-is-going-to-help/ The Time for Reform is Now … and SBAC is Going to Help]
 
* [http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2012/09/the-time-for-reform-is-now-and-sbac-is-going-to-help/ The Time for Reform is Now … and SBAC is Going to Help]
 +
* [http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/school-budgets-are-on-the-ballot-in-california-85899416785 School Budgets Are on the Ballot in California]
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
{{reflist}}
+
{{reflist|2}}
  
 
{{2012 ballot measures}}
 
{{2012 ballot measures}}

Revision as of 15:58, 2 May 2014


Proposition 30
Flag of California.png
Quick stats
Type:Initiated amendment
Referred by:Petition signatures
Topic:Taxes
Status:Approveda
Proposition 30, a Sales and Income Tax Increase Initiative, was on the November 6, 2012 ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was approved.[1]

Gov. Jerry Brown led the charge for Proposition 30, which was a merger of two previously competing initiatives; the "Millionaire's Tax" and Brown's First Tax Increase Proposal.[2]

Proposition 30:

  • Raises California’s sales tax to 7.5% from 7.25%, a 3.45% percentage increase over current law. (Under the Brown Tax Hike, the sales tax would have increased to 7.75%)[3][4]
  • Creates four high-income tax brackets for taxpayers with taxable incomes exceeding $250,000, $300,000, $500,000 and $1,000,000. This increased tax will be in effect for 7 years.[3][5][6]
  • Imposes a 10.3% tax rate on taxable income over $250,000 but less than $300,000--a percentage increase of 10.6% over current policy of 9.3%. The 10.3% income tax rate is currently only paid by taxpayers with over $1,000,000 in taxable income.[7].
  • Imposes an 11.3% tax rate on taxable income over $300,000 but less than $500,000--a percentage increase of 21.5% over current policy of 9.3%.
  • Imposes a 12.3% tax rate on taxable income over $500,000 up to $1,000,000--a percentage increase of 32.26% over current policy of 9.3%.
  • Imposes a 13.3% tax rate on taxable income over $1,000,000--a percentage increase of 29.13% over current "millionaires tax" policy of 10.3%.
  • If this proposition is passed in November, 2012, the income tax will apply retroactively to all income earned or received since the first of the year (1 January, 2012).
  • Based on California Franchise Tax Board data for 2009[8], the additional income tax is imposed on the top 3% of California taxpayers.

Estimated revenue from Proposition 30 vary from Jerry Brown's $9 billion estimate to the $6.8 billion estimated by the nonpartisan Legislative Analysts Office (LAO).[9]. The difference stem for the volatility caused by capital gains income from high-income earners, an issue in California's tax system previously identified by the Legislative Analysts Office (LAO).[10]

Election results

See also: 2012 ballot measure election results
California Proposition 30
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 7,014,114 55.4%
No5,653,63744.6%
These final, certified, results are from the California Secretary of State.

Aftermath

In the aftermath of the approval of Proposition 30, pundits across the country debated whether Proposition 30's higher taxes on wealthy individuals would lead any of those individuals to decide to leave the state.[11]

Chris Plastiras, the owner of a real estate company in Nevada, since that since Proposition 30 passed, 14 of the 27 high-end homes he sold between the election and the end of January 2013 were to wealthy individuals leaving California for Nevada. He said, "They're buying fast and furious, absolutely. I've never seen anything quite like this. Prop. 30 really got a lot of people upset and they feel like they're being singled out, and that was pretty much the straw that broke the camel's back for them."[11]

Text of measure

See also: Complete text of Proposition 30 and Ballot titles, summaries and fiscal statements for California's 2012 ballot propositions

Title

Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Summary

The state's official voter guide included two summaries for each statewide ballot measure. One summary, in bullet-point format, was in the long-form description of each measure. A shorter form of the summary was on the ballot label in the front of the voter guide.

The long-form summary for Proposition 30 said:

  • Increases personal income tax on annual earnings over $250,000 for seven years.
  • Increases sales and use tax by ¼ cent for four years.
  • Allocates temporary tax revenues 89% to K–12 schools and 11% to community colleges.
  • Bars use of funds for administrative costs, but provides local school governing boards discretion to decide, in open meetings and subject to annual audit, how funds are to be spent.
  • Guarantees funding for public safety services realigned from state to local governments.

The short-form (ballot label) summary for Proposition 30 said:

"Increases taxes on earnings over $250,000 for seven years and sales taxes by ¼ cent for four years, to fund schools. Guarantees public safety realignment funding. Fiscal Impact: Increased state tax revenues through 2018–19, averaging about $6 billion annually over the next few years. Revenues available for funding state budget. In 2012–13, planned spending reductions, primarily to education programs, would not occur."

Fiscal impact

See also: Fiscal impact statements for California's 2012 ballot propositions

(This is a summary of Proposition 30's estimated "fiscal impact on state and local government" prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office and the Director of Finance.)

  • Additional state tax revenues of about $6 billion annually from 2012–13 through 2016–17. Smaller amounts of additional revenue would be available in 2011–12, 2017–18, and 2018–19.
  • These additional revenues would be available to fund programs in the state budget. Spending reductions of about $6 billion in 2012–13, mainly to education programs, would not take effect.

Constitutional changes

Proposition 30 changed the California Constitution. It did this by adding a new Section 36 to Article XIII of the California Constitution.

Support

"Yes on Prop 30" website logo

Supporters

Supporters included:

The arguments in favor of Proposition 30 in the state's official voter guide were submitted by:

Arguments in favor

The arguments presented in favor of Proposition 30 in the state's official voter guide included:

  • "Without Prop. 30, our schools and colleges face an additional $6 billion in devastating cuts this year. Prop. 30 is the only initiative that prevents those cuts and provides billions in new funding for our schools starting this year—money that can be spent on smaller class sizes, up-to-date textbooks and rehiring teachers."
  • "Prop. 30 is the only measure that establishes a guarantee for public safety funding in our state’s constitution, where it can’t be touched without voter approval. Prop. 30 keeps cops on the street."
  • "Prop. 30 balances our budget and helps pay down California’s debt—built up by years of gimmicks and borrowing. It is a critical step in stopping the budget shortfalls that plague California."
  • "To protect schools and safety, Prop. 30 temporarily increases personal income taxes on the highest earners—couples with incomes over $500,000 a year—and establishes the sales tax at a rate lower than it was last year. Prop. 30’s taxes are temporary, balanced and necessary to protect schools and safety."
  • "Only highest-income earners pay more income tax: Prop. 30 asks those who earn the most to temporarily pay more income taxes. Couples earning below $500,000 a year will pay no additional income taxes."
  • "All new revenue is temporary: Prop. 30’s taxes are temporary, and this initiative cannot be modified without a vote of the people. The very highest earners will pay more for seven years. The sales tax provision will be in effect for four years."

Donors

Total campaign cash Campaign Finance Ballotpedia.png
as of November 3, 2012
Category:Ballot measure endorsements Support: $67,100,000
Circle thumbs down.png Opposition: $53,400,000

About $67.1 million had been contributed to the "yes" campaign as of Saturday, November 3, 2012.

Twenty-two different campaign committees registered in support of Proposition 30. The main campaign organizations supporting it are:

Donors of $250,000 and more to Proposition 30 are listed below.

These numbers are current as of Saturday, November 3, 2012:

Donor Amount
California Teachers Association $11,439,297
SEIU/California State Council of Service Employees $10,746,928
Democratic State Central Committee of California $5,089,646
American Federation of Teachers $4,179,229
The Coca-Cola Company $2,072,793
California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems $2,000,000
Pepsico Incorporated $1,633,863
PACE of California School Employees Association $1,500,495
California Beer & Beverage Distributor's $1,094,311
California Nurses Association $1,106,417
Reed Hastings $1,000,000
United Brotherhood of Carpenters $1,000,000
Laborers International Union of North America $855,056
United Domestic Workers of America Operating Account $800,000
Laborers' Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition $600,000
Occidental Petroleum $500,000
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America $500,000
California Statewide Law Enforcement Association $426,552
State Building and Construction Trades Council of California $400,000
Educators and Working Families to Restore California $360,000
California State Association of Electrical Workers $300,000
PICO California $259,000
AERA Energy $250,000
American Beverage Association $250,000
California Medical Association PAC $250,000
CSLEA Issues Committee $250,000
KP Financial Services $250,000
Laborer's International Union $250,000
Northern California Carpenter's Regional Council $250,000
SW Regional Council of Carpenters $250,000

Opposition

"No on Prop 30" website logo

Opponents

The arguments against Proposition 30 in the state's official voter guide were submitted by:

  • Jon Coupal. Coupal is the head of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
  • Tom Bogetich. Bogetich has retired from the position of executive director of the California State Board of Education.
  • Doug Boyd. Boyd is a member of the Los Angeles County Board of Education.[16]
  • Joel Fox. Fox is the president of the Small Business Action Committee.
  • John Kabateck. Kabateck is the executive director of the California branch of the National Federation of Independent Business.
  • Kenneth Payne. Payne is the president of the Sacramento Taxpayers Association.[17]

Other opponents included:

Arguments against

The arguments in opposition to Proposition 30 presented in the state's official voter guide included:

  • There is no guarantee in the way it is written that the money would be used for schools. Thus, opponents say, it is a "$50 billion shell game." To buttress this argument, opponents quote the California School Boards Association, which in May 2012 said, "the Governor's initiative does not provide new funding for schools."[16]
  • "Nothing in Prop 30 reforms our education system to cut waste, eliminate bureaucracy or cut administrative overhead."[16]
  • Instead of supporting education, the new tax money raised by Proposition 30 will really go to "backfill the insolvent teacher's pension fund."[16]
  • "The Governor, politicians and special interests behind Proposition 30 threaten voters. They say 'vote for our massive tax increase or we'll take it out on schools,' but at the same time, they refuse to reform the education or pension systems to save money."[16]
  • "Politicians would rather raise taxes instead of streamlining thousands of state-funded programs...look at what they just did: politicians authorized nearly $5 billion in California bonds for the 'bullet train to nowhere', costing taxpayers $380 million a year. Let's use those dollars for schools! Instead, the politicians gave us a false choice -- raise sales taxes by $1 billion per year and raise income taxes on small businesses OR cut schools."

Other arguments made against Proposition 30 included:

  • The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association conducted a "Don't Sign the Petition" campaign, urging people to decline to sign the petition. On their website devoted to encouraging people not to sign the petition, they said, "Petition gatherers may tell you their measure is to increase school funding. But simply put, It’s a Tax Increase! California is already a poorly managed state. We have a $15 billion budget deficit - a result of overspending - $500 billion in unfunded pension liabilities, a tax and regulatory climate that drives businesses away, wasteful and ineffective use of our tax dollars and a political system unduly influenced by special interests. We do NOT need higher taxes. Join us by telling everyone you know not to sign Jerry Brown's tax initiative."[19]
  • The income tax will be retroactive back to the first of the year (2012), a fundamentally unfair ploy that would not be tolerated if it happened to you as an individual.
  • The dire "trigger cuts" threatened by proponents are NOT mandated if this measure does not pass. They are NOT automatic. The legislature can choose a number of options to protect and reform education spending if they wish. The touted "trigger cuts" are a political ploy -- nothing more.
  • Prop 30 funds can free up EXISTING general budget spending on education -- allowing those education funds to then be spent on state worker pay increases, pensions -- and high speed rail to nowhere.
  • California is already a very high tax state. We already have the 2nd highest state income tax rate, as well as THE highest state sales tax rate.[20][21]
  • If Proposition 30 is approved, California will be by far #1 in income tax rates. It will be 21% higher than the 2nd highest state (Hawaii), 34% higher than the 3rd highest state (Oregon), and FAR higher than all the rest – including seven states with zero state income tax.[22]
  • Proposition 30 is opposed by columnist Debra Saunders, who said, "I fear [it will] drive golden geese out of the state. Sure, most families earning $500,000 or more aren't going to move over a lousy $5,000, but moguls who make 20 times that and own multiple homes just might decide to migrate. And there go all their tax dollars."[23]
  • Some people who generally support tax increases in California said that they have problems with the specifics of Proposition 30. An example of this was Molly Munger, who said, "You sort of hope that the Democrats are the party that stand up for investment in children and in education. Those are two bedrock principles of the Democratic Party. It is a little bit ironic that so many elements of the Democratic Party are, you know, supporting an initiative that does not invest in the main engine we have for social mobility and opportunity in our society, which is our K-12 schools."[24] Another example is columnist George Skelton, who said, "Brown wants voters to believe that all the billions raised by his tax hike would go to K-12 schools and community colleges. They won't. And he knows that as well as anyone."[25]
  • Molly Munger additionally said, "Under our proposal, virtually all the cuts that the schools have suffered in the last four years would all be restored—and under the governor's initiative, virtually none would be."[26]

Donors

Total campaign cash Campaign Finance Ballotpedia.png
as of November 3, 2012
Category:Ballot measure endorsements Support: $67,100,000
Circle thumbs down.png Opposition: $53,400,000
The "No on 30" campaign raised about $53.4 million as of November 3, 2012. That amount, however, included well over $40 million in contributions to a joint campaign committee (the Small Business Action Committee) that is simultaneously supporting Proposition 32 and opposing Proposition 30.[27][28]

The donors listed in the chart below are the $20,000 and over donors to the "No on 30" campaign as of Saturday, November 3, 2012. Some of these donors gave their money to a committee that was simultaneously supporting or opposing more than one of the ballot propositions on the November 6, 2012 ballot. When that is the case, it is not generally possible to break down how much of that donor's money specifically was spent on the campaign for a particular proposition. Those contributions are listed below with shading; readers should not assume that all or even most of a donation to a multi-purpose committee was used for expenditures related to this particular proposition.

Donor Amount
Charles Munger, Jr. $35,075,000
Americans for Responsible Leadership $11,000,000
William Oberndorf $1,100,000
Jerrold Perenchio $750,000
John Scully $500,000
Margaret Bloomfield $500,000
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association $440,249
New Majority California PAC $350,000
Charles B. Johnson $200,000
T. Boone Pickens $100,000
Jon Cox $100,000
Errotabere, Inc. $100,000
George Hume $100,000
Robert Weltman $99,000
Craig McCaw $75,000
Robert Rodriquez $75,000
Robert Arnott $50,000
Leonard Baker $50,000
Frank Baxter $50,000
David Baylor $50,000
David Fishman $50,000
Amish Mehta $50,000
Jesse Rogers $50,000
Alexander Slusky $50,000
Mark Stevens $50,000
Jeffrey Ubben $50,000
David Golob $25,000
Park Place Asset Management $25,000
Bob Tuttle $25,000
William H. Younger $25,000
Thomas V. McKernan, Jr. $25,000
Tench Coxe $25,000

California tax policies

The following table summarizes the Proposition 30 tax increases compared to existing tax policy. The table includes the following information:

  • The starting income for the bottom end of the tax bracket (for single-filer taxpayers)
  • The income for the top end of the tax bracket (for single-filer taxpayers)
  • The marginal tax rate for the income bracket under current policy
  • The new tax rate for the income bracket under the proposed tax hike
  • The rate increase (proposed_rate - current_rate)
  • The percentage increase in the rate over current policy ( (proposed_rate - current_rate)/current_rate )
  • The number of taxpayers that will pay an increased tax rate under the proposed tax hike. These estimates come from 2009 California Franchise Tax Board data.[8] There were 14,638,204 individual income tax payers in 2009. The proposed tax hike affects approximately the top 400,000 taxpayers, about 2.7% of the taxpayer population.
  • The percentage of taxpayers that will pay more taxes under the proposed tax hike. Again, these estimates come from 2009 California Franchise Tax Board data.[8]
  • The extra amount owed due to the tax increase for incomes at the bottom end of the tax bracket
  • The extra amount owed due to the tax increase for incomes at the top end of the tax bracket
Bottom of
Income Bracket
Top of
Income Bracket
Current Marginal
Income Tax Rate
Proposed Marginal
Income Tax Rate
Income Tax
Rate Increase
Percentage Rate Increase
Over Current Policy
Number of Taxpayers
Affected by Tax Hike
Percentage of Taxpayers
Affected by Tax Hike
Extra $$$ Owed at
Bottom of Bracket
Extra $$$ Owed at
Top of Bracket
$0 $7,142 1.0% 1.0% 0% 0% 0 0% $0 $0
$7,142 $17,346 2.0% 2.0% 0% 0% 0 0% $0 $0
$17,346 $27,377 4.0% 4.0% 0% 0% 0 0% $0 $0
$27,377 $38,004 6.0% 6.0% 0% 0% 0 0% $0 $0
$38,004 $48,029 8.0% 8.0% 0% 0% 0 0% $0 $0
$48,029 $250,000 9.3% 9.3% 0% 0% 0 0% $0 $0
$250,000 $300,000 9.3% 10.3% 1% 10.75% 156,000 1.07% $0 $500
$300,000 $500,000 9.3% 11.3% 2% 21.50% 145,000 0.99% $500 $4,500
$500,000 $1,000,000 9.3% 12.3% 3% 32.26% 65,000 0.44% $4,500 $19,500
$1,000,000 no limit 10.3% 13.3% 3% 29.13% 34,000 0.23% $19,500 $19,500 + 3% of
income over $1M

Editorial opinion

2012 propositions
Flag of California.png
June 5
Proposition 28
Proposition 29
November 6
Proposition 30
Proposition 31
Proposition 32
Proposition 33
Proposition 34
Proposition 35
Proposition 36
Proposition 37
Proposition 38
Proposition 39
Proposition 40
DonationsVendors
EndorsementsFull text
Ballot titlesFiscal impact
Local measures
See also: Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2012

"Yes on 30"

  • The Bay Area Reporter: "We support Prop 30 for several reasons, not the least of which is that it is the product of the political process (although attempts to reach a legislative compromise failed) in which the governor, the Democratic majorities in the Legislature, and affected stakeholders were all part of the negotiations and compromise that resulted in the proposition before the voters."[29]
  • The Daily Democrat (Woodland, California): "This tax increase is supported by Gov. Jerry Brown and would avoid deep cuts to public schools, community colleges and universities."[30]
  • The Fresno Bee: "California's fiscal house remains shaky. Prop. 30 offers a way for the state to start climbing out of its pit. It's not ideal. But it is the best available option."[31]
  • The Lompoc Record: ."..a tax increase to avoid calamity for school funding."[32]
  • The Long Beach Press-Telegram: "Proposition 30 lets our children -- not lawmakers -- off the hook."[33]
  • The Los Angeles Daily News: "Yes, our schools are being held hostage. The right thing to do is pay up -- and then demand that the reforms begun in Sacramento this year with pension and workers' comp reform continue. Proposition 30 lets our children -- not lawmakers -- off the hook."[34]
  • The Los Angeles Times: "Two years of belt-tightening have left parts of the state safety net in tatters and pushed college costs out of the reach of many families. Cuts in aid to the poor and working poor in this year's budget eliminated child-care subsidies for 14,000 children and preschool slots for 12,500 children. State aid for low-income seniors and the disabled is now as low as it was in 1983; welfare checks are smaller than they were 25 years ago. And K-12 spending per pupil remains $1,000 less than it was five years ago. California now spends less per student than all but three states."[35]
  • The Marin Independent Journal: "Passage of Proposition 30 would protect public schools — and our children's educational foundation and opportunities — from being slashed."[36]
  • The Merced Sun-Star: "Some entities, notably the California School Boards Association, recommends a 'yes' vote on both measures. We think it's more likely voters will support only one, and we think that Proposition 30 is preferable of the two."[37]
  • The Modesto Bee:[38]
  • The Redding Record Searchlight: "The truth is there's not enough money for the state to do everything its citizens demand. The state frankly overspent straight through the Schwarzenegger administration, even in good years, and now we're at a moment of truth."[39]
  • The Sacramento Bee: "Gov. Jerry Brown's initiative to raise taxes by $6 billion a year is vital to California's future on many different levels."[40]
  • The San Bernardino Sun: "California already ranks among the lowest in per-pupil spending. The state's largest school district, Los Angeles Unified, already has the shortest school year in the nation. There's too much at stake to oppose this measure on principle."[41]
  • The San Francisco Bay Guardian: "And in a state with more billionaires than any other place in America, a fabulously rich place with the world's eighth-largest economy, the notion that we have to argue about raising $6 billion in taxes is farcical."[42]
  • The San Francisco Chronicle: "The governor and the ruling Democrats in the Legislature have given Californians who care about schools and the current-year deficit only one real choice: support Prop. 30, which would raise taxes on incomes starting at $250,000 for individuals, $500,000 for married couples, and the state portion of the sales tax (now 7.25 percent) by a quarter cent ... Prop. 30 provides a necessary budget patch - especially with the Legislature's Republicans unwilling to consider any tax increases."[43]
  • The San Gabriel Valley Tribune: "The overall tax burden will still be lower than it was two years ago."[44]
  • The San Jose Mercury News: "Proposition 30 is no substitute for long-term reforms in education funding, pensions and other areas, but it is a measured and sensible response to this crisis."[45]
  • The Santa Cruz Sentinel: "Critics of the measure say the governor won't dare administer such cuts. So far, however, we're unaware of any alternative plan for making up the $6 billion."[46]
  • The Vallejo Times-Herald: "Proposition 30 is no substitute for long-term reforms in education funding, pensions and other areas, but it is a measured and sensible response to this crisis."[47]
  • The Ventura County Star: "It is a reasonable, well-thought-out approach to an interim fix for the state's recurring deficit, thus giving lawmakers time to seek a long-term solution."[48]

"No on 30"

  • The Bakersfield Californian: "As desperate as the state is for money, we oppose Prop. 30 because it promotes the same bad budgeting policies that pushed the state into the mess it's in today."[49]
  • The Contra Costa Times: "Proposition 30 is like taking an Alka-Seltzer for your aching head when you need brain surgery. Sure, the pain might lessen for a while, but the root cause remains. Proposition 30 is not so much a solution as it is a cynical political calculation meant to determine just how much the voters will tolerate. And those voters have had to tolerate a lot recently. While claiming poverty, the Legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown forged ahead with the ill-advised and costly high-speed rail boondoggle."[50]
  • The North County Times: "The utter failure of Brown to fulfill his primary campaign promise and institute some kind of meaningful public pension reform means that any money raised from Prop. 30 is simply going to feed the beast. For voters to approve Prop. 30 at this time, when no real reform has been passed, would be to reward Sacramento's wasteful, irresponsible behavior."[51]
  • The Orange County Register: "The tax-and-spend culture in Sacramento needs a complete overhaul. Voters might be agreeable to paying more if they saw true reform, such as freeing families from underperforming public schools with tuition vouchers or enough charter schools to meet demand. Maybe if there were genuine reform to public-sector pensions. Or, if meaningful reform in providing public services could be achieved, rather than merely promised, or, if new spending meant equal reductions in old spending, perhaps voters would have reason to give more. We don't see these reforms ahead. As always, instead, we hear pleas to increase taxes for a broken system those in charge refuse to fix."[52]
  • The Press-Enterprise: "California would be foolish to raise taxes without providing real and enduring solutions to the state’s chronic budget shortfalls. Yet Props. 30 and 38 would increase taxes on Californians without putting state finances on a sustainable course. Voters should demand a comprehensive fix to the state’s yearly budget turmoil, and reject the flawed half-measures offered by Props. 30 and 38."[53]
  • The San Diego Union-Tribune: "California voters have a crucial choice this November. On Propositions 30 and 38, they can vote for higher taxes and accept the premise that this won’t hurt the struggling economy and that the main problem with our already-high-tax state is that its government doesn’t get enough money from its residents. Or they can vote no and force change in our broken status quo, starting with the public schools that eat up by far the biggest chunk of the state budget."[54]
  • The Victorville Daily Press: "Proposition 30 on November's ballot would raise money by increasing the California sales tax by a quarter cent. That doesn't sound like much, until you recall that California’s sales tax rate is already the highest in the United States. Couple that with the fact that the Congressional Budget Office says median U.S. family income has declined more than $4,000 a year since the advent of Obama nearly four years ago, and it’s easy to understand why none of us needs the additional burden. Gov. Jerry Brown argues that the money will go to California’s public schools, but that’s dishonest at best. He wants you to believe that when he says “schools” he means students. He doesn’t; he means teachers’ benefits, mostly pensions."[55]

Polling information

See also: Polls, 2012 ballot measures

A USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll was conducted from March 14-19, 2012.[56] A PPIC poll was conducted in early April.[57] PPIC also conducted a poll from May 14-20.[58]

A Field Poll conducted in late May indicated declining support.[59] The Sacramento Bee described the results of that poll as "public support for Gov. Jerry Brown's effort to raise taxes hangs precariously above 50 percent, with confidence in Brown slipping."[60]

In August, a poll released Wednesday by the Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE)/USC Rossier School of Education indicated 55% support for Proposition 30.[61]

Date of Poll Pollster In favor Opposed Undecided Number polled
March 14-19, 2012 By GQR & AV for USC Dornsife/LAT 64% 33% 3% 1,500
April 3-10, 2012 PPIC 54% 39% 7% 823
May 14-20, 2012 PPIC 56% 38% 7% 2,002
May 21-29, 2012 Field Poll 52% 35% 13% 710
June 21-July 2, 2012 Field Poll 54% 38% 12% 997
August 3-7, 2012 PACE/USC Rossier School of Education 55% 36% 9% 1,041
September 9-16, 2012 PPIC 52% 40% 8% 2,003
September 6-18, 2012 Field Poll 51% 36% 13% 902
September 17-23, 2012 USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times 54% 37% 9% 1,504
October 7-9, 2012 SurveyUSA 33% 38% 29% 700
October 7-10, 2012 California Business Roundtable 49.5% 41.7% 8.8% 830
October 11-15, 2012 Reason-Rupe 50% 46% 4% 696
October 14-21, 2012 PPIC 48% 44% 8% 2,006
October 21-28, 2012 California Business Roundtable 49.2% 42.9% 7.8% 2,115
October 17-30, 2012 Field Poll 48% 38% 14% 1,912

Path to the ballot

Clipboard48.png
See also: California signature requirements

Cost of signatures

Two campaign committees ("Brown; Yes on Prop. 30 - To Protect Our Schools and Public Safety" and "Californians Working Together to Restore and Protect Public Schools, Universities and Public Safety") paid money to vendors to collect signatures to qualify Proposition 30 for the ballot.

The cumulative expenditure on signatures was $8,773,490.48. This amounted to a per-required-signature cost of $10.86.

All but $25,321 of the money spent on signatures went to Kimball Petition Management.

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

Uphill climb

According to Joe Mathews of Prop Zero, the initiative faced an uphill climb to get the signatures it needed to qualify for the November ballot.[3] He said:

"The reasons are technical and complicated, but here is a brief summary. The key date to keep in mind is June 28. That's the final day -- 131 days before the election -- for the California Secretary of State to determine whether an initiative has qualified for the ballot. That date is a little more than 3 months away. But the full process takes well more than that. And the reviews and signature gathering need to be completed by early May for the measure to have a real chance.
That will be extremely difficult. Once the initiative is filed, the department of finance and the Legislative Analyst's Office have 25 days to prepare a fiscal impact statement. The attorney general has another 15 days to prepare the title and summary.
Even if the full 40 days aren't required and this politically sensitive measure is fast-tracked, it should be mid-April, at best, by the time this measure hits the streets.
Practically, that could leave less than 3 weeks to collect signatures. Why? Because the signatures must be verified. Counties are supposed to conduct a raw count of the signatures that are turned in by May 2; and by May 11, the Secretary of State must receive those raw counts from the counties and decide whether there are more than enough signatures to qualify."

Cost of signatures

The San Francisco Chronicle reported on March 17 that it might cost as much as $7 million to qualify the measure for the ballot. The reason for this is that signature-gatherers were considered likely to charge much more per signature than they normally would, because of the intense time constraints. The paper also reported that it would be the backers of the Millionaire's Tax who would underwrite the expensive signature-gathering effort, while Jerry Brown was expected to sit on his campaign warchest in case the expedited signature-gathering effort for the merger initiative failed:

"Who's going to be raising all this money? Apparently Assembly Speaker John Pérez, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and their new partners from the former millionaires tax campaign (namely the California Federation of Teachers and the Courage Campaign). We hear the governor will reserve his war chest for his original tax plan - just in case the new, compromise measure can't get on the ballot."[63]

In early April, it was reported that signature-gatherers were being offered $3.00 per signature.[64]

Direct mail

Supporters of Proposition 30 resorted to the use of direct mail to obtain signatures on the petition. According to columnist George Skelton, in so doing, they were taking a page from "the longtime GOP strategy of mailing ballot-measure petitions directly to voters for their signatures." Recipients of the direct mail package also received a follow-up robocall, asking them to sign and return the petition.[65]

According to Gale Kaufman, "Given the time frame, it seemed a combo of traditional signature-gathering and some mail would give us the quickest and best opportunity to collect signatures."[65]

External links

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

Support:

Opposition:

Additional reading:

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Sacramento Bee, "Jerry Brown's proposal and two other tax measures qualify for November ballot," June 21, 2012
  2. Business Week, "Brown Reaches Deal With Union on Tax-Increase Compromise," March 15, 2012
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 NBC Los Angeles, "Brown's Tax Gamble," March 15, 2012
  4. California Secretary of State, "The Schools and Public Safety Protection Act of 2012, Version 3," March 14, 2012, pages 8-9.
  5. California Secretary of State, "The Schools and Public Safety Protection Act of 2012, Version 3," March 14, 2012, pages 9-10.
  6. Los Angeles Times, "Jerry Brown, tax realist," accessed March 16, 2012
  7. Tax Foundation, "State Individual Income Tax Rates, 2000-2012," February 16, 2012
  8. 8.0 8.1 8.2 California Franchise Tax Board, "Table B-4A.1: Personal Income Tax Statistics for Resident Tax Returns (Tax Year 2009), 2010 Annual Report
  9. Sacramento Bee, "Budget analyst: Tax revenue less than Jerry Brown projects," accessed March 16, 2012
  10. California Legislative Analysts Office (LAO), Elizabeth G. Hill, "Revenue Volatility in California," January, 2005
  11. 11.0 11.1 The Daily Democrat, "With higher taxes, rich California residents consider move to cheaper pastures," February 9, 2013
  12. League of Women Voters of California - November 12, 2012 Vote With The League Flyer
  13. Walnut Patch, "Democratic Party Picks State Ballot Measures to Support," July 30, 2012
  14. ElectionTrack.com, "Contributions to Brown; Californians To Protect Schools, Universities And Public Safety, A Ballot Measure Committee Supported By Governor Jerry Brown"
  15. ElectionTrack.com, "Californians Working Together To Restore And Protect Public Schools, Universities And Public Safety"
  16. 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 California Secretary of State, "Arguments Against Proposition 30"
  17. California Secretary of State, "Rebuttal to arguments in favor of Proposition 30"
  18. Walnut Creek Patch, "California Republicans Oppose Proposed Tax Measures," August 12, 2012
  19. Sacramento Bee, "As Jerry Brown seeks tax signatures, the opposition emerges," April 10, 2012
  20. Tax Foundation, "How Does Your State Compare?" Table #11
  21. Tax Foundation, "State and Local Sales Tax Rates, As of January 1, 2012," published February 16, 2012
  22. Tax Foundation, "How Does Your State Compare?" Tables #11 and #13
  23. San Francisco Chronicle, "Jerry Brown's tax plan breaks faith with California," March 17, 2012
  24. Business Week, "AP Exclusive: Munger says Brown tax claims untrue," March 23, 2012
  25. Press Democrat, "Brown's tax plan pitch misleads," March 25, 2012
  26. Wall Street Journal, "California Democrats Duel Over Taxes, Budget," April 1, 2012
  27. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named donors
  28. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named junedonations
  29. Bay Area Reporter, "Yes on 30, No on 38," September 13, 2012
  30. Daily Democrat, "Democrat endorsements: Propositions," October 14, 2012
  31. Fresno Bee, "EDITORIAL: Prop. 30 is state's best option to move forward," October 16, 2012
  32. Lompoc Record, "The shift to stronger fiscal policy," October 7, 2012
  33. Long Beach Press Telegram, "Endorsements: Yes on Prop. 30, No on Prop. 38," October 13, 2012
  34. Los Angeles Daily News, "Endorsements: Yes on Prop. 30, No on Prop. 38," October 13, 2012
  35. Los Angeles Times, "Yes on Proposition 30, no on Proposition 38," October 2, 2012
  36. Marin Independent Journal, "Editorial: IJ recommendations on state Propositions 30-33," October 11, 2012
  37. Merced Sun-Star, "Our View: Prop. 30 is best option for schools," October 15, 2012
  38. Modesto Bee, "Proposition 30 best option available to fund schools," October 13, 2012
  39. Redding Record Searchlight, "Editorial: Cost of saying No to Prop. 30 just too steep," September 30, 2012
  40. Sacramento Bee, "'Yes' on Jerry Brown's Prop. 30; 'No' on Munger's Prop. 38," October 7, 2012
  41. San Bernardino Sun, "Yes on Prop. 30: Pay to save schools, then demand reforms," October 13, 2012
  42. San Francisco Bay Guardian, "Endorsements 2012: State ballot measures," October 3, 2012
  43. San Francisco Chronicle, "Editorial: Chronicle recommends," October 5, 2012
  44. San Gabriel Valley Tribune, "Our View: Yes on Prop. 30, no on Prop. 38," October 13, 2012
  45. San Jose Mercury News, "Mercury News editorial: Vote yes on Prop. 30, no on Prop. 38," September 28, 2012
  46. Santa Cruz Sentinel, "Editorial: Yes on 30; No on 38," October 11, 2012
  47. Vallejo Times-Herald, "'Yes' on Prop. 30, 'no' on Prop. 38: No easy answers at California's crossroads," October 21, 2012
  48. Ventura County Star, "Editorial: Education is at risk; Yes on Prop. 30, No on Prop. 38," September 22, 2012
  49. Bakersfield Californian, "No on 30: We've got a better option," September 22, 2012
  50. Contra Costa Times, "Contra Costa Times editorial: Proposition 30 is not way to solve California's fiscal crisis," October 7, 2012
  51. North County Times, "No on 30, 38," September 20, 2012
  52. Orange County Register, "Editorial: No on Prop. 30 & Prop. 38 tax hikes," October 2, 2012
  53. Press-Enterprise, "No on 30, 38," October 7, 2012
  54. San Diego Union-Tribune, "NO ON PROPS. 30, 38: STATE STATUS QUO MUST GO," September 30, 2012
  55. Victorville Daily Press, "Not only no, but double no," October 8, 2012
  56. Fox 40, "Strong majority backs Jerry Brown's tax-hike initiative," March 25, 2012
  57. The Reporter, "Slim majority favor tax hike," April 26, 2012
  58. Public Policy Institute of California, "Drop in Support for Cigarette Tax, Most Back Term Limits Change," May 23, 2012
  59. Field Poll, "Voters favor Governor Brown's Tax Initiative 52% to 35%, but evenly divided on Munger Plan. Seven in ten hold similar voting preferences toward both measures," June 9, 2012
  60. Sacramento Bee, "Gov. Jerry Brown's tax measure holds uneasy lead in latest polling," June 9, 2012
  61. M4 Strategies for Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE)/USC Rossier School of Education
  62. Sacramento Bee, "Jerry Brown says tax signatures in hand," May 3, 2012
  63. San Francisco Chronicle, "Compromise tax measure needs 808,000 signatures," March 17, 2012
  64. San Gabriel Valley Tribune, "Our View: Signature gatherers: Pull back the curtain," April 1, 2012
  65. 65.0 65.1 New York Daily News, "A Wise Man Learns from His Foes," April 16, 2012