.

Poll: Should School Board Support Prop 30 or Prop 38?

Elk Grove's school board may support one or both of the proposed tax increases.

Elk Grove school officials will receive a briefing Tuesday night on two competing tax initiatives on the November ballot that both promise more money for schools.

The Elk Grove Unified School District Board of Education will hear information on Propositions 30 and 38 at Tuesday's meeting, but won't make a decision on which to support (if either) until a later meeting.

Proposition 30, Gov. Jerry Brown's ballot measure, would increase sales taxes and the income taxes paid by those making $250,000 a year or more. The money would go mostly to schools, and some would be given to public safety.

The competing Proposition 38, backed by attorney Molly Munger, would hike income taxes for everyone making more than $7,316 a year. The money generated would go to schools and early childhood education programs.

The San Jose Mercury News reported last month that Brown's Proposition 30 has the edge, and is more popular than its rival. The California Teachers Association supports Proposition 30, while the California State PTA backs Proposition 38.

If neither initiative passes, Elk Grove schools will lose millions in funding, the Elk Grove Citizen reported. If both pass, the one with more votes will be enacted.

--

Elk Grove Unified School District Board of Education meeting
7 p.m. Tuesday
9510 Elk Grove-Florin Rd. 

--

Elk Grove, do you support one or both of these tax measures? Which one (if either) and why? Should the school board back one of them? Vote in the poll below and leave your thoughts as a comment.

--

Sign up for the free Elk Grove Patch newsletter | Like Elk Grove Patch on Facebook | Follow @ElkGrovePatch on Twitter | Blog for Elk Grove Patch

M.Legison September 05, 2012 at 12:58 AM
I prefer Munger's Prop 38 for two reasons. One, the tax is more fairly levied among a greater group of public school clients. Two, unlike Browns's Prop 30 which has NO mandate for the funds to go to schools, Munger's does.
Mark Paxson September 05, 2012 at 02:09 AM
Yes, and Prop. 38 requires a whole new level of bureaucracy for allocating the revenues instead of using existing agencies. Gotta warm the cockles of your anti-government heart. And, while I agree with you that Prop. 38 widens the tax base, which is a good thing, you are fundamentally wrong about Prop. 30 not mandating funds go to schools.
M.Legison September 05, 2012 at 03:04 AM
Some has to go to schools, yes, but there's no minimum stipulated. It's very clear that public safety will benefit too. Matter of fact, a lot of UNION heavy ops will benefit. I'm not willing to throw one more cent at these corrupt public safety unions, but I would and will support ed directly. Not sure about the new level of bureaucracy for 30, but I'll take your word on that.
Mark Paxson September 05, 2012 at 04:02 AM
Prop. 30 clearly establishes that the new revenues are GF revenues. As a result, the Prop 98 guarantee of a certain percentage of any new revenue going to public education applies. In other words, there is a guaranteed minimum. Regarding the public safety expenses, there's nothing there about throwing money at the unions. Instead, the point is to ensure that the level of expenditures for public safety remains the same, while shifting the source of that funding. Hard to imagine you would be opposed to public safety expenditures, unless you're willing to spend your own money building your wall even higher. As for the new bureaucracy in Prop 38 ... yes, it's there, while for Prop 30, the funds are allocated via existing agencies. It is, in fact, the biggest reason I oppose Prop. 38 compared to Prop. 30. How's that fit your box for me, M., a government employee who doesn't want more government bureaucracy?
M.Legison September 05, 2012 at 06:11 AM
I'm sure your well versed on these, more than I. I know it's a GF categorical, but that could include corrections as well, per the text. The state has done pretty well paring down corrections (probably with some ramifications too). I am not comfortable with a tax increase for anything other than ed.
smm September 06, 2012 at 07:30 PM
Why does it have to be an either or? Why not support both? The BOE should communicate what it would mean to the school districts if neither passes. What is the plan if this money doesn't come through? What is the plan if it does, over the long term? Reiterating the district's priorities helps make it more relatable, in terms of "how will this affect my child."
Milan Moravec October 20, 2012 at 06:25 PM
Republicans and Democrats help with Prop 30 38. Create California’s future. Vote No on Prop 30, 38, 32. Keep the California dream alive and well. Decisions you make on Nov 6 determine California’s course for years. We are kidding ourselves by believing that education funding shortfalls disappear with Prop 30, Prop 38. Prop 30, Prop 38 levy significant taxes on each one of us. The wounds that Prop 30, 38 are to heal have been self inflicted largely by our elected Sacramento politicians who simply do not say no to any influential interest group be they, University of California (29% increase in salaries last 6 years), public employees, business, teachers, or other unions or lobbyists. And now Prop 30, 38 are used by Sacramento politicians and lobbyists to blackmail us

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something