Tending Nature. The Mallorca Files. Professor T Belgium. Fine Cut. SoCal Wanderer. Earth Focus Presents. Muhammad Ali. Southland Sessions. Line of Separation. Icon: Music Through the Lens. The Latino Experience. Variety Studio: Actors On Actors.
Death in Paradise. Independent Lens. In Concert at the Hollywood Bowl. Earth Focus. City Rising. Lost LA. The wealthiest taxpayers pay the most, with rates rising 2. Learn how Proposition 38 affects taxpayers like you at: www. Legislature from diverting or borrowing the money, and it cannot use the new money to replace money schools currently receive. The funds will be audited and any attempted misallocation is a felony punishable by jail time and a ban on holding public office.
Districts MUST hold open meetings at each school site to get input from parents, educators and the community before spending the money. They MUST set annual educational improvement goals for each school, and publicly report how the money was spent and whether improvement goals were achieved.
YES ON The arguments in opposition to Proposition 38 in the state's official voter guide were submitted by the following people: [2]. The Prop. Even as the economy improves and more people get back to work, the tax increases continue.
Even without necessary reforms to our education system, like the ability to fire bad teachers, the tax increases still continue. The politicians and bureaucrats get billions of dollars in new taxes, with virtually no accountability on how the money is spent and how much actually gets into the classroom. Instead of creating jobs and improving the economy, Prop. No Requirements to Improve School Performance Under 38, there are no requirements to improve school performance or get rid of bad teachers.
Too much money will continue to be spent on administration, consultants, pensions, benefits and overhead and too little will be spent in the classroom. There is nothing in Prop. Poll results for the measure are detailed below: [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]. The primary signature vendor was Arno Political Consultants. However, 12 other vendors also worked on the petition drive.
Initiated ballot propositions traditionally are given numbers ballot positions and placed on the ballot in the order in which signatures are submitted and they qualify for the ballot. Sponsors of Proposition 38 submitted signatures before sponsors of competing initiative Proposition In June , Proposition 30 sponsor Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill , which changed the way that ballot propositions are numbered and ordered on the ballot. The change required all proposed constitutional amendments to appear on the ballot before initiated state statutes.
Proposition 30 was a constitutional amendment and Proposition 38 was an initiated state statute. Munger, sponsor of Proposition 38, filed a lawsuit seeking relief from Senate Bill But education funding in the state has been cut to the point that these new funds are needed.
And the governor recently convinced legislators to take a first step toward reforming public employee pensions in California. The San Francisco Examiner would prefer that Prop. But should voters not approve the Brown proposal, Prop.
Education is an investment in the future, and these propositions, albeit neither one perfect, are the way to do it. Schools and community colleges could respond to this cut in various ways, including drawing down reserves, shortening the instructional year for schools, and reducing enrollment for community colleges.
This could affect the cash needs of schools and community colleges late in the fiscal year, potentially resulting in greater short-term borrowing. If this measure is rejected by voters, state revenues would be billions of dollars lower each year through than if the measure were approved.
Future actions of the Legislature and the Governor would determine how to balance the state budget at this lower level of revenues. Future state budgets could be balanced through cuts to schools or other programs, new revenues, and one-time actions. In , the state transferred the responsibility for administering and funding several programs to local governments primarily counties.
The transferred program responsibilities include incarcerating certain adult offenders, supervising parolees, and providing substance abuse treatment services. Most of these funds come from a shift of a portion of the sales tax from the state to local governments. This measure places into the Constitution certain provisions related to the transfer of state program responsibilities.
Guarantees Ongoing Revenues to Local Governments. This measure requires the state to continue providing the tax revenues redirected in or equivalent funds to local governments to pay for the transferred program responsibilities. The measure also permanently excludes the sales tax revenues redirected to local governments from the calculation of the minimum funding guarantee for schools and community colleges. Local governments would not be required to implement any future state laws that increase local costs to administer the program responsibilities transferred in , unless the state provided additional money to pay for the increased costs.
The measure requires the state to pay part of any new local costs that result from certain court actions and changes in federal statutes or regulations related to the transferred program responsibilities.
Eliminates Potential Mandate Funding Liability. Under current law, the state could be required to provide local governments with additional funding mandate reimbursements to pay for some of the transferred program responsibilities. This measure specifies that the state would not be required to provide such mandate reimbursements. The Ralph M.
Brown Act requires that all meetings of local legislative bodies be open and public. In the past, the state has reimbursed local governments for costs resulting from certain provisions of the Brown Act such as the requirement to prepare and post agendas for public meetings.
This measure specifies that the state would not be responsible for paying local agencies for the costs of following the open meeting procedures in the Brown Act. State Government. State costs could be higher for the transferred programs than they otherwise would have been because this measure 1 guarantees that the state will continue providing funds to local governments to pay for them, 2 requires the state to share part of the costs associated with future federal law changes and court cases, and 3 authorizes local governments to refuse to implement new state laws and regulations that increase their costs unless the state provides additional funds.
The net fiscal effect of these provisions is not possible to determine and would depend on future actions by elected officials and the courts.
0コメント