The big gimmick is this so-called "cap" on spending. Prop 1A operates by forcing the government to put more money into a "rainy day" fund. It does not directly limit the amount of appropriations allowed. As I see it, there are two major problems with this:
(1) The government is already spending beyond its means. Forcing it to put some of that money into a "rainy day" fund doesn't stop the government gluttony. The legislature will put the required money in the rainy day fund, and go right back to the excessive spending.
(2) EXCEPTIONS: Prop 1B will allow Prop 1A's rainy day fund to be RAIDED by special interest groups such as the education lobby. Thus, this spending cap is nothing of the sort in the face of ever-increasing calls for more K-12 spending.*... Read More
* I'm not arguing that education spending is not important. However, there are better ways to tackle California's education woes-such as REDUCING REDUNDANT LAYERS OF BUREAUCRACY. [Teachers are overseen by local schools, local school districts, county school districts, and the California statewide school district. Each of these layers of oversight require massive amounts of bureaucrats and staff. The end result is our teachers in the classroom are overly regulated and underfunded. It's like the movie "office space" but far worse and far, far sadder].
Smart son! You should be proud! :-)
He pointed out the loophole of the “cap.” I would add two more simple problems with it. 1) The “cap” is based on a 10-year average that is so ill-defined they could come up with just about any number they want) and 2) revenues that the so-called cap will be based on will include the massive tax increases that were already passed by the legislature.
If they really wanted a spending cap, they would propose one in simple direct terms. That they only choose to offer these loophole-ridden shams makes it obvious what their intentions are: to continue massive spending as long as taxpayers are dumb enough to keep giving them money.