I’m considering a yes vote on these propositions. I have generally opposed any proposition that mandates the spending of particular funds or a percentage of the general fund for any one purpose. It has seemed to me that mandating such spending every year just doesn’t make sense. We cannot determine now, for example, that a particular level of spending on K-12 education will be appropriate or necessary in succeeding years. The fact that Reiner opposes these propositions is a bonus. However, I will have to read them closely this evening. You really can’t rely on the published summaries of propositions here in California.
Please reconsider.
The biggest reason to oppose this: The teachers unions are huge supporters. This would be a terrific boon to them and where will the additional cash flow the union skims go? Back into the campaigns pockets of the Democrats who are running the state to the ground.
Further, even as education spending has rocketed upward, student performance has dropped. Throwing money at education is not the solution. The system has figured out there is more money to be made by perpetuating problems than by actually fixing them. It is time to take a wrecking ball to the system and build something new that will actually educate kids rather than lining the pockets of the bureaucrats.
I think that any “sin tax” on tobacco should first go toward places for the costs burdens on smokers.
It’s why I believe that the states were due no money for “damages” from smoking when they sued the tobacco companies. The money did not go toward smoking problems and the settlement didn’t either.
Can’t complain about how your child is starving and you need your dead beat dad child support money and then spend the money received on a vacation.