.
Feedback

Proposition 30 or 38? Which Should You Choose?

Many local educators support Proposition 30. But voters can choose between that measure and Proposition 38, which also funds schools. What the difference between them?

Tuesday’s election promises to bring much needed help to California’s ailing educational system.

Two propositions, 30 and 38, will be on the ballot. And both aim to bring funding to the state’s severely underfund schools. In most Bay Area cities, Proposition 30, sponsored by Governor Jerry Brown, has gotten much of the press.

Parents and educators have spoken to school boards across the area and even city councils, lobbying for support of Prop 30.

Meantime, supporters of Proposition 38 have enlisted the help of actor Edward James Olmos to promote that measure.

There’s little doubt both would have a great impact, not just throughout the state, but locally. But which one is the best choice? And what’s the difference between them?

Edsource.org breaks it down in an easy to understand way with some detail. But below are the basics.

Proposition 30

  • Sponsored by Governor Jerry Brown
  • It raises money for schools by raising the sales tax by a quarter cent for the next four years. And for the next seven years, it would also raise personal income tax by 1 percent for those earning $250,000 to $300,000, by 2 percent for those earning $300,000 to $500,000 and by 3 percent for those earning more than $500,000 a year.
  • Funds will be given to the schools this fiscal year. It’s expected to raise $6 billion.
  • Of the funds raised, 40 to 60 percent go into an Education Protection Account. The balance can be used for other state programs.
  • Education boards must decide how to use the money during open meetings. Audits by school boards and the state controller will be conducted.

Proposition 38

  • Sponsored by attorney and philanthropist Molly Munger of the Advancement Project.
  • The measure raises money by raising personal income tax on everyone for 12 years starting Jan. 1. Those earning $7,316 and above will see an increase of 0.4 percent. Taxes for incomes above $2.5 million would be increased by 2.2 percent.
  • Funds would begin to go to schools in 2013-14. It is expected to raise $10 billion annually.
  • Thirty percent of the funds raised would be used to pay down state bond debt for the first four years.
  • Funds go into a new California Education Trust Fund that is overseen by a Fiscal Oversight Group composed of five key state officials.
  • The oversight board can authorize independent audits and schools must display budgets publicly and produce annual reports on how the funds are used.

Most are supporting Proposition 30 because it stops $6 billion in cuts that will hit schools and community colleges at the start of the coming year and because it begins pumping money into the educational system immediately.

Voters can vote yes on both propositions. The one with the most yes votes will take effect.

Both would make California’s personal income tax rate the highest in the country for the highest earners. Prop. 30 would raise it to 13.1 percent. Prop. 38 would raise it to 12.5 percent.

Edsource.org compares the propositions side in graphic form. Claremont McKenna’s Video Voter Series 2012 also compares the basic features of the two as well.

Don’t be left out of the conversation taking place in Belmont--Sign up for our daily newsletter|Like Belmont|Patch on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter | Start your own blog

Don’t be left out of the conversation taking place in San Carlos--Sign up for our daily newsletter | Like us on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter| Start a blog

Daddy Warbucks November 5, 2012 at 09:29 pm
"No" votes on Propositions 30 and 38 will keep California headed in the direction of Pakistan and Somalia where tax money isn't wasted on education.
SoHum Kids November 6, 2012 at 12:43 am
A yes vote for prop 30 ends cuts to the current public education funding. A yes vote for prop 38 brings in much needed additional funding for public education. A yes/yes vote for these propositions tells politicians that we intend to turn our failing public education system around and we are demanding logical, sufficient, and stable funding for public education. A yes/yes vote says that we are demanding real, systematic change in support of high quality K-12 Public Education. A yes/yes vote says that fundraising for everything from teachers to toilet paper in not the answer to fixing our Public Education in California.
For more information and to join our united California voice for better education please visit http://www.educateourstate.org/
Kali November 6, 2012 at 08:00 am
Not either one. Prop 30 has nothing to do with schools. It has to do with the Gov debt and pensions. This money will go directly to those 2 things. 38, I have no idea, but prob not to schools. Schools in this state have enough money. It is not spent well because of the teachers unions, and the huge pension obligation. All these tax requests that are backed by any teachers union, or any union for that matter gets a no vote from me. I am tired of paying for other peoples retirement.
Brown found money to pass the high speed rail project. How about the missing 58 mil from the parks..

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from San Carlos Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Bob Winters June 18, 2013 at 08:51 am
Best of luck finding good homes, we already have two cats. You may want to consider this advertisingRead More technique: http://i41.tinypic.com/2s17tk0.jpg
Michael G. Stogner June 15, 2013 at 05:07 pm
Marl Olbert said this right after refusing to second Matt Grocott's motion for 2 week delay of vote.Read More I wasn't here at the time but i talked to various people who were. It's my understanding that when Mr. Maltbie was hired into this position he was offered a significantly below market salary. both in terms of compensation and provision I think part because he has never been a city manager before. and he had to prove himself. you can make a argument that that wasn't fair. if you think the person is capable for doing the job not necessarily the fact that they don't have the experience. it happens all over the place it happened to me personally it's just a part of the accepted process but another part of the accepted process is that if the person proves themselves you have to keep faith with them and if you don't you're actually sending a message You're saying that you can't trust us and i totally think that Mr. Maltbie is worth the pay, but besides that i think it is a issue of integrity and maintaining the integrity of the negotiation process and the hiring process that's why I'm going to vote yes for it.
Michael G. Stogner June 15, 2013 at 05:08 pm
I would like to know who those various people were who gave Mark Olbert that understanding.
Michael G. Stogner June 17, 2013 at 04:54 pm
Council member Mark Olbert one who refused to second Mr. Grocott's motion made an interestingRead More statement. "I wasn't here at the time but i talked to various people who were. It's my understanding that when Mr. Maltbie was hired into this position he was offered a significantly below market salary." I know for a fact that he didn't talk to Matt Grocott who was there. That leaves 3 potentials, 2 of them are deceased and the 3rd was Andy Klein who did not attend that meeting so he didn't vote. I would like to know who the "various people who were" are.
Marc Parent June 11, 2013 at 07:50 am
San Carlos just spent 10 Million after lawsuit from the "Bay Keepers", more activistsRead More wanting more money?
Holly Bell June 8, 2013 at 01:23 pm
Unbelievable!! Many voters are watching this issue closely and will remember this vote. Evidently,Read More these commissioners believe that resident's have no voice in city decision-making. Someone please name those commissioners who disregarded the loud-and-clear preference of the people. Time to clean house.
Bob Farkas June 8, 2013 at 02:01 pm
The two commissioners who voted for turf were John Seiling and Ray Merala. It was Ray's lastRead More meeting as a commissioner since he has termed out after 9+ years of service. I think they felt that the needs of the elite CYSO program should take precedence over neighbors and others who use the park. Youth sports seems a principal influencer at Parks and Rec. as they are the largest organized user of the facilities. I agree with many other opponents of this project that we all need to support adequate fields for youth sports. I just think these needs have to be in balance with those of the rest of the community. It was very disappointing that, although it is field availability which is purportedly driving this initiative, there was no available recent data to demonstrate the problem or an analysis of how much of the problem would be addressed by this measure. To a businessman like me, this seems a very unprofessional approach.
Concerned Taxpayer June 8, 2013 at 07:08 pm
This is purely a NIMBY issue. Lets just all be honest about that. The folks who live across fromRead More Highlands Park were the loudest opponents there and were citing all kinds of crazy issues when they should have just been honest and said,"I really don't want to look at more people and cars at the public park that is across the street from me and was there when I moved in." That is essentially the true gripe. NIMBY!!! A very weak argument and unelectable dishonest. Unless you can create more land we have to extend the use at existing parks and fields. This is very logical. We live in California and having to use astro turf stinks but we also live where there is no more available land to utilize. The commissions punted this to the council pure and simple. Well we already know who will vote against it. I am curious who will vote for it?????
Bill June 5, 2013 at 02:53 pm
This post makes zero sense. Bike lanes are a visual reminder to drivers that they must share theRead More road with riders. For every cyclist who is not observing the rules of traffic, I will show you 100 texting drivers. Removing bike lanes is not the answer.