The ballot contains only one initiative that prevents a wave of automatic cuts to public education. It is Proposition 30, no matter what the ads say.
The defeat of Prop 30 would mean a loss of $6 billion, mainly for the K12 school system. These automatic cuts would be seriously detrimental to public education, from the classrooms to the administration.
These cuts would happen because this year’s state budget had to assume in advance that voters would approve the tax increases in Prop 30.
This action was necessary given thatbecause of Republican oppositionit was impossible to increase state revenues in order to eliminate the deficit.
Therefore, things were set up in such a way that if voters reject Proposition 30, the numbers no longer come together, so school budget cuts go into effect.
There is another ballot initiative, Proposition 38, which also raises taxesin this case to provide funds for K-12 and pre-school education. If the situation were different, this would be a proposal to consider. However, given the current budget situation, the success of this measure would be damaging for students in an immediate future.
Prop 38 is an abstraction that in its eagerness to help ends up negatively impacting students in the short-term. Its long-term vision disregards the immediate consequences that the defeat of Prop 30 would inevitably unleash.
On the other hand, Proposition 30 combines the financial reality of education and the deficit. But saying that it does not help education is wrong, because it allows some money to be used from the General Fund.
The flood of ads does nothing other than confuse voters. What must be clear is that approving Proposition 30 is today the only way to prevent serious cuts to education.