Prop 22
Prohibits state from borrowing or taking funds used for transportation, redevelopment, or local Gov’t projects and services, California Constitutional amendment.
What it does:
1. Revenue from local taxes: hotels, parcels, utilities, and sales tax are now off limits to the state, so now those taxes are dedicated locally.
2. Revenue from gas tax can only be used for transportation projects.
A bit of history:
Last year the California State Legislature took $5B from city Gov’ts. Since 1992 it’s taken $11.2B.
Good:
· Closes loopholes for state gov’t to take from local gov’t and gas tax money that’s earmarked for transportation.
Bad:
· Possible sweetheart deals for developers because more money will be earmarked for local development projects as opposed to spending it on other things like education or anything else that the state would like to spend money on.
· In case of statewide emergency money might go to less important local programs.
· Schools could lose $1B immediately, and $400M every year
· Cuts in other state funds like fire protection, emergency medical services, and Medical
How I will vote:
Yes. I can’t really believe that we have to vote on this. What give the state government the right to appropriate local funds at will? I am an advocate of smaller local government because people have more control and ownership of gov’t @ a local level so it’s less corruptible. The opponents of this prop say that the funds will be more susceptible to corruption because the money won’t be “protected” by state burecrats, I disagree because I trust a local politician more than someone in Sacramento that isn’t as accountable to me. Also, I am an advocate of gov’t transparency. If the state needs more money for schools or anything else then they should be strait forward about it and tax me more, not take my money through hidden taxes.
4 comments:
Sparrow, I agree with you, but your argument is only valid on the state taking money from localities.
What about the gas tax? I am not convinced that the gas tax need only be appropriated for transportation funds. I have a hard time voting yes on a proposition that I only agree with in part.
I agree this is a Yes vote.
Dave H.
As for the gas tax. I believe that when possible taxes should be represented by those who are using the service. So for example to pay for schools and fire protection property tax is the best option. And to pay for transportation costs gas taxes are the best option. Therefore if schools need more money property taxes should rise, and if roads need more money gas and registration taxes should rise. So I agree with that aspect of the proposition as well.
Since nearly everyone drives, and everyone uses roads and transportation, for me a gas tax can be thought of almost as a sales tax. I understand your point because the more one uses the roads, the more taxes they will pay, but still, locking up funds to certain uses will most certainly just mean raising taxes elsewhere. Certainly we can't rely on a reduction in the gas tax. If they find that there is a surplus in the gas tax, then they will find some way to spend it on transportation when it could go to much better uses.
Post a Comment