The political season is heating up, and once again the statewide ballot includes several measures that ask voters to weigh in on important state policy issues. Two of these measures, Proposition 30 and Proposition 38, would raise additional revenues through temporary tax increases, but differ significantly in their approaches as well as their implications for the state budget.
To help voters better understand Propositions 30 and 38, a new CBP analysis provides a side-by-side comparison of these measures. This easy-to-read table draws from the recent CBP reports, What Would Proposition 30 Mean for California? and What Would Proposition 38 Mean for California?, and aims to succinctly explain what each measure would do. As noted in our full reports, the CBP has endorsed Proposition 30 and neither supports nor opposes Proposition 38.
This side-by-side look at these measures sheds light on some notable strengths of Proposition 30. For example, the measure would raise almost four-fifths of the new revenues (78.8 percent) from the top 1 percent, a group whose average inflation-adjusted income has skyrocketed during the past generation, even while average incomes for low- and middle-income Californians have decreased. Furthermore – and most importantly – while Propositions 30 and 38 would both increase funding for K-12 schools, Proposition 30 also would provide the revenues needed to help close the state’s budget gap and stabilize the state’s finances. Proposition 30 thus would allow California to reinvest in education, while at the same time bringing the state budget into balance and avoiding deeper cuts to public programs and systems that are essential to all Californians.
– Jonathan Kaplan