Staking A Claim in California’s Future
Californians are well aware that our education system is in crisis. One of the most important decisions that will have to be made this November is whether or not to pass Governor Brown’s Proposition 30. The current proposed State budget shows “trigger cuts” of $6 billion dollars in the general fund that would severely impact not just every level of education, but also all departments that fall under the banner of public safety; city police, CalFire, flood control programs, water safety, Dept of Fish and Game, Parks and Recreation and Department of Justice. Since 1978 with the passing of Proposition 13 the discrepancy between State revenue and State expenditure has been increasing steadily, due in great part to that Proposition putting significant limits on the State’s ability to receive revenue from property taxes. Proposition 30 is Governor Brown’s attempt to maintain sufficient levels of funding for education and public safety by increasing income tax by 1% to 3%, for California’s wealthiest individuals earning more than $250,000 or couples earning more than $500,000. This temporary increase in income tax will be in effect for a period of 7 years. Sales tax will also be increased by ¼ percent for a period of 4 years. Proposition 30 is a short term solution and it will go a very long way to getting California back on its feet in order for a long term viable solution to be established.
The quality and affordability of all levels of education is suffering and many college students in California are concerned with whether they will be able to complete their degrees if the price of college continues to rise. According to the California Federation of Teachers who are proponents of Proposition 30, “State budget cuts to public education funding, totaling $20 billion over the past four years, have taken a terrible toll on our ability to deliver the education our students need and deserve”. With these huge budget cuts the price of higher education has necessarily risen and this has created an unexpected additional cost burden on students hoping to complete their education. These budget cuts have also severely impacted K-12 education by cramming more children into classrooms, cutting teachers and programs such as after-school and the arts. Considering this fact it would be prudent for education not to take another blow. Proposition 30 is set to restore much of that funding and get California back on an upward trajectory.
Critics of the Bill say that there is no evidence that the money raised with Proposition 30 will ever make it to education. This is incorrect on two fronts. First, the Official Title and Summary of Proposition 30 prepared by the Attorney General states very clearly that “the new revenues would be deposited into a newly created state account called the Education Protection Account (EPA). Of the funds in the account 89 percent would be provided to schools and 11 percent to community colleges.” Considering that this Official Title and Summary is a legal document, the people of California can feel at ease that this money will be going into the account stated and funds spent for the areas of education stated in the Proposition. Secondly, having the funds available for K-12 and community colleges in this EPA account will allow more of the general funds to be allocated to the University of California system and the State Universities. This fact was highlighted by the Santa Cruz Sentinel who wrote that UC Santa Cruz Chancellor, George Blumenthal referred to Proposition 30 in his “State of the Campus” speech, this September by saying “Though it would not directly provide money to the UC or Cal State system, it would free up money for higher education and prevent a $65 million midyear cut to the UC budget.” Therefore, although not specifically mentioned in the Proposition the Cal State and UC Systems, so critical to California’s future, will also directly benefit.
Another argument raised by critics is that the Bill is unfair in that it requires only the rich to have an increase in their Income Tax. When we ask the question, who should pay the largest share of the bill, let us consider that one reason the top 1% of wage earners in the State should pay more is that they have had abundant opportunities to succeeded in an environment that was conducive to business success. The State they succeeded in, the roads, the communication system, the legal system and even the education system that educated the employees that worked for the firms they benefited from was set up by a previous generation of taxpayers and they cannot just benefit without giving back. One can even argue that a portion of the 1% were educated by the efforts of that previous generation of taxpayers that supported the education system they enjoyed in the first place. It seems perfectly legitimate that those who have benefited the most put back a little more in order to help the future generations’ ability to keep California on the upward trend it has come to expect.
While we argue about who needs to pay this bill to educate our young people, California is back sliding steadily from not only being a world leader in higher public education but also in technical and environmental issue innovation. A study by the Public Policy Institute of California, an independent and non partisan group have found that “California faces a shortage of almost a million college-educated workers by 2025.” They equate this problem to two reasons; one is “the retirement of the large and relatively well-educated baby-boom cohort” and the second reason is the State‘s “demographic shifts toward groups that have historically low rates of college attendance and graduation.” This grave statistic tells us that there is an urgent need to address the education issues in our State, in order for there to be a sufficient number of educated people to take over the many essential jobs as the baby boomers move into retirement. Surely all Californians are set to benefit if our young people receive equal educational opportunities that previous generations of Californians have enjoyed.
I am a long term California tax payer and the parent of two very motivated college students who benefited from both public and private education in the State of California. I feel fortunate that the public elementary school my children attended was a small school district with a lot of parent participation, no more than twenty-five children in their classroom and sometimes less, full time aides and wonderful teachers who were not burned out because of a lack of funding and support. My children received a good education and I believe this has motivated them and instilled in them a love of learning as it did for many of their peers. If paying more taxes means that other children can receive the quality education that my children received, which would motivate them to become fully productive residents of this State, then I have no argument with that.
As we look to the future of the Golden State and ponder the pros and cons of Proposition 30, let us consider that although this measure is not going to fix all of the problems in California’s education system right away, it is going to buy some time to address these funding challenges. It is also going to allow California’s education system to keep functioning as we have come to expect it and to keep the cost of a college education affordable for students. It will also allow them to complete their degrees on time. We have to start making inroads into closing the huge and growing skills gap between the well educated retiring baby boomers and the new generation of leaders and workers that the State will need in the coming decades. It stands to reason that the continuing success of California depends on this. In the words of an American Novelist, Robin Cook “Education is more than a luxury; it is a responsibility that society owes to itself”.
No comments:
Post a Comment