skip to main content









Donation Heart Ribbon

Poll Shows Prop 30 Could Get Support It Needs

A recent Los Angeles Times and University of Southern California poll shows that Proposition 30 could get the support it needs to pass.

California Governor Jerry Brown’s tax measure has less than 50 percent support in the poll. But analysts say voters who remain undecided tend to be Democrats, Obama supporters and minorities.

Dave Kanevsky, Research Director for American Viewpoint, which helped conduct the poll, said those demographics reflect a lot of people who are voting yes on Prop 30.

“So Prop 30 can push its way over the finish line but I think it’s going to be very close. And the yes campaign really has to convince its demographic base that are hesitant about this, hesitant on raising taxes, that this money will go where it needs to go.”

Only 46 percent of registered voters now support Prop 30, a nine percent drop over last month.

42 percent oppose it.


Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | October 25, 2012 at 4:28 p.m. ― 3 years, 1 month ago

Don't be fooled by Prop 30.

It raises taxes on everybody, not just the wealthy. Moreover, the money can be spent on anything the Sacramento bureaucrats want.

Education will certainly be last to see any dollars, if any at all.

No on 30.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'ArchTech'

ArchTech | October 25, 2012 at 5:12 p.m. ― 3 years, 1 month ago

I ask you .... what is more important than our children? Yes on Prop. 30 ~

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | October 25, 2012 at 5:47 p.m. ― 3 years, 1 month ago

Prop 30 does not fund the education our children.

Prop 30 works like this:

You're checking out at a grocery store. You pay the cashier and he gives the money to the window washer. You try to leave but he stops you and says you didn't pay for the food! You tell him you just did, but he says that was for clean windows.

You argue, but you're hungry so you pay again. He hands the money to the carpenter installing new shelves. You complain, but your stomach growls. You hand him money for a third time and he gives it to an advertiser. You give up and walk out of the store, hungry and poorer.

Same goes for Prop 30. It doesn't matter how much you give, it will never buy what you want.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | October 26, 2012 at 11:08 a.m. ― 3 years, 1 month ago


Prop 30 is only a sales tax. You know, like the one Arnie had for a couple of years which expired in the summer of 2011. It applies to all.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | October 26, 2012 at 4:48 p.m. ― 3 years ago


Prop 30 taxes everybody and raises our sales tax to the HIGHEST in the nation!

In fact, the Legislative Analyst's Office has already said Prop 30 funds will go to non-educational programs like:

o Department of Developmental Services
o DWR flood control programs
o Local water safety patrol grants
o Department of Fish and Game
o Department of Parks and Recreation

Just to name a few. Our schools will only get a few pennies, if any at all.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'EC_Mom'

EC_Mom | October 26, 2012 at 9:34 p.m. ― 3 years ago

I'm voting NO. The state needs to cut back on their waste. With over 500 agencies, some must be outdated and can be abolished and others merged.

The lottery was supposed to fund our schools. What happened to that?

The more money the state gets, the more it wastes.

If a person spends beyond their means they can't just go to their boss and say "I spent too much money, can you give me a raise?". They would be laughed at. So, why should our government be able to do it?

Everyone knows we have a fiscal crisis. It simply wasn't the appropriate time for Brown to have a Cap and Trade and other silly programs that should have been tabled for now.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Len'

Len | October 27, 2012 at 2:37 p.m. ― 3 years ago

Rather than accepting CalDefender's points on faith, it's best to read the info pamphlets about the election. I have, and I'm voting Yes on 30. (I'm not starting a Comments debate with CalD. Just suggesting you look further.)

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | October 27, 2012 at 2:52 p.m. ― 3 years ago


You don't have to accept anything on faith:

"This measure’s additional tax revenues would be available to help balance the state budget through 2018-19. The additional revenues from this measure provide several billion dollars annually through 2018-19 that would be available for a wide range of purposes."

Can it be any clearer? Prop 30 tax hike money can be used for any purpose.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'aztec69'

aztec69 | October 27, 2012 at 5:29 p.m. ― 3 years ago

I think voters are overwhelmed by the information or propaganda being thrown at them. They've either thrown in the towel and decided not to vote or taken refuge in the last line of defense the voter has, "When in doubt, vote no!" That takes care of the propositions. As for the candidates, the fall back position is, "When in doubt, toss the bums out!" And it may also apply the closer it gets to election day. We really need something more like the British system: 1) Strict time limits on campaigning, 2) Strict limits on the amount of money that can be spent. To wich I would add a third, 3) One day for a nation-wide primary and one day for a final election. Period.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'RobertK'

RobertK | October 28, 2012 at 6:37 p.m. ― 3 years ago

What ever happened to the gambling money?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | October 29, 2012 at 9:09 a.m. ― 3 years ago

I really wish tax proposals were voted on by those who pay.

Voting to spend someone else’s money seems grossly unfair, a la taxation without representation. By diluting representation to the point where costs are borne by 'the other guy' we are not appropriately frugal.

If we need to increase (all of) our taxes to fund something we agree on then so be it, but if 51% of people want to increase taxes on the other 49% for something they want, that shouldn’t be possible.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | October 29, 2012 at 11:49 a.m. ― 3 years ago

Well said Benz.

We need to increase the bar to pass a tax to 75%. That will foster an environment that requires broad support from all sides before it even hits the ballot.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'PornoTheClown'

PornoTheClown | October 29, 2012 at 3:58 p.m. ― 3 years ago

One of the best articles that unmasks Prop 30 is here. It is nothing more than a grab to fund unfunded CTA pensions.

Read it and know the truth!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | October 29, 2012 at 7:33 p.m. ― 3 years ago

For your info, Pornotheklown, furloughed classified school employees would get their work days back. That much is certain.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'nikkineel'

nikkineel | October 31, 2012 at 11:50 p.m. ― 3 years ago

Nothing has changed to stop stories like this....

LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA -- Quarter-Billion-Dollar RICO Scam Alleged in L.A. Housing Developments by low income housing developer ADI

This story has really flown under the media radar, but the implications are enormous. For one, this can not be an isolated incident. This has to be the tip of an enormous iceberg.

"News that emerged from a divorce action led Los Angeles to sue Advanced Development Investment and others for $210 million, in a RICO complaint that alleges they defrauded the city for 17 years by overbilling for low-income housing projects, then secreted ill-gotten gains in India. Glendale filed a similar complaint, for another $33 million..... Los Angeles claims ADI, Ajit Development & Investment, Pacific Housing Diversified, and six people, including the companies' shareholders, officers, directors, agents and employees, profited from the RICO conspiracy for years, fraudulently getting money and loans from the city's Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF), which includes state and federal money for development of affordable housing."

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'nikkineel'

nikkineel | October 31, 2012 at 11:51 p.m. ― 3 years ago

30 hikes gas prices! look it up! Brown is lying

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Len'

Len | November 1, 2012 at 12:43 p.m. ― 3 years ago

Did those who say Prop 30 will not help education, this from the Legislative Analyst:
■Fiscal Impact:In 2012-13, planned spending reductions, PRIMARILY TO EDUCATION PROGRAMS WOULD NOT OCCUR.
The state would increase personal income taxes on HIGH INCOME taxpayers for seven years and sales taxes for four years. The new tax revenues would be available to fund programs in the state budget.

A NO vote on this measure means: The state would not increase personal income taxes or sales taxes. State SPENDING REDUCTIONS, PRIMARILY TO EDUCATION PROGRAMS WOULD TAKE EFFECT in 2012-13.
(Upper case added for clarity.)

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Len'

Len | November 1, 2012 at 12:44 p.m. ― 3 years ago

Correction: "To those who say... (An edit button sure would help. Is it difficult and/or expensive to add?)

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | November 2, 2012 at 7:44 a.m. ― 3 years ago

They certainly would cut education if Brown vetoes proposed shifts in targeted cuts. There are other programs to defund besides education, which most of us agree is important.
Holding up an important program as the first one to get the axe distorts the issue of general overexpenditure.

( | suggest removal )