Gov. Jerry Brown's budget plans threatened by a determined Molly Munger

Sacramento Bee ^ | 10/12/12 | Kevin Yamamura

[SmithL]

Gov. Jerry Brown hoped a mix of politicking and good fortune would deter negative ads against his tax initiative in the campaign's final weeks.

His luck expired in the last few days.

Not one, but two, campaigns took aim at the governor's Proposition 30 on airwaves across the state, funded separately by two children of billionaire investor Charles Munger.

The Democratic governor now faces a serious threat to the linchpin of his longer-term budget plan. Brown has been particularly frustrated by attorney Molly Munger's ad, which calls his campaign "misleading" and uses an animated sequence to depict politicians taking money from a schoolhouse.

Her rival measure, Proposition 38, would hike taxes on all but the poorest income earners to help schools and initially the state budget. Though hers has lagged Brown's initiative in polls throughout the year, Munger still believes she will win come Election Day.

"This is an absolutely unprecedented situation in California politics," said Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California. "The approach that Molly Munger is taking is very similar to what a candidate would do who's down in the polls weeks before an election."

As counties issued mail ballots this week, the Munger ads sent chills through education circles. School districts have placed big bets that Brown's initiative would pass in November, planning to eliminate school days and cut programs if voters reject Proposition 30.

Emails and conversations within the education community suggested the possibility of "murder-suicide," a scenario in which Munger's ads lead both multibillion-dollar tax initiatives to defeat.

[SmithL]

Clash of the Tax-n-Spenders in the so-called Golden State.

[SmithL]

PROPOSITION 38

What it would do:
• Raises income taxes on most Californians for 12 years.
• Allocates increased revenue to public schools, child care and preschool programs, and state debt payments.
• According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, schools would receive about $6 billion annually, or $1,000 per student, from the measure.
What it would cost:
• According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, the measure would increase income taxes on all but the lowest income bracket for 12 years, raising roughly $10 billion annually in initial years and likely growing over time.
• Allocates roughly 60 percent of revenue to schools, 30 percent to state debt payments and 10 percent to early child care and education programs, with the share for schools increasing to roughly 85 percent in later years.

PROPOSITION 30

What it would do:
• Raises the statewide sales tax rate by a quarter percentage point for four years and impose income tax increases for seven years on Californians earning more than $250,000 a year.
• Prevents about $5.4 billion in cuts to schools and community colleges included in the state budget.
• Guarantees tax revenue to local governments to fund public safety responsibilities shifted to them from the state last year.
What it would cost:
• According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, the measure would increase state tax revenue by about $6 billion annually over the next few years.
• Revenue from increased taxes would be available to increase school funding and to help balance the state budget.

[Little Ray]

What they will do is drive more employers and productive citizens out of California, and possibly end up with a net drop in revenue...

[JeffChrz]

I’m voting them both down. Let Brown take “high-speed” rail out of his budget and divert that money into the schools.

[ridesthemiles]

What they will do is drive more employers and productive citizens out of California, and possibly end up with a net drop in revenue...”””

Winner.....Winner...get him a chicken dinner.

[Lurkina.n.Learnin]

I am against both. I received the voter info guide yesterday. One thing that stood out was that in California, this progressive bastion thetop rate kicks in at $48,029 for a single taxpayer. 9.3% on anything above 48 thousand. Really want to soak it to those rich bas#@&%$ that make 50 Gs a year.

[fifedom]

LOL. Ya gotta love these trust fund kids. ;-)

The beautiful thing is that this is from the same pot of money that funds the wacko leftist Warren Buffet.

Now if we could only get them to put in some megabucks to fund yes on Prop 32 to strip the unions of their $$. Sigh. I guess we don't get everything we want.

[jennychase]

This is how I am voting

30 NO
34 NO
36 NO
37 - NO
38 - No
39 NO

[cicero2k]

I love watching liberals fight over tax increases. The dialog should be on how to shrink government, but not in California.

Anyone who thinks that bigger government is good for the future of California should be examined. But ....

Never mind.

[afraidfortherepublic]

In case any of you are wondering, the California Teachers’ Association has published a “ballot guide” for their members. Yes on #30; No on #38. And (of course) Yes on Obama and Biden.

I know this because I’ve been having my 99 year old mother’s mail forwarded to my home while she is recovering from a broken leg.

The teachers should be ashamed of their Union. Time was that they considered themselves “professionals” who had no need of a “union” to tell them how to think. I guess those days are gone forever.

Whatever happened to the quaint idea that you do not spend money that you don’t have? And you don’t borrow money that you have no hope of repaying?

[afraidfortherepublic]

In case any of you are wondering, the California Teachers’ Association has published a “ballot guide” for their members. Yes on #30; No on #38. And (of course) Yes on Obama and Biden.

I know this because I’ve been having my 99 year old mother’s mail forwarded to my home while she is recovering from a broken leg.

The teachers should be ashamed of their Union. Time was that they considered themselves “professionals” who had no need of a “union” to tell them how to think. I guess those days are gone forever.

Whatever happened to the quaint idea that you do not spend money that you don’t have? And you don’t borrow money that you have no hope of repaying?

[blueunicorn6]

Good Old Jerry Brown and His Dog Sutter....

“Well Sutter, Lucy, I mean Molly, has said she’ll hold this political football for me so I can kick it. You don’t think she’ll pull the football away, do you?”

“Woof!”

“That’s it! I’ll kick her instead of the football!”

[Hokestuk]

This is how I am voting

30 NO
34 NO
36 NO
37 - NO
38 - No
39 NO

---

---

Small O on 38 with the No. I agree, that’s exactly how I’m voting, though I doesn’t know what 34 36 and 37 is. But whatever they are, I’m against them.
What gets me though are articles like the linked SacBee piece that talk about ads but don’t have the ads handy to view. And it doesn’t even link to the ads. So, if someone has the links to the ads, please post! Thanks.

[mo]

“...hmmm...the lack of creativity in the taxation of the peons and peasants is NOT the problem here....FAIL!!On BOTH accounts!!!

[Hokestuk]

I doesn’t know ... lol

[Nervous Tick]

PROPOSITION 38 Raises income taxes on most Californians for 12 years...

PROPOSITION 30 Raises the ... sales tax rate ... for four years and impose income tax increases for seven years...

Any fool who believes these tax increases will ever expire deserves the serial government rape they're voting for.

[Nervous Tick]

>> Whatever happened to the quaint idea that you do not spend money that you don’t have?

Cheer up! That quaint idea, so eloquently stated three thousand years ago by King Solomon in Proverbs, *will* be back. Can’t say exactly when, but soon. Count on it.

The bad news is, it appears that first we’ll have to finish driving at full speed off an economic cliff of biblical proportions. :-(

[halo66]

I’m voting the exact same way.

[pogo101]

I wish that larger California employers, those whose industries make them able to operate in any state at least, would put out a simple ad opposing these propositions: “Tax rates are already sky high in California, even with Prop 13. The state is consistently in the bottom 5 out of 50 states in which to do business in non-partisan surveys. We can simply make more money if we move to another state. And we promise you, if 30 or 38 passes, we WILL move out of state — and regretfully let our thousands of California employees go. Think we’re bluffing? Try us.”

Not exactly diplomatic, but just imagine the impact if this were done in numerous elections AND the employers FOLLOWED THROUGH any time a new tax hike was passed.

[tflabo]

Groucho opposes it too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHash5takWU