Wow that took a while to find exactly their rationale for not supporting it and:
would provide only a one-time revenue boost at a time when California needs ongoing funding to recover from the impact of the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act,
So it’s a ‘let the perfect be the enemy of the good’ scenario. It’s not good enough so better to not do anything in hopes that it will inspire more durable approach… Ugh…
If it was just that, I would agree, but the problems went deeper than just “it’s a start but not good enough”
The beneficiaries of the fund was a SINGLE union, not the whole state, and there were poison pill provisions ensuring that we couldn’t do it again in future, so this would have been a one and done, not a prescident like we all hoped. So basically it was bound to fail to accomplish what we would hope even if it passed and would likely make things more difficult to get an actual tax, instead of just a narrowly applied windfall
Wow that took a while to find exactly their rationale for not supporting it and:
So it’s a ‘let the perfect be the enemy of the good’ scenario. It’s not good enough so better to not do anything in hopes that it will inspire more durable approach… Ugh…
If it was just that, I would agree, but the problems went deeper than just “it’s a start but not good enough”
The beneficiaries of the fund was a SINGLE union, not the whole state, and there were poison pill provisions ensuring that we couldn’t do it again in future, so this would have been a one and done, not a prescident like we all hoped. So basically it was bound to fail to accomplish what we would hope even if it passed and would likely make things more difficult to get an actual tax, instead of just a narrowly applied windfall