In 2012, Brown and other measure backers repeatedly stressed that the tax hikes were temporary. He dismissed critics who said this promise was being made insincerely and his support was seen as crucial to persuading 55 percent of voters to approve the tax increases.

But as soon as the campaign was won, the big players behind Prop. 30 — the California Teachers Union and the California Federation of Teachers, as well as other government unions — indicated that it was an open question whether they would try to extend the increase in either or both taxes.

According to a Nexis search, it was in January 2014 — 14 months after Prop. 30 passed — when behind-the-scenes talk about an extension became public. That’s when state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, long closely allied with the CTA and CFT, said extensions were needed. Four months later, state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, spoke at a hometown rally in favor of more budget dollars for schools and social programs. Leno said extending Prop. 30 made sense because the state’s needs wouldn’t go away when the taxes expired.

After the rally, he told the San Francisco Chronicle, “The state of California will be in sad shape if the money sunsets and there’s no replacement for it.” The Chronicle framed Leno’s statement as putting “him on a collision course with the governor, who used the fixed time limit as a selling point for the measure.”

The same article introduced some telling nuance into Brown’s position. An aide told the Chronicle that the governor “has said that if the state is going to increase taxes, the people will have to vote for it” — reframing his 2012 promise as less than absolute.

Budget revenue rhetoric hinted at fight ahead

But in May 2015, Brown appeared to be returning to his hard line — temporary meant temporary. That month, the state’s Department of Finance put out a revised 2015-16 state budget that seemed to explicitly foreshadow Brown’s opposition to an extension of either or both tax hikes.

The San Jose Mercury News reported that “tucked away on one of the final pages of the 104-page summary of the spending plan was a surprising revelation: Not only will the budget survive when Proposition 30’s temporary taxes are phased out, but general fund revenues are also expected to continue climbing.”

Why would Brown’s budget plan explicitly make this point? To political observers, it felt like a “shots fired” moment.

“Politicians sometimes find themselves in strange positions when the lines of battle shift — and clearly this is one of those times,” Bill Whalen of Stanford’s Hoover Institution told the Mercury News.

It may have seemed clear then. But the expected fight never happened. Union consultants agreed to Brown’s demand that the extension of the Prop. 30 income tax hike — which affects single taxpayers making more than about $260,000 and joint filers making more than $520,000 — not be structured in a way that kept money out of a state rainy-day fund established by voters in 2014. His end of the deal seems to be mostly keeping quiet about the issue.

At a May 13 budget press conference, the governor again refused to decline or endorse the coming campaign to add 12 years to the “temporary” income tax hike. But he hinted at budget pain if it fails.

“If the tax doesn’t pass, we’ll manage. We will have cuts,” Brown said, according to the Sacramento Business Journal.

Set to expire in 2018, it was sold to voters as a temporary tax.

“’We need to renew Prop. 30,’ Torlakson, the state Superintendent of Public Instruction, said Wednesday night at a coffee meeting with local PTA leaders in a Sacramento home,” the Sacramento Bee reported online.

Two days later, the Bee did a newspaper story  (and put it online) about that same meeting with Torlakson in a private home. But those pieces said the meeting was to talk to parents and teachers about the new Common Core state education standards. There was no mention of Torlakson’s call to extend Prop. 30 in the newspaper version of the story, yet both stories were written by Bee reporter Diana Lambert.

Perhaps Torlakson had an early copy of the Legislative Analyst’s Office 2014-15 fiscal review.

“As Proposition 30 Personal Income Tax increases phase out, much slower revenue growth forecasted,” the LAO headline said.

“Under Proposition 30, the increase in Personal Income Tax rates for high–income taxpayers generates a much greater proportion of revenue than the sales tax increase,” the LAO report found.

Under a hypothetical recession, the LAO explained, “the revenue losses would be offset somewhat by lower Proposition 98 minimum requirements, and we assume that the state would reduce spending to the lower allowed spending levels.”

The LAO warned against overcommitting, which could bring back budget shortfalls.

General fund spending

The California Personal Income Tax is two–thirds of the annual general fund revenues.

“We note, however, that the proportion of the general fund supported by PIT revenues likely would be growing even if Proposition 30 were not in effect due to more income concentration among the highest–income taxpayers and the other factors described earlier,” the LAO said.

Remember when Gov. Jerry Brown was campaigning to pass Prop. 30? “The taxes that I’m proposing on sales and higher income people goes to the schools — 100 percent of it,” the Los Angeles Times reported Brown saying. “But it goes in a way that integrates it with the budget itself.”

(Note: The L.A. Times stories with this quote are no longer available; the story linked is in the Press Democrat, but is a column by L.A. Times columnist George Skelton.)

However, what Brown wasn’t saying is that when state revenue increases, so does school funding, automatically. Proposition 98, passed in 1988 by the voters, guarantees K-12 public schools and community colleges about 40 percent of the general fund. So when general fund revenues go up, so does school spending. Conversely, when general fund revenues are reduced, school spending is also reduced.

“The first 18 months of the tax hike would raise $9 billion, according to the state Finance Department. Schools would be entitled to $3.8 billion, or 42 percent. The remaining $5.2 billion, or 58 percent, would be earmarked for budget balancing,” Skelton wrote.

So schools would not be receiving the bulk of the tax increase revenues. Is it any wonder Torlakson want to prolong the tax hike — other than a promise made to voters?

By Wayne Lusvardi

A recent California opinion poll selectively reports data only in favor of Gov. Brown’s tax increase proposal on the November 2012 ballot. Conversely, it ignores data indicating growing opposition to Brown’s package of income and sales tax increases.

The May 23 press release of the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) reported no change from April, whether voters would favor or oppose Brown’s budget and $15.7 billion tax increase proposal.  Here’s what PPIC press release reported:

Support For Brown Initiative Holds. A majority (56%) say they would vote yes on Brown’s tax initiative, with 38 percent saying they would vote no and 7 percent undecided.  This is similar to the results of the April survey in which 54 percent said they would vote yes (39% no, 6% undecided).

But question #34 in its May 2012 opinion poll reports that only 41 percent favor Brown’s tax plan and 50 percent oppose it.

That would reflect a 13 percent drop in favorability for Brown’s tax plan since April.

This also indicates a rise from 39 percent to 50 percent — or a total of 11 percent — of those who oppose Brown’s proposed tax increase.

Unsurprisingly, PPIC was negligent in not accurately reporting the decline in support for and increase in opposition to Brown’s tax measure.

Here’s the results of PPIC’s new poll excerpted verbatim from their website:

34. On another topic, Governor Brown recently released a revised budget plan for the next fiscal year to close the state’s projected $15.7 billion budget deficit. It includes spending cuts to Medi-Cal, welfare, childcare and other social service programs
and to courts and state employee compensation. It increases funding for K-12 public education. The proposal includes tax increases that would have to be approved by voters through an initiative on the November ballot. In general, do you favor or oppose the governor’s budget plan?

– 41% favor 
– 50% oppose
– 3% haven’t heard anything about the budget (volunteered)
– 6% don’t know 

The reported 41 percent who favor Brown’s tax and the 50 percent who oppose it is unlikely a mistake because all the numbers including “don’t know” add up to 100 percent. The growing — but unreported — opposition to Brown’s tax proposition is consistent with the public’s growing opposition to raising the state sales tax and cigarette tax — Prop 29.

Near supermajority oppose raising sales tax not reported

Part of Gov. Brown’s tax increase proposal includes a one-quarter percent (0.25 percent) increase in the base sales tax rate from 7.25 percent to 7.50 percent.  This proposed sales tax rate increase is being touted as “temporary.”  But California’s “temporary” two-year one percent sales tax increase expired on July 1, 2011.

The PPIC May 2012 poll press release inconsistently reports that the support for the proposed sales tax increase has dropped to 58 percent. But the actual reported results to the poll indicate that support for a sales tax rate increase was only 33 percent in May. Here is the actual PPIC opinion poll question and results excerpted from their website:

May 2012 PPIC Poll Result:

33. Do you favor or oppose raising the state sales tax?

– 33% favor
– 64% oppose
– 3% don’t know

The April 2012 PPIC poll reported 33 percent of voters were in favor and 52 percent opposed to raising the sales tax, even for K-12^th grade public schools (see question #33 in April poll).  Thus, there was an apparent 13 percent drop in those favoring an increase in the state sales tax rate from April to May 2012.

Additionally, there was a 12 percent increase in those opposed to a sale tax rate increase.

But once gain, the PPIC poll press release failed to report the drop of those in favor and the rise of those opposed to a sales tax rate increase.

Support for cigarette tax drops 14 points

PPIC also reported Proposition 29 — the cigarette tax — dropped 14 points from March to May. Support dropped from 67 percent to 53 percent.  The 14 percent drop is consistent with the 13 percent drop in support for Brown’s income tax and sales tax rate increases. PPIC reports the change in public opinion on the cigarette tax accurately.

Voter lack of trust extends to opinion polls

To sum up:

PPIC reports support for Gov. Brown’s proposed budget and tax package increase is holding steady at 56 percent in May 2012 compared to 54 percent in April 2012.  The actual PPIC poll results indicate support for Brown’s tax dropped to 41 percent, a 13 percent drop in May. Opposition to Brown’s tax package rose from 39 percent to 50 percent, an 11 percent unreported jump in May.

PPIC accurately reports that those FAVORING a sales tax increase held steady at 33 percent from April to May 2012.  But PPIC failed to report that those voters OPPOSED to a sales tax rate increase rose from 52 percent to 64 percent from April to May 2012. This is nearly a supermajority — two thirds — of the voters opposed to a sales tax increase. This indicates a 12 percent increase of those OPPOSED to sales tax rate increase. Once again, PPIC fails to report this in their press release. The PPIC May 2012 press release does not specifically report the change of voters FAVORING or OPPOSING a sales tax increase.

PPIC April and May 2012 reported and actual poll results

The PPIC polls selectively reports data in support of tax increases and ignores data showing growing voter opposition to tax increases.  The actual data trend from April to May is consistent across the board: there is growing opposition to Brown’s tax increase package and the proposed cigarette tax hike — Prop 29 — from 11 percent to 14 percent.  This trend cuts across both those reporting support for a tax increase and those opposing a tax increase.  But PPIC selectively only focuses public attention on the data supporting tax increases.

The May PPIC poll indicated a growing “lack of trust of voters this election season.”  To this might be added a growing lack of voter trust of any opinion polls dealing with taxes.