4 ms·
This isn't a misconception in California; the literal text of the law in some circumstances effectively earmarks funds. For example, take the first proposition
by deathanatos 10y ago
This isn't a misconception in California; the literal text of the law in some circumstances effectively earmarks funds. For example, take the first proposition from the last election — which happens to be about schools — Prop 51 from the November 2016 general election:
> A fund is hereby established in the State Treasury, to be known as the 2016 State School Facilities Fund
> no disbursement shall be made from any funds required by law to be transferred to the General Fund.
> Bonds in the total amount of nine billion dollars ($9,000,000,000) […] may be issued and sold for the purposes set forth…
(This proposition was approved by the voters.)
- michaelt 10y agoRight, but if you were paying schools $x from the general fund, then a special law gives them an extra $y, you can reduce the payment from the general fund by $y. Thus the schools are receiving the $y, just as promised. Only they aren't any better off, and the general fund has an extra $y in it now.