Jerry Brown’s tax plan which you covered favorably in your “proposed budget would increase state funding” editorial, is a short term tax, so a bandaid for a bullethole instead of an actual solution. Furthermore, it is largely a sales tax, and sales taxes are regressive, something less effective at raising funds and highly immoral in doing so, for taking more from the poor and less from the rich, even as the gap between the two widens to unprecedented levels in world history. It also goes to funding budgetary concerns that aren’t really concerns—instead of ensuring tuition remains low and classes remain funded, it would ensure that pensions are raised, which is a worthy cause, but not to many’s minds as worthy as the former two concerns by a long shot. Finally, over 60% of California voters strongly oppose this tax, so it is extremely unlikely to pass. It is, in many informed persons’ opinions, an initiative designed to fail.
Why would Jerry Brown’s office design a tax initiative to fail? To look good for “trying” to fix budgetary issues and institute some badly needed tax reform and increase in California (though regressive taxation can hardly be looked to as “reform”) without actually having to do anything. Furthermore, to drum up media attention and support—bait that your board took—to distract from The Millionaires’ Tax Initiative, a long-term tax that would raise much more money, that would be very progressive (only affecting millionaires—those making over 1 million dollars per year would be taxed 3% more to fund exclusively public services, while those making over 2 million dollars per year would be taxed 5% more for the same purpose), and that has far over 60% approval among California voters, so is likely to pass if balloted and advertised by more knowledgeable editorial boards.
Though we need more taxes to fund public works, you’re supporting the wrong one—your support of it is worse than your silence on the issue, since support for Brown’s tax initiative leaches much needed support, inertia, buzz, etc. from the Millionaires’ Tax initiative. However, you have already come out in favor of Brown’s regressive, short-term, designed-to-fail bill, so please give some coverage to the much better tax plan that needs your help to get going with all the antagonism facing it from the vested interest of California’s 1-percenters that are trying to distract CA voters with a terrible and purely diversionary bill.
A thought to leave you with: even members of Brown’s office have admitted that the Millionaires’ Tax is a much better idea in theory and pragmatism than their own tax.

I pick #4. I feel like DB has already written about all the pther topics several times now

I feel like the Daily Bruin really needs to investigate #4. USAC spends a considerable amount of our student fees and we deserve to know how they are using them!

I’m interested in learning more about how USAC is spending money and was engaged when I was following DB’s tweets Tuesday night about the USAC meeting. I will like to see topic #4 discussed and investigated since my fees are going to them.

As someone who has been following the fiscal issues of the UC system, I’ve heard about #1 and #2, but I haven’t heard about the initiative in #4… I hope the Daily Bruin can shed some light on the finances of USAC through an editorial.

Cool idea! #4 has my vote.

Am interested in finding out more about why the undergraduate student government needs $100,000 more to add to surplus funds. The plan doesn’t seem to make much sense.

#4 because that’s our student money right?

A thorough analysis (with appropriate financials, statistics, graphs and all) of #4 has my vote.