Should California set aside 3% of tax revenue into a “rainy day” fund?

No, and since the government is supposed operate efficiently based on existing fees that are justified from a zero based budget, there should not be such a gap that would allow for 3% to be set aside for a rainy day. 4 years ago from a Republican in Goleta, CA

They should, after they rescind the temporary sales tax increase. There is no surplus until they no those results. 4 years ago from a Republican in Union City, CA

At one time the state of California was the 7th largest economy in the World, The "Demoncrats" have been in total power for over 75 years and are 90% responsible for the State now being broke!! No different than DC, they will always spend more... 4 years ago from a Republican in Pasadena, CA

We shouldn't spend our entire budget and should always have a surplus on hand for "rainy days" but the only way to achieve this is to drastically reduce the budget. 4 years ago from a Democrat in Bishop, CA

Kill the dream act in all of its forms and deport ALL illegal immigrants. if they want to return they need to follow procedure then by all means let them return and become part of the system instead of leeching from it. 4 years ago from a Democrat in Folsom, CA

WHY? So our Pollutiticians can pocket MORE tax money..I am totally against supporting more freeloading LAWYERS. They are NO different than Welfare recipients, except lawyers use taxpayers money to ADD to what they are already making... 4 years ago from a Republican in Garden Grove, CA

Who's rainy day? The politicians? Nancy Pelosi's (she is already a big tax waster) The environmental groups? Another big NO! Thanks for giving us a heads up so that we can inform our friends to start an opposition group. 5 years ago from a Republican in Alameda, CA

No, it will always be plundered. 5 years ago from a Republican in San Diego, CA

No, there is too much waste that needs to be addressed. This money will be abused. 5 years ago from a Republican in Culver City, CA

No. We need money set aside but our state legislatures will find a way to invent an emergency and spend the money on it. 5 years ago from a Republican in Pasadena, CA

Put money into maintaining and fireproofing wild areas so we don't need contingency funds for fire fighting. 5 years ago from a Republican in Edison, CA

Yes, increase our savings, and cut spending. 5 years ago from a Democrat in Fresno, CA

Depends on how trustworthy and secure the rainy day fund is. 5 years ago from a Democrat in Aptos, CA

This is a great idea (in theory). However, in practice, the government can never hope to have a surplus (except by accident), because legislators are always looking to spend any available money. In years of plenty, they will go ahead and spend (knowing... 5 years ago from a Republican in Pasadena, CA

Yes but the money would not be allowed for anything, unless voted upon by registered voters. 5 years ago from a Democrat in Santa Rosa, CA

I have no knowledge regarding this issue. 5 years ago from a Democrat in Brisbane, CA

Yes, provided there is a cap on the maximum amount in the fund. The state government cannot borrow like the feds. This will provide a cushion in an economic downturn while cuts are enacted. 5 years ago from a Democrat in Kenwood, CA

I am to uninformed to have an opinion. 5 years ago from a Democrat in El Cerrito, CA

Yes, but cut spending and invest into the state infrastructure. 5 years ago from a Libertarian in Toluca Lake, CA

Only if there is a true surplus without raising any taxes and/or fees. Taxes should not be increased in order to build the surplus. 5 years ago from a Republican in Fullerton, CA

No, spending should be directed to public schools. 5 years ago from a Democrat in Sacramento, CA

Yes, but only after the full Prop 98 portion is allotted to public education. 5 years ago from a Democrat in Davis, CA

Cut spending so that current revenues can accommodate a 1.5% set aside to a rainy day fund. 5 years ago from a Republican in Northridge, CA

Cut the government untill balaned and 10% can be set aside and saved until the goverment does not have to tax due to the intrest on the savings. 5 years ago from a Republican in Escondido, CA

Yes, but it must be for Higher Education, infrastructure, K-12 Education and nothing else. 5 years ago from a Democrat in San Diego, CA

All surplus should be returned to taxpayers, there should be no surplus. 5 years ago from a Republican in Foresthill, CA

No opinion unless they default on loans to the federal government. 5 years ago from a Republican in Brisbane, CA

Yes but as a part of a balanced budget with reduced income taxes. 5 years ago from a Green in San Carlos, CA

How about less corruption. 5 years ago from a Libertarian in Pasadena, CA

Return the money to the people. 5 years ago from a Libertarian in Rancho Cucamonga, CA

No, invest money into public education instead. 5 years ago from a Socialist in Tracy, CA

1% would be reasonable. Need to cut state spending. Limit growth to inflation plus legal population growth. 5 years ago from a Republican in Rancho Santa Fe, CA

Yes, if we can afford to do so while maintaining essential services. 5 years ago from a Democrat in Spreckels, CA

Yes, and cut spending at the same time. Stop providing medical insurance to people who were elected to an office and are no longer serving. 5 years ago from a Republican in Coyote, CA

Lower taxes and don't unbalance the budget. 5 years ago from a Republican in Harbor City, CA

Not 3%. Too high. Closer to 1.25%. After 4 years, that's 5 percent, after 8 years, that's 10 percent. 5 years ago from a Democrat in Granada Hills, CA

In the future this would be a reasonable idea, but as we are in debt we have more important things to take care of at this point in time. 5 years ago from a Republican in Granite Bay, CA

Establish strict limits on new spending -- link legislative salaries to spending control by legislature. 5 years ago from a Republican in Mission Viejo, CA

Just cut taxes. 5 years ago from a Republican in Ridgecrest, CA

This legislature will only throw away the money. They are fiscally irresponsible. 5 years ago from a Republican in Pasadena, CA

No, any surplus should be returned to the taxpayer. History shows that legislators have always managed to deplete any surplus or savings in tax monies for pet projects that do not benefit the people of the state. 5 years ago from a Republican in Rohnert Park, CA

No use the funds to pay down pension debt and change govenemnt pensions. They are a disgrace. 5 years ago from a Republican in Mill Valley, CA

California should invest in a Green New Deal that would create jobs, solve environmental problems, improve funding for education, boost tax revenues with increased income sales tax with which we could gradually build up a reasonable reserve. 5 years ago from a Green in Sebastopol, CA