More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Results from Race (Other) voters
Last answered 3 years ago
Distribution of answers submitted by Race (Other) voters.
Data includes total votes submitted by visitors since Dec 9, 2013. For users that answer more than once (yes we know), only their most recent answer is counted in the total results. Total percentages may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
Race data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011).
Choose a demographic filter
* Data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011)
Learn more about Rainy Day Fund Increase
The California Rainy Day Budget Stabilization Fund Act would increase the state’s savings from 5% to 10% by setting aside 3% of state revenues. Exceptions would include years when revenues drop below the previous years budget and increasing the amount of savings during years of budget surplus. See recent Rainy Day Fund Increase news
More stances on this issue
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
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
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
Yes, increase our savings, and cut spending. 5 years ago from a Democrat in Fresno, 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
How about less corruption. 5 years ago from a Libertarian in Pasadena, CA
Yes, if we can afford to do so while maintaining essential services. 5 years ago from a Democrat in Spreckels, 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
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