More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Results from Household (Non-Married Couple) voters
Last answered 6 years ago
Distribution of answers submitted by Household (Non-Married Couple) 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.
Household 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)
More stances on this issue
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. 6 years ago from a Republican in Goleta, CA
No, it will always be plundered. 6 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. 6 years ago from a Republican in Culver City, CA
I have no knowledge regarding this issue. 7 years ago from a Democrat in Brisbane, CA
Yes, but cut spending and invest into the state infrastructure. 7 years ago from a Libertarian in Toluca Lake, CA
No, spending should be directed to public schools. 7 years ago from a Democrat in Sacramento, CA
Yes, but only after the full Prop 98 portion is allotted to public education. 7 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. 7 years ago from a Republican in Northridge, CA
Yes, but it must be for Higher Education, infrastructure, K-12 Education and nothing else. 7 years ago from a Democrat in San Diego, CA
No opinion unless they default on loans to the federal government. 7 years ago from a Republican in Brisbane, 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. 7 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. 7 years ago from a Republican in Mill Valley, CA