This! California had had a lot of tax revenue over the last couple of decades but doesn’t seem to have much to show for it.

Where is the explanation for how the money was spent, why it hasn’t paid off, and what would be different?

As far as I can tell it’s not ‘earmarked’ it’s just more tax for the general fund.

Also, Earmarks have never been trustworthy so it wouldn’t matter even if it were earmarked.

The California state budget is here, in pretty good detail: http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/budget/2020-21EN/#/BudgetDetail

Reports here go back over 10 years, so there's plenty of data to analyze.

Unless I’m missing something that just gives an apportionment of money to departments.

It doesn’t have any data about what the goals of spending that money was, not what the outcomes have been relative to those goals.

On it’s own it’s essentially useless for determining whether more or less money should go to any of those departments, let alone the state as a whole.

It shouldn't be the responsibility of the taxed to analyze the budget. If the government proposes a higher tax, they need to be transparent about where the shortfalls are that require such a tax, so those paying the tax aren't left guessing.

People want to know how their tax money is going to address society's problems. Is that so much to ask?

All taxes go into general revenues. Governments don’t operate by taxing one thing and spending it specifically on another.

Gas tax is the most cited counterexample, but even there roads get money from general revenues.

Gas tax isn’t a counter example since the earmarks have exceptions that allow the money to be used for arbitrary other purposes, which in practice is the case.

Another counterexample is recreational cannabis sales tax. In Colorado they are earmarked for education and arts afaik.

I understand that's how things currently are, but I don't believe it's how things need to be.