In looooong session, Jerry Brown is unable to muster 2 GOP votes
by Brian Leubitz
If you are like me, and follow a lot of Capitol reporters on twitter, you will see a slew of tweets ending around 2AM last night. That would be because that is when the Senate finally closed its day and finished up this Legislative session.
But through all that, Brown's big last-minute goal went down in the Senate:
Gov. Jerry Brown's corporate tax package failed to clear the state Senate in the final hours of the legislative session.
The plan, contained in Senate Bill 116, fell five votes short of passage, by a final tally of 22-15.
The Democratic governor had proposed changing a corporate tax formula to require that multi-state companies calculate their tax liability based on the portion of sales in California. The roughly $1 billion expected to be raised annually through the change, mostly from out-of-state companies, would have been directed to specific tax breaks, including a sales tax exemption on manufacturing equipment. (SacBee)
The Governor wasn't even able to hold all the Democrats and one (I'm trying to figure out who) actually voted no. The question now for Brown is how he gets anything done with a Republican minority that understands their one (and only) power to block revenue legislation. But, of course, even if the Senate is 2/3 Democrats next year, we now know that is no guarantee of anything.
Governor looks to secure two Republican votes for tax changes
by Brian Leubitz
Well, step one for Jerry Brown is complete, as he got 2 Republican votes in the Assembly, but the job is far from complete.
The Democratic governor's revised tax plan raises about $1 billion in corporate taxes, mostly from out-of-state companies, and redirects that money toward tax breaks for California businesses and individuals.
He enlisted two Assembly Republicans to support the package, but he still must find votes from at least two reluctant Senate Republicans for his plan. The Legislature is scheduled to close its regular session tonight.
Brown and lawmakers hailed the plan as a jobs creator, though they offered few projections on its economic stimulus impact. Brown was joined at a news conference by GOP Assemblymen Nathan Fletcher and Cameron Smyth, who voted Thursday evening to put the legislation, Assembly Bill 1X 40, over the top in the lower house. The measure passed on a 54-10 vote, with the bare minimum for the needed two-thirds majority. (SacBee)
Sen. Dutton is apparently not ok with taxes being raised on anybody, even if the taxes are just being shifted. Apparently taxes on any one person can only go down in the world of Sen Dutton, and then proceeded to call for a special session to review the measure beyond Friday. Because then, you know, he could stall it forever and make sure nothing happens. That's kind of his deal, don't you know.
The likely targets for this measure will be Sen. Cannella, maybe Sen. Aanestad, and whomever else Jerry can drag along for the ride. 2 votes is doable, but certainly will take much arm twisting.
Governor aims to pass a tax reform measure before close of session
by Brian Leubitz
The Governor has been itching to get some sort of job plan going. Unfortunately, many of his ideas require a 2/3 vote, and Sacramento Republicans, like their counterparts in DC, seem more intent on blocking Democratic initiatives than getting anything done.
But this isn't even a measure that is increasing taxes:
Brown last month proposed eliminating a corporate tax benefit that allows companies to pick the less-expensive of two tax formulas when calculating tax liability. He proposed using the money, about $1 billion, to fund a sales tax exemption for purchases of manufacturing equipment, and he proposed expanding an employer tax credit.
Even before Brown announced the plan, Republicans criticized it and Democrats acknowledged it was not likely to pass. The change would require a two-thirds vote in the Legislature, and Republicans blocked a similar proposal in budget talks with Brown earlier this year.
"Any time you have legislation, it's the work of more than one hand," Brown said at the biotech company Gen-Probe Inc. "There are some Republicans that are already on board, and there's active discussion by those individuals with other legislators of that party. So, I'm reasonably optimistic we're going to get something by the end of the week. It will reshape itself as it goes through the legislative process."(SacBee)
Of course, the Republicans talk about "job creators" like somehow being rich equals creating jobs. Corporations aren't creating jobs, but Brown is trying to do something to spur spending. Anything. The elective tax structure hasn't really shown to be a boon for anything but corporate treasuries, and creates no real incentive to create jobs in California.
Meanwhile, the Republicans moan about job creation, and then won't do anything to create jobs. Color me shocked.
Sen. Steinberg raises idea of granting tax authority to local governments
by Brian Leubitz
With all the realignment talk running around, granting additional taxation authority to local governments hasn't been immune. In fact, Sen. Steinberg has addressed the idea a couple of times. However, the current proposal seems more fully considered to a particular government sector.
Senate Bill 791 would allow local transportation agencies to seek voter approval for a "regional transportation congestion reduction charge" on gasoline or diesel. The bill language, introduced in the form of amendments to existing legislation last week, would also allow a new vehicle registration charge on electric vehicles. Revenues raised by the fees, which would require approval of a majority of voters in the impacted region, would fund transit proposals developed by the local transportation planning agencies to reduce vehicle congestion.
The Sacramento Democrat called the bill an effort to create a "local option" for funding transit projects, saying it is "very consistent with the work that we've done this year on bringing services closer to the people" through realignment of state and local functions. (SacBee)
Now, at first blush this seems to be an indicator of nothing good. The only reason such a proposal is necessary is that our state government is essentially unworkable. And, in fact, that is the motivation behind much of realignment. The supermajority requirements have done a number on Sacramento, and the only remaining solution is to recreate tiny little fiefdoms. It is regrettable, but given the circumstances, not an unreasonable path for Steinberg and the Legislative Democrats.
We are essentially at the point that the state is better off without coordination, and, from a functional standpoint, that is a poor use of resources. But from a where we are standpoint, any taxing authority that can be reasonably achieved seems like a good idea.
Dan Walters suggests that the elected Board of Equalization has outlived its usefulness
by Brian Leubitz
It doesn't take much of a keen eye to see that California needs some pretty substantial structural reform. Dan Walters wants to take the sledgehammer to the elected tax men, the Board of Equalization.
It's also another bit of evidence that the Board of Equalization, created 132 years ago to ensure that counties applied property taxes fairly, should be abolished.
It's simply ludicrous that the administration of taxes is dependent on the ideological whims and personal agendas of five politicians. The board's purview now includes sales taxes and income tax appeals from the Franchise Tax Board.
*** **** ***
It's a virtual invitation to decide tax policy, and even individual tax cases, on the basis of ideology or political pull, examples of which have popped up frequently.
We should create a Department of Revenue that would include the functions of both boards, plus other tax-collecting agencies, with an administrative appeals process, backed by a tax court and the regular court system.(SacBee)
I think there are decent arguments to both sides of this fight. If we could really develop a strong revenue department that would fairly administer the tax policies, maybe it is something worth considering. However, how that is done would make a big difference to me. If we end up with a revenue department that is too weak, or too aggressive, or just doesn't pay attention to community concerns, that could be a lot worse than the Board of Equalization.
On the other hand, a responsive tax structure is hardly the worst thing in the world, yet alone the worst in our own government. I can think of more than a few boards in Sacramento that would rankle more than the BoE. At least it is elected rather than a retirement home for termed our politicians.
If we are going to start making constitutional changes, might as well go big and do away with the Senate too.
More than a thousand RNs and other activists marched on Wall Street Wednesday, chanting "Wall Street got bailed out! We got sold out!"
They stood on the steps of Federal Hall across from the New York Stock Exchange and held signs - "Take it Back! Tax Wall Street" and "Heal America! Tax Wall Street" - so crowds of curious passersby got the message.
Michael Salerno, a professor at UC-Hastings, thinks that the Democrats do not need a 2/3 vote of the Legislature to get the tax extensions on the ballot:
While the state constitution requires a two-thirds vote to raise taxes, a proposal to extend taxes by placing the question on the ballot would not raise taxes - it would leave that question to the voters. Because the constitution is silent, it does not limit the ability of the Legislature to place a measure on the ballot effective only if approved by the voters. The Legislature has that power.
However, if the Legislature passed a resolution to place the extensions on the ballot without further action, the question would appear on the next regularly scheduled election in 2012. Obviously, this would not address the current crisis, which needs near immediate action. The Legislature may pass a bill by a majority vote to call a special election at the earliest time that is logistically feasible. If signed by the governor, that bill would take effect immediately. Why would it take effect immediately? Again, the answer is in the constitution - a bill calling an election is one of the few instances the constitution specifies that goes into immediate effect with a majority vote.(SacBee)
At which point do we give up looking for political cover to get a sane budget through? I understand the political reasons for the Governor's caution. Democrats, taxes, yeah, I get it. But there has to be a time where we just ask the people of California what kind of state that they really want to live in. A state for the super rich? Or one for all Californians to succeed and thrive?
Salerno's legal take on the issue is sound, though sure to be quickly tested in the courts. To be honest, we really can't wait much longer. Brown and the Democratic leaders in the Legislature need to make up their minds as to whether they think getting Republican votes is a viable option within the next couple of weeks. If not, we need to adopt some more creative solutions, whether Prof. Salerno's plan or otherwise.
With the additional tax revenue coming in, the Republicans are already calling the tax extensions unnecessary. However, the numbers just aren't anywhere near that point yet, and Gov. Brown has no plans on dropping his pursuit of that revenue:
Having failed to win enough Republican votes to put the taxes on the ballot in June, the governor is expected to ask lawmakers to impose at least some of the levies first and seek Californians' blessing after the fact, said officials with knowledge of Brown's plan.
The governor faces rough seas in his quest for billions of dollars in additional income, sales and vehicle taxes.
GOP lawmakers' resolve to block both a legislative vote for the taxes and a public referendum has intensified with recent news that state revenue is outpacing projections. The uptick could continue, they say, erasing billions from a $15-billion deficit.(LA Times)
Now, realistically, the best option at this point is to try to get the votes and just pass the taxes. Getting those four GOP votes, however isn't exactly a walk in the park. So, we'll get some sort of vote if we are ever able to get the taxes through. Of course, at the same time, it is clear that Democratic super majorities are really the only way to create sustainable governance. And hey, it might be possible.
I have a really hard time believing that this game of chicken will really end with the corporate powers really letting their GOP puppets decimate California's infrastructure and educational systems, putting aside our other moral imperatives. That being said, this is a high-stakes game of chicken, with more than a few parallels to the debt ceiling crisis in DC. It will get resolved, but meanwhile we are on the tracks with a freight train heading right for us.
In Sacramento, dumb ideas don't have a party affiliation. Dan Walters calls out Democratic Santa Clara County Assemblyman Jim Beall out for a doozy:
Assemblyman Jim Beall, D-San Jose, is carrying Assembly Bill 81, which would protect airlines from paying higher sales taxes on their fuel purchases in California when prices spike upward. It would levy taxes on the average of spot fuel prices for the preceding five years, rather than on the current price.
The State Board of Equalization estimates that if enacted, the measure would reduce sales tax revenue by $108 million a year - just about what Vasconcellos' software loophole costs, interestingly enough.
Like the Vasconcellos measure, the Beall bill would grant corporations a tax break that ordinary consumers don't get. Motorists would still pay higher taxes when fuel prices spike. (SacBee)
At a time of budgetary crisis, this is an exceedingly bad idea. It puts stability of the airlines fuel taxes over the stability of our schools. United's bottom line over health care services for the elderly.
We already have too many loopholes in a disorganized and inefficient tax system, it's not time to create more.
Its never good news to hear a state has a budget deficit. But this recent article in The Economist made me a little happy for a couple of reasons. One, I was really tired of hearing conservatives (like Meg Whitman in 2010) praise Texas as a model for California. So hopefully that won't happen again. Two, its a vindication that California is not broken just because were lazy or some other variety of insults hurled our way from the other 49. It shows that regardless of the economic system, the bipartisan consensus was over-reliance on a massive bubble.
Many, if not all, will argue my view that the left's model of government-as-charity is unsustainable. But the the progressive case against the conservative model of government-as-corporation has been proven with the demise of Texas's "economic miracle." So there are a few lessons here, and most demonstrate why Texas and California can't be compared now or in the future.
1) The Dutch Disease. California is the third largest oil producer but due to our economy and size we are not an energy exporter. An oil tax exactly modelled on the one in Texas would generate revenue but cannot be a large enough cash stream to support our state. Texas is still over-reliant on its energy sector. It will receive a windfall with the current mideast crisis of the day. Don't be surprised if this contributes to a recovery and is used as proof that the Texas Model "works." California conversely will suffer economically due to high gas prices. People should be aware that the ups and downs of the energy market don't demonstrate which system is better only that both systems are not properly buffered for it.
2) Environment. An issue conservatives cringe at in California and abhor in Texas. But the thing is, our mild climate and natural beauty can't be found or replicated in Texas. As oil is to that state, the environment is a resource to us. Its a strong enough resource in fact that the wealthy will continue to live here regardless of the tax situation (much like they live in France).
3) Taxes. Our environment opens the door to higher taxes on the wealthy as long as its packaged as the price to live here. But it doesn't open the door to high taxes on ALL corporations. Companies that are high tech and want to attract people that want to live the California lifestyle can afford those taxes. Companies that require low-cost labor and are face stronger market competition (the non-Apples) cannot. Texas does grow more low-cost labor jobs and manufacturing. Granted there is not a high margin on that production but high-end producers that California is known for cannot employ all of us. Both no-taxes Texas and higher taxes California are too broad brush. A more nuanced corporate tax code may be needed.
4) Education. As the article points out, Texas aims to entice intellectual talent with no income taxes and more jobs instead of growing it natively with its education system. Its definetely a cheaper way to go, but is it sustainable? California's education system currently relies on its upper institutions to draw talent and hopes that its lifestyle and environment will keep them after graduation. I think California is the model to bet on, not (just) because of state pride, but Texas opens itself up to a race to the bottom situation.
5) Jobs. The Texas Model trumpets no income taxes and uses this to draw talent from across the nation. California, often called (incorrectly) the highest taxed state, uses taxes to provide services that higher educated/higher income people come to expect - well maintained roads, good schools, beautiful parks etc. The Texas job numbers were high last year but it appears that those were primarily lower-income jobs (some numbers said 2/3rds of all jobs created). Of course those are important jobs but not revenue generators or economic growth contributors like high tech. Bottomline, Texas plans to attract the lowest bidder (those that don't want to pay taxes). Like Wal-mart shoppers they don't expect frills or high quality products and services. California is like (insert expensive store of your choice, I won't play favorites) it gives you high end stuff and you expect to enjoy the experience not get the deal and rush out. But unquestionably its expensive, Californians need to decide which "store" do we want to be?
I have some thoughts on the issue but open it to all, what is California to do next?
In polling, the answer you get depends heavily on the question. Obvious enough, right?
Few should understand this point better than the prestigious, independent Field Institute, whose polls on California issues often contribute to the public debate.
So why is Field polluting the discussion around revenues in California with bad questions and bad data?
Over at FireDogLake, former Calitics blogger and current slayer of falacies David Dayen, takes on the California budget. Specifically, he calls out Brown's budget for a lack of bravery, in the face of a growing chorus of "responsible" voices in the news praising Brown's actions. Sure, he's making cuts that Democrats wouldn't ordinarily make, but that's just buying the Republican frame. Is he getting to the deeper points?
But Brown has ducked many more fundamental governance issues in the state. He hasn't gone near a tax structure where people making $47,500 a year pay the same in income taxes as those making $999,999. He won't approach the third rail of California politics, the artificially low property taxes resulting from Prop 13. He won't expand the sales tax to cover services, which would allow the rate to be lowered while still gaining more revenue (and becoming more progressive, as higher-end services get used by wealthier people). He's basically doing the bare minimum possible on revenue generation, and even then he won't commit to raising them himself, preferring to put them up for a vote of the people.
As for the spending cuts, they will be utterly devastating; California already cut the less necessary stuff in prior years of the crisis. And by and large, Democrats in the legislature are going along with it. In the Schwarzenegger years, you'd have a lot of resistance to very similar cuts, both from the outside and the inside. These days, state Democrats don't want to cross their own governor, and so they're basically carrying out his wishes. They tell everyone they don't feel good about it, but that's of little solace. (FDL)
Redevelopment has been getting much of the attention, but the heart of the cuts is to the social safety net that the Democrats have been working to protect from Governor Schwarzenegger's raids. Yet now we are making many of these same cuts. Meanwhile a full 20% of California families are struggling to even afford enough food:
The rate in California was slightly higher than the national average of 18%.
Jim Weill, president of the Washington-based nonprofit, said the figures underscore the need for a strong nutrition safety net - including food stamps and school meals - for families that continue to struggle as the economy begins to recover.
"While the nation's Great Recession may have technically ended in mid-2009, it has not yet ended for many of the nation's households," Weill said in a statement Thursday. "For them, 2010 was the third year of a terrible recession that is widely damaging the ability to meet basic needs."(LAT)
At a time when Californians need more help than ever, we're closing down our doors and spending a smaller percentage of the state's personal income for over 40 years. Yeah, that's right, Brown's proposed budget would spend just $5.05 per $100 earned, the lowest such figure since Reagan's 1972-73 budget. Put simply, we don't have an out of control tax system, we don't have a spending problem, we have an obstinate minority that insists on a selfishness of spirit that California hasn't known before.
I give Brown credit for doing what he thinks he must, perhaps in the only way he thinks possible. But we're losing part of what made us great. There was once a feeling that anything could happen in California, that whatever we worked together toward would be accomplished. We built an outstanding K-12 education system and the greatest public university system in the world. We built the information based economy. We built a network of infrastructure that made tomorrow look better than yesterday.
Today, we are just trying to survive for ourselves. Some of us can't feed ourselves, while others are grabbing crass and obscene wealth. Is this really the best we can do?
Here's the thing: The Republicans understand that there have to be some additional revenues. They know that even they couldn't come up with the full $25 Billion in cuts in any way that could possibly help them politically. But, on the other side, they are terrified of their own base.
This is where it gets interesting. Sen. Bob Dutton, the Republican Leader in the Senate asked the Legislative Counsel if there is any way for the Democrats to put something on the ballot on their own, sans the 2/3 majority. Now, Dutton would probably tell you out in public that this is just to stop the tax hikes or something like that. But, you have to think that Dutton was secretly hoping that the Democrats could do the dirty work while the Republicans could maintain their ideological purity by never voting for anything that possibly resembles an increase in taxes.
Speaker Perez, for his part, doesn't seem to be taking the bait, and has cast that aside right from the get-go:
Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez said Wednesday that he has no intention of sidestepping Republicans by trying to place a tax-extension measure on the June ballot by a simple majority vote of the Legislature.
Pérez downplayed a legislative counsel's opinion, sought by Senate Republican leader Bob Dutton, that indicated such a measure could be placed before voters without the support of GOP lawmakers, under narrow circumstances.
"No," Pérez said flatly when asked if he is entertaining such a plan for the tax measure proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown to raise $11 billion for the fiscal year that ends June 30, 2012.
"There is not a single legal analysis that I think holds any water that says we could legitimately put this question before voters on a simple majority vote," Pérez told the Sacramento Press Club. (SacBee)
I'll admit, I'm a bit split on this move. From a practical standpoint, I'm a bit skeptical that the Democrats will, in fact, be able to lure enough GOP votes. Keeping open the majority vote measure as a way to whip some GOP votes into making some sort of deal seems to make some sense.
But, guessing at the Speaker's logic here, in order to pass this thing at the ballot, you are probably going to need at least nominal GOP support. If you have them running around saying how awful this package is, it could create a pretty dicey situation for the actual election.
At any rate, despite the Speaker's protests, I would still not count out the concept of a majority vote measure quite yet.
Timm Herdt of the Ventura County Star focuses on a statement from Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval in today's must-read column:
One thing that hasn't changed in Nevada is that its Republican politicians continue to be fiscal conservatives. But if GOP lawmakers from California were to return to Reno this year to pick up any lessons, they might be surprised at one thing they'd learn.
They'd find out that the state's constitutional amendment, passed in 1994, that requires any tax increases be approved by a two-thirds vote of legislators includes a provision that gives ultimate authority to voters. To place a tax increase proposal on the ballot, it says, shall require only a simple majority vote of lawmakers.
Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval, who promised during his campaign to oppose any tax increases, appears to also believe that a public vote on taxes ought to carry more weight than his own opinion.
Asked whether he would sign a bill to put a tax increase on the ballot, Sandoval this week told the Las Vegas Review-Journal, "We'll cross that bridge when it comes, but I've always been supportive of people's right to vote."(Ventura County Star)
Now, let's say this first, Brian Sandoval is nobody's moderate. He's a pretty right-wing governor, and hardly somebody that you could really call anything other than anti-tax/anti-goverment.
But, in the system we have out west, governments frequently defer (for better or worse) to the people. Perhaps Tony Strickland and his TeaParty Caucus should consider the fact that despite what Grover Norquist is telling them, a vote for Brown's budget package will increase no taxes. That's up to the people, and unless Tony and the Gang don't trust the people, he should get moving on that pronto.
As Governor Brown continues to fight to get some sort of revenue measure on the ballot, it is also very likely that we will also see a tobacco measure at the same time. Former Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata and cycling legend and anti-cancer activist Lance Armstrong are aiming to create a roughly billion dollar per year cancer research program.
"When you walk through the institutions of this state, the potential there is tremendous," the seven-time Tour de France winner said during a news conference at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. "Whatever happens and is created, or is invented, or changes in California, goes everywhere .... We will have more and more cancer survivors all over the world."
The initiative, which would raise as much as $855 million in its first year of implementation, according to an analysis by the state's legislative analyst, could be placed on the ballot as early as June if Gov. Jerry Brown succeeds in calling a special election to address the state's budget gap. (LAT)
Of course, as we saw when the last tobacco tax was on the ballot, Big Tobacco is going to fight this voraciously. Last time they spent $66million to defeat it, and you'd expect at least $50 million for this measure. Having the measure this June might change the voter demographic that the proponents were going for. However, under state law, qualified measures (which this has done) must go on the next statewide ballot.
So, how will this interplay with Brown's measures? Well it is tough to say exactly, but as the Times Maeve Reston points out, it will hardly be a good thing for a $50million anti-tax campaign to be occurring at the same time you are trying to pass the sales tax continuation.
Speaking of the tax continuation, it is rapidly becoming clear that the Legislature is actively looking for ways to get something on the ballot without 2/3. Don't be shocked if the Republican votes never show up.
Is this a valid analogy these days? I thought we were trying to cut down on all the rhetoric, after all we've been moving away from all the war analogies. But apparently, rape, yeah, that's still on the table.
Meanwhile, the Taxpayers' Caucus got off to a rousing start, with Sen. Tony Strickland, with his fellow right-wing zealot, Asm. Wagner, there to kick off the party. Apparently they have one simple goal: denying the people a fair say at what they desire for their future.
A group of Republican state lawmakers announced today the formation of a legislative Taxpayers Caucus, pledging to oppose Gov. Jerry Brown's proposal to ask voters to extend increased tax rates set to expire unless commensurate tax cuts are also placed on the ballot.
Just over two-thirds of the Republican legislators -- 21 in Assembly and eight in the Senate -- have signed on to join the unofficial caucus, which organizers say is open to members of both parties. (SacBee)
Of course, this isn't really a problem. It just means the remaining members of the Republican caucus is going to get some extra attention as the time for for votes approaches. Strickland and his cronies are essentially driving their car straight down the road to irrelevance.
The radical anti tax movement has put up some bold suggestions in the past two months as Jerry Brown's budget has proceeded through the system. First they flat out refused to allow any tax measures. Then they wanted a tax cuts along side Brown's measures, an entirely unworkable proposal. But the one thing they haven't suggested?
A balanced budget. As of right now, all they have done is complain about potential taxes, without doing any of the difficult work of identifying the cuts that would allow us to work through without increases.
Fortunately, the Legislative Analyst's office (LAO), at the request of Senate Democratic leadership, has done some of that work for them. The Bee got a copy of it, and boy, is this ugly:
As was expected, the alternatives are grim - $4.5 billion less for K-12 schools than Brown proposed, as well as a $1.7 billion reduction to universities and community colleges. The Analyst's Office also laid out $2.6 billion in cuts to corrections and courts, $1.2 billion in health and social services reductions, $1.8 billion in cuts to "general" state and local government operations and $1.7 billion in cuts to transportation and resources.(SacBee)
Now, these aren't necessarily LAO recommendations, but rather just possible suggestions that would be doable under current law. If you drill down further, the cuts are, as expected, most painful for those that need it the most. Tuition at UC and CSU would go up another 7-10%, CalWorks eligibility would be decreased, and larger class sizes would just be a few of the potential cuts. For the business folks, there's the suggest cut that would axe the small business loan guarantee program. Oh, and for those living out in wildfire country, the State would say that you are pretty much on your own.
These are all pretty hypothetical at this point, but if we don't pass some sort of additional revenue, the consequences will be pretty dire one way or another.
The GOP was getting a little bit unsettled by the tack Jerry Brown has taken: demanding that they give voters a choice. You see, they want to give the voters a choice between tax increases and tax decreases. Carla Marinucci has it:
Jon Coupal, who heads the influential Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, told the Chronicle/SFGate.com today that some Republican lawmakers in Sacrameto came up with the idea after Brown argued at Monday's State of the State address that GOP lawmakers may be seen as "thumbing their nose" at voters by blocking a special election to allow them to weigh in on tax extensions and billions in budget cuts.
Asked how Republicans could meet or even counter Brown's challenge, Coupal said: "I think it's quite easy.''
"I think the Republicans should agree to put those tax increases on the ballot on one condition: parallel tax reductions.''(SF Gate)
So, you know one of the oldest tricks in the handbook to killing a ballot measure? But an opposite campaign that will trick voters into just saying, a pox on both their houses.
In other words. No. No. No.
This is only a choice in so far as voting in Myanmar (or Egypt) involves a choice. This is a way to kill the revenue increases and leave our state choking to death. This proposal is a flat out non-starter.
You know how we are going to need to cut into our core expenditures next year unless we get some additional revenue? This seems to be Gov. Brown's intentions, but to do that, he needs a 2/3 vote in each house. Of course, that means that he needs some Republican votes.
Well, "Americans for Tax Reform" aka Grover Norquist's group that intends to drown the government in the proverbial bath tub, has no intention of not creating a feces laden storm if any of the Republican legislators break their pledge to him.
The national anti-tax group Americans for Tax Reform will e-mail and fax letters tomorrow to California legislators who signed its no-tax pledge, warning them the group will consider any vote to put tax extension measures on the ballot a violation of that pledge, said the group's state affairs director Patrick Gleason. ... "This is to make clear that putting before a vote a measure to extend the taxes that Brown has proposed would violate the pledge," Gleason said. "We count that as an assist. It's not a direct score, but it's an assist." (Capitol Alert)
Instead, Mr. Gleason would like to see not only the government, but the entire middle class drowned in the process. A cuts only budget would bring the wrecking ball to our K-12 system, and shut down many social services. In a very real sense, the fate of California's middle class is on the line.
At a juncture like this, in a state like California where the plebiscite has become King, a vote of the people seems to make the most sense. If the people really loathe taxes, and Grover and the gang are representing the wishes of California, shouldn't a vote be the best thing for everybody. After all, if the taxes were defeated, it would really signal to all the world that Californians favor short-term self interest over what was once called the "California Dream."
Of course, the other side of the coin would be that California would approve taxing ourselves, as our neighbors to the north did last year.
If we are going to have a system dominated by a slew of ballot initiatives, we need to give the people the vote on the very future of the Middle Class. To do any less would be to thwart democracy for only the grand purpose of political expediency.
The "compromise" extension of tax cuts passed the house. The California Republicans voted 18-1 in favor, John Campbell (CA-48) was the only vote against.
