California Voted to Raise Taxes on Corporations to Create ‘Green Jobs.’ Here’s How That’s Working Out Three Years Later

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Three years after California voters passed a ballot measure to raise taxes on corporations and generate clean energy jobs by funding energy-efficiency projects in schools, barely one-tenth of the promised jobs have been created, and the state has no comprehensive list to show how much work has been done or how much energy has been saved.

Money is trickling in at a slower-than-anticipated rate, and more than half of the $297 million given to schools so far has gone to consultants and energy auditors. The board created to oversee the project and submit annual progress reports to the Legislature has never met, according to a review by The Associated Press.

Voters in 2012 approved the Clean Energy Jobs Act by a large margin, closing a tax loophole for multistate corporations. The Legislature decided to send half the money to fund clean energy projects in schools, promising to generate more than 11,000 jobs each year.

Instead, only 1,700 jobs have been created in three years, raising concerns about whether the money is accomplishing what voters were promised.

“Accountability boards that are rubber stamps are fairly common, but accountability boards that don’t meet at all are a big problem,” said Douglas Johnson, a state government expert at Claremont McKenna College in Southern California.

The State Energy Commission, which oversees Proposition 39 spending, could not provide any data about completed projects or calculate energy savings because schools are not required to report the results for up to 15 months after completion, spokeswoman Amber Beck said.

Via: The Blaze

Continue Reading....

How is Government Spending Hidden Tax Revenue?

​Especially in California, the word “taxpayer” is frequently preceded by the word “beleaguered.” Given our large tax burden and the tragic level of government waste, perhaps there should be a grammatical rule that these two words must always be combined.

While some California taxes are hidden, most are unfortunately and painfully obvious. But the same is not true for the level of wasteful spending by government. The unstated rule of politicians and bureaucrats is that average taxpayers must be kept in the dark about how their money is being spent.

Ask the average man or woman in the street what they think the 87 cent tax on a pack of cigarettes goes to and they will likely respond that it goes for anti-smoking programs – like those scary TV spots – and for health care.

Because of the detrimental impact of smoking on health, most Californians will agree that there seems a logical connection between what is being taxed and how the money is being spent. However, most of the tobacco tax does not go to these programs. Of the 87 cents, 50 cents goes to children’s programs administered by First Five California, a creation of Proposition 10. Now children’s programs may be a great idea, but many ask why these are not funded openly out of the state general fund instead of having the costs hidden inside the tobacco tax.

Ironically, we have seen First Five California objecting to additional taxes on tobacco products because the number of smokers might decrease and thus reduce revenue to their programs. So what we have, in effect, is an agency that is tacitly supporting what they concede is an unhealthful habit, simply because it wants the revenue.

Then there are parking tickets that in cities like Los Angeles can cost more than $60. While parking fines are imposed, in theory, to make spaces available to all motorists, the real motivation is to satisfy the appetite for revenue. Because Los Angeles has some of the highest paid workers in a state that the federal government says has the highest paid government employees in all 50 states, it desperately needs the revenue to support payroll and benefits. This may help explain some of the city’s confusing signage that makes it difficult for drivers to tell when they can park and where.

More confusion that benefits the public sector, and puts taxpayers at a disadvantage.

But state and local governments do not have a monopoly on confusing or hidden taxes, charges and other revenue enhancements.

Enter Congress and the highway bill. The version being considered by the Senate would place a new tax burden on home buyers by increasing the fees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac charge for their loans. “Not only will it increase the cost of homeownership and make it more difficult for a buyer to purchase a home, it will hinder future efforts at mortgage finance reform,” said California Association of Realtors President Chris Kutzkey.

As bad as that sounds, it is even worse. It is another charge whose purpose is intentionally hidden from the casual observer and where there is a total disconnect between what is being taxed, home loans, and on what the money will be spent, highways. (In California this would be defined as a “special tax” under Proposition 13 and require a two-thirds vote.)

According to the Washington D.C.-based Tax Foundation, America spends more on taxes than on food, clothing and housing combined. In California, the average taxpayer works for government until May 3rd, before they start working for themselves.

It is not too much to demand from politicians that they make clear what taxpayers are being charged and on what the funds are being spent. Maybe then we can remove the modifier “beleaguered” from the word “taxpayer.”

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association — California’s largest grass-rootstaxpayerorganization dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights.

Originally published at HJTA.org

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Everybody Has To Pay This New Obamacare Tax

All Americans who bought health insurance policies this year – not just those enrolled in Obamacare – face a 41 percent increase in excise taxes because of hidden fees contained in an obscure section of the Affordable Care Act, according to an investigation by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Virtually everyone who pays for health care insurance this year will be affected by the tax. The little-known tax was imposed on all consumers regardless of whether they obtained their insurance through Obamacare or through their employer or as individuals in the private market.

This year the tax will cost individuals more than $500 in extra premiums according to one actuarial estimate. Families who purchased insurance will see their premiums go up by more than $700.

The new tax also hits senior citizens who rely on Medicare Part D and Medicare Advantage. It will land on the nation’s poor who depend upon Medicaid-managed care programs.

The 41 percent sticker shock increase doesn’t stop in 2015, however. Over the next four years, the statutorily mandated Obamacare fees are expected to double again.

Over the next decade, consumers will pay more than $145 billion for the tax, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The levy will continue to go up each and every year into the future.

The tax was buried by congressional authors in section 9010 of the law and was envisioned as a way to raise future funds to pay for Obamacare.

The Obamacare fees were designed by the program’s authors to be delayed, kicking in only in 2014 at $8 billion and mushrooming into a $14.3 billion annual price tag on insurance policies by 2018.

Republican Sen. John Barrasso, who favors repeal of section 9010, said the tax “is another example of how the president’s health care law was designed so the most painful parts of the law kick in years later.”

CBO reported the fee was a “statutorily fixed” amount that must be collected each year from consumers, as opposed to a percentage rate.

The statute describes the levy is an “annual fee” but health-care economists say it has been commonly referred to as an excise tax.

The Joint Committee on Taxation said the Obamacare tax was “similar to an excise tax based on the sales price of health insurance contracts.”

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading...

[VIDEO] Donald Trump: ‘I Pay as Little as Possible’ Because ‘I Hate the Way Our Government Spends Our Taxes’

(CNSNews.com) - GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump told CBS’s “Face the Nation” that he tries to pay as little taxes as possible, not just because he’s a businessman, but because he doesn’t like what the U.S. does with the taxpayers’ money.

“I have said this many times, so it is not exactly breaking news. I pay as little as possible. I fight like hell to pay as little as possible, for two reasons. Number one, I am a businessman, and that's the way you are supposed to do it, and you put the money back in your company and employees and all of that, but the other reason is that I hate the way our government spends our taxes,” said Trump when asked what percentage of income he pays in taxes.

 

“I hate the way they waste our money, trillions and trillions of dollars of waste and abuse, and I hate it,” said Trump.

According to Trump’s campaign, his personal fortune is set at $10 billion, and his annual income is estimated to be $362 million.

“I will be probably the first candidate in the history of politics within this country to say, I try and -- like every -- by the way, like every single taxpayer out there, I try to pay as little tax as possible, and, again, one of the big reasons is, I hate what our country does with the money that we pay,” he added.

Trump told “Face the Nation” host John Dickerson that he might release his tax returns around the time that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton releases her e-mails.

“I may tie it to a release of Hillary's e-mails. I may very well do that,” Trump said. “Now, I have a very big company. They all said I wouldn't release my financials, and then I released them, and they were far bigger than anybody thought. They said I wouldn't release them because his company may be or his success may be -- isn't as big.

“Well, it turned out that it is far bigger, and I released them, and we will see what I am going to do with tax returns. I have no major problem with it, but I may tie them to a release of Hillary's e- mails,” he added.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

FROM FREE FALL TO FREE MARKETS: HOW WISCONSIN TURNED ITSELF AROUND

Just four years ago, if you asked me what word best described the economic outlook in Wisconsin, “bleak” would have been the first to come to mind. The state faced a $3.6 billion deficit, high unemployment, and a future that was far brighter for big labor and special interests than it was for Wisconsin taxpayers.

But now, Wisconsin is back on a path to prosperity. Businesses are growing, families are going back to work, and by almost every measure of success, Wisconsin’s economy is thriving.

What caused such a dramatic turnaround?

One thing: Governor Scott Walker and the state legislature embarked on an ambitious and bold agenda to bring free market reforms to every corner of the state. Together, legislators worked to reform the state’s broken tax code, free workers from union mandates, repeal the state’s outdated prevailing wage law, and make Wisconsin a better place to live, work and raise a family.

No longer will Badger State employees be compelled to join a labor union and pay dues as a condition of employment. No longer will school districts and local governments be forced to pay up to 45 percent more for labor on taxpayer-financed construction projects. And no longer will the state’s taxpayers be required to carry the burden of out-of-control government benefits.

Plain and simple, Wisconsin is finally on the right track.

New state borrowing has been reduced to the lowest levels in 20 years. Property taxes have been reduced to the lowest levels since 1946, and taxes have been cut by more than $2 billion.

Most importantly, these reforms aren’t just making a difference for lawmakers required to balance the budget. They’re also making a difference in the lives of everyday Wisconsinites and the hard-working families who, for years, had struggled to make ends meet.

Take for example our state’s unemployment rate which, at 4.6 percent, is at a six-year low and almost a full point lower than the national average. Employment is at an all-time highand Wisconsin has literally never had more jobs than it has today.

In 2014, Wisconsin businesses exported more goods than ever before — more than $23.4 billion worth, no doubt helped by the many new businesses flooding into the state.

Families are earning more too. Wisconsin’s median family income is up more than six percent since 2011 to $55,258 a year, rising almost twice as fast as the rest of the country.

The turnaround has been so great that Wisconsin is now ranked the fourth best state in the nation for finding a job — after North Dakota, Texas, and Nebraska. And, if Wisconsin, once weighed down by onerous regulations and costly mandates, can now count itself among the likes of these stunning examples of economic freedom, then clearly the state is doing something right.

Wisconsin is indeed open for business.

Via: American Spectator

Continue Reading....

[OPINION] California’s Pillage People Lead The Nation In Tax Collector Harassment

California is making a strong case that its pillage people – tax collectors, that is – are the worst in the nation. Should that be doubted, consider the Golden State’s enduring campaign against inventor Gilbert Hyatt, who in 1990 was awarded the patent for the first single-chip microprocessor.

The computer industry welcomed this invention, earning Hyatt a lot of money. He soon moved to Nevada, which has no state income tax. California’s Franchise Tax Board (FTB) claimed Hyatt lied about his residency, and that he owed $7.4 million in taxes for a six-month period from 1991 to 1992. Over more than 20 years, that sum has ballooned to between $55 million and $60 million.

In Nevada, California’s FTB goons ransacked Hyatt’s trash without warrant, told his business partners and doctors he was under investigation, and shared Hyatt’s personal information with the media. Hyatt sued the agency for harassment and violation of privacy. California tried to get the suit dismissed, but in 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Hyatt had a right to go to trial. So he did.

In 2008, a Las Vegas jury awarded him $388 million, including $250 million in punitive damages. California’s tax hacks duly appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, calling the award “flagrantly excessive” and claiming they did nothing wrong.

In 2014, Nevada’s Supreme Court tossed much of the award, but Hyatt retained the $1.2 million for fraud. He had been awarded $85 million for emotional distress, but the court has ordered a new trial on the amount Hyatt deserves.

Despite the reduction in damages, the verdict was a clear beat-down of California’s Franchise Tax Board. The agency’s response was to continue its legal pursuit of Hyatt, with encouragement from U.S. District Judge Garland Burrell Jr., a George H. W. Bush nominee who questions Hyatt’s motives and would place the burden of proof on the inventor.

Hyatt claims the FTB is contending that he was both a resident of California who owed them taxes, and a nonresident who owed them taxes. Now 76, Hyatt believes California officials are waiting for him to die, believing it would be easier to deal with his heirs.

Former California state senator and assemblyman Bill Leonard has said the FTB action against Hyatt “does amount to a persecution at this point.” Constitutional expert Erwin Chemerinsky of the UC Irvine law school, who is representing Hyatt free of charge, told reporters that “It’s a real injustice” what has happened to the inventor, who has been “denied due process.”

As far as can be discerned, California’s loss in Nevada courts did not prompt the Franchise Tax Board to fire or discipline any managers or employees. Nor has a state senator held public hearings on the Hyatt matter, as happened for the new span of the Bay Bridge after news reports raised concerns about safety problems. Nor has Governor Jerry Brown, an evangelist for the state’s high taxes, made an issue of the tax agency’s zealous persecution of Hyatt.

Taxpayers might conclude that FTB bosses believe they are above the law and unaccountable. The tax collectors have not exactly been transparent about how much money they are spending to pursue Hyatt.

“At some point, you have to wonder whether the costs are justified based on the amounts that taxpayers have laid out,” David Kline of the California Taxpayers Association told reporters. “The FTB has hired outside lawyers in addition to using their own staff resources. It’s a significant cost and it continues to grow.”

Meanwhile, as the Sacramento Bee reported, the attorneys general of 19 other states filed a brief siding with California, claiming the Nevada verdict had a “chilling effect” on tax investigators. Clearly, all states have their pillage people, but those states will be hard pressed to match California for sheer government greed.

Bill Leonard explains that in California, tax collectors “just pick on anyone successful.” Inventors of useful products such as the single-chip microprocessor will find better conditions in other states.

Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow with the Independent Institute in Oakland, California, and author of Hollywood Party: Stalinist Adventures in the American Movie Industry.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

CALIFORNIA: POT TAX: SACRAMENTO POLITICIANS ‘JONESING’ FOR A SPENDING FIX

With Sacramento politicians desperate to find a new source of continuous tax revenue, the state’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy has just published a study, “Pathways Report Policy Options for Regulating Marijuana In California,” as a precursor to sponsoring a 2016 ballot initiative to legalize recreational pot use.

However, it seems that underground farmers of California’s largest cash crop have no intention of going legit and paying taxes.

“One of the major findings of the Blue Ribbon Commission’s work is that the legalization of marijuana would not be an event that happens in one election. Rather, it would be a process that unfolds over many years requiring sustained attention to implementation,” the report says.

In perhaps the most hilarious section of the report, under the heading “What to do with all that new tax money,” the Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom-led group of academic and law enforcement experts suggests that the expected cash hoard from taxing marijuana should not go to back-fill the State General Fund: “We do not believe that making government dependent on cannabis taxes makes for sound public policy, nor do we believe cannabis tax revenue will be very large in relation to the total budgets of state and local government.”

Sacramento politicians have been clear that they hope marijuana can provide a stable tax revenue base for the perpetually insolvent state. After passing Proposition 30‘s“temporary tax increase” in 2012, the Golden State saw its top marginal tax rate jump by 33% and capital gains taxed at the same rates as income, up to 13.3 percent.

The media have been full of stories about companies moving to lower-taxed states, but tax collection was up by $11 billion in the 2015 fiscal year, mostly due to huge capital gains taxes from Silicon Valley. California’s collection of capital gains jumped from $4.7 billion in 2010 to 11.9 billion in 2014, and may have hit $15 billion for 2015.

Yet with the annual cost for state employees’ salaries and benefits at $10 billion, any fall in capital gains collections would create the same type of disaster for public employee unions that happened in the Great Recession, when capital gains income to the state plunged from $10.9 billion in 2007 to $2.3 billion in 2009. In that crash, 6.7 percent of the state’s public employees were terminated; K-12 and early education were slashed by 8 percent; and public health and welfare were slashed.

The 93-page Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy report makes 58 recommendations essentially suggesting that marijuana “licensing” should shadow the policies used to maximize tax collection in regulating alcohol distribution and consumption in California.

Licensed and taxed entities would include: cultivators who grow cannabis; distributors and wholesalers; manufacturers who make specific products for retail sale; retailers who sell to individuals; transporters who are responsible for delivery between any two points in the system; suppliers of seeds; product testing; training providers and any other entities involved in supply chain monitoring; and product safety testers.

Separating alcohol manufacturing, transportation and distribution has been the key to maximizing tax collection in the U.S.. The weight and size of alcohol liquids make them much easier to identify in illegal transit and storage.

But the bad news for tax-hungry Sacramento politicians is that the current drug business is highly integrated with criminal gangs controlling all levels of production, transportation and distribution. Recognizing that the only way to bring the illegal pot trade into regulation, the Newsom report suggests that marijuana regulation would have to allow a higher level of integration than alcohol:

Alcohol regulation clearly separates manufacturer, distributor and retailer, with few exceptions. Prohibiting all vertical integration would have the effect of breaking up some current responsible players in the medical marijuana industry who engage in cultivation and sales, while requiring vertical integration of cultivation and sales could force large numbers of small incumbent growers into rushed and perhaps unwanted “shotgun marriages” with retailers.

The report also seems to suggest concessions to labor unions as a way to add political support: “The workforce involved in marijuana cultivation and processing should be afforded the same protections and rights as other workers in the agriculture and processing industries. This includes the right to collective bargaining, as well as other worker safety protections.”

As Breitbart News recently noted, in “California Is Greece, but with Capital Gains,” the state’s failed experiment in liberalism has resulted in the highest poverty rate in the U.S. at 23.4 percent. The grossly insolvent Gold State, with about $500 billion in debt, has survived–on life support–from billions of dollars of inconsistent revenue from capital gains taxes.

Desperate to keep the game going, Sacramento politicians are pushing to legalize marijuana for the tax revenue. They are likely to be disappointed.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading.....

CA Holds Services Hostage to Push Tax Increases

All agree that the roads desperately need revenue yet new funds from the increased budget were not directed to the roads. It’s been that way for some time – transportation infrastructure pretty much ignored by general funds instead relying on shrinking targeted funds. Shorting revenue for a vital service can set up a play for more taxes for that service. It’s happened before in California.

Two years ago, Bloomberg Business ran a lengthy, celebratory piece on Jerry Brown and his governorship. In essence, the writer argued that Brown found a solution to California’s funding problem by cutting programs until it hurt so that voters felt they had to raise taxes.

One gets the sense a similar approach is building support for transportation funds through fees and/or taxes.

Here’s what the article argued:

To get tax-hating Californians to vote to raise their own taxes, Brown became Governor Gloom. If the tax-cutters’ theory was to cut taxes so much we’d have to shrink government, he was going to shrink government so much that people would raise taxes. In addition to schools and community colleges, he would cut medical programs, aid to the disabled, and child health care. “Our breakthrough came because of the breakdown,” he says. “There were more layoffs, more pink slips, more agitation. Cutting was very conducive to the success of Prop 30.” In short: Jerry Brown scared the crap out of people.

Concluding the piece, the author wrote:

So that’s his theory: cut, cut, cut until the people can’t take it anymore. Then inspire them with stories of what government can do.

Let’s be clear that ignoring transportation funding needs goes back much farther than Brown’s current governorship. The deficit for transportation infrastructure is so great that it is not a case of cutting that caused the crisis. Over the course of many years, transportation funding was not adequately met even in good budget years. In essence, this situation amounts to a similar situation as described in the Bloomberg piece, although it certainly extends prior to Brown regaining the governor’s office. This crisis falls on past governors and legislators, too. The government did not fund the transportation system while often putting monies into new programs.

Not adequately funding the roads has led many to call for new taxes despite record budgets. Deprive, deprive, deprive transportation infrastructure instead of cut, cut, cut until the people can’t take it anymore.

The idea of moving current revenues to roads has been argued for a long time. In fact, 27 years ago Paul Gann and I were co-proponents of Proposition 72, which, among other things, directed state sales taxes on fuels to roads and highways. It was defeated.

The need for more transportation money is even greater now than it was when we tried to direct money for that purpose in 1988. Current proposals in the special session also would require certain funds to be dedicated exclusively for transportation purposes. But, a fair question to ask: Will an echo of Prop. 30 strategy as described in the Bloomberg article end in a like result of a tax increase?

(Originally posted on Fox and Hounds Daily.)

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading...

CNN Anchor On Hillary Proposals: ‘All These Things Sound Like They Need A Tax Increase

WATCH VIDEO.

Reacting to Hillary Clinton’s Monday address on the economy, “CNN Newsroom” anchor Carol Costello remarked that the preeminent proposals in the speech are all going to necessitate a tax increase.

While interviewing a guest for feedback on Clinton’s address, Costello pointed out Clinton’s proposals, such as raising the minimum wage and expanding paid family leave and medical leave, adding in finality that “all of these things sound like they need a tax increase.”

“So Hillary Clinton is laying out her economic plan and she’s going to talk about — let me see, I have a list here. She wants to increase investment in good paying jobs through tax incentives. She wants to support small business tax relief. She wants to establish clean energy products that would kind of like create jobs,” Costello said. “She wants to expand child care and paid family leave and sick days.”

“All of these things sound like they need a tax increase,” Costello told Monica Mehta, the managing principal for Seventh Capital investment. “Am I right?”

Mehta told the CNN host that “well, you gotta pay for it some how,” before adding, “I like what she has to say.”

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading.....

[VIDEO] Clinton to deliver economic speech Monday, with tax policy at issue

Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton is set to give a major economic speech Monday, after weeks of deferring about her plans to improve the U.S economy including whether she’ll raise taxes.

The focus of her economic agenda will be to increase middle class income and wages. And she will argue that stagnant paychecks is the biggest challenge facing the U.S. economy.

Clinton's campaign on Saturday provided a preview of her speech, which will also include the argument that the real income of everyday Americans must rise steadily alongside corporate profits and executive compensation.

Clinton declined in a CNN interview earlier this week to say whether she would raise taxes on big corporations or the country’s highest wage-earners, as primary challenger Sen. Bernie Sanders has proposed.

“I think we have to grow the economy faster and fairer,” she said. “So we have to do what will actually work in the short term, the medium term and the long term. … then, I’ll look forward to the debate.”

While top-tier Republican candidate and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has called for an annual growth rate of 4 percent, Clinton will assert that the nation's economy should not be judged by a specific growth figure but rather by how much income increases for middle-class households.

"For a typical working American, their income has not been rising anywhere near as fast as it should be rising, and that is the challenge we face," said David Kamin, a New York University law professor who has advised Clinton's campaign. "It's not a new problem, and it's going to take a holistic vision."

The Clinton campaign said the former first lady and New York senator in her speech at The New School, a university in New York City, will point to economic progress during her husband's two terms in the 1990s and more recently under President Obama.

But she will aim to identify ways of improving upon the uneven nature of the nation's recovery since the Great Recession, bolstering wages even as the unemployment rate has fallen to a seven-year low of 5.3 percent.

Clinton is also expected to begin outlining a series of specific economic proposals this summer on issues like wage growth, college affordability, corporate accountability and paid leave.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

Will California Republicans Dance With Wolves?​

Jerry Brown, who as a candidate for governor in 2010 repeatedly pledged he wouldn’t raise taxes without a popular vote, has called for a special session of the Legislature for the purpose of raising taxes.  This despite the fact that general fund revenues have outstripped estimates by almost $6 billion.  So now we have the very real possibility of higher gas taxes, higher registration and vehicle license fees with proceeds promised for roads – all without a vote of the people.

That a politician would change his views on adding to the public’s tax burden is hardly a surprise.  Those of a certain age will clearly remember presidential candidate George H.W. Bush proclaiming, “Read my lips, no new taxes,” before his later, as president, breaking his pledge.

In his effort to increase the tax burden on motorists, Brown is receiving support from the usual suspects including Democrats in the Legislature who have become the party of the public employee unions favoring more revenue for higher pay, and radical environmentalists for whom the price of fossil fuels can never be high enough. Even some in the business community are signaling that they, too, could support higher levies on California drivers if the result is improved roads. (By now you would think that these otherwise astute political players would realize that Faustian bargains with the tax-hikers always end badly.)

The impediment to the grand scheme of those who want ever higher taxes is, of course, Proposition 13 which requires a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature. Deprived of their super majorities in the last election cycle, Democrats would need help from Republicans. So the big question is will the Democrats be able to pick off a handful of Republican votes.

We sure hope not. Not only would this be bad policy but the California Republican Party has, in recent years, made progress in establishing a reputation as the only party to represent average working folks against multi-billion dollar tax increases. And voting for tax hikes as a Republican is a surefire way to end a political career.

Moreover, to their credit, Republicans have proposed credible transportation plans of their own to provide needed funding for road construction and maintenance, but without raising taxes.

Nonetheless, we’re hearing rumors that a couple of Republicans might acquiesce to a tax increase. They should know better as California already ranks second in the nation in gas tax rates, even without counting the hidden carbon tax. The new tax would make the state an outright number one and would add to the already highest gasoline prices.

Expect Republican legislators to be wined and dined and invited to dance by those lobbing for higher taxes. These favor seekers will be wearing their most benign looking sheep costumes but legislative Republicans should be aware that these are actually wolves who, once they have gotten the votes they  want, will turn on them without provocation if it suits their interests.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association — California’s largest grass-roots taxpayer organization dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....

Shapiro: Obama Millennials Want To Leave The America They Created

A new poll from TransferWise shows that 35 percent of those born in the United States would consider ditching their home country to live elsewhere; that number skyrockets among those aged 18-34, the so-called millennials, 55 percent of whom said they would think of taking off if given the chance.

Most of those millennials cite economics as a chief factor in their desire to leave: 43 percent of men and 38 percent of women said they’d leave if they could get paid more in another country.

The rationales for staying in America, articulated by Americans, are particularly weak: 59 percent say they would stay because “it is home,” another 58 percent say they would stay thanks to romantic and family ties – and then the stats drop precipitously, with just 22 percent stating they would stay for the democratic society, 17 percent for the culture, 10 percent for the good future for children, 5 percent for wealth, 3 percent for low crime, and 2 percent for low taxes.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

CALIFORNIA: Legislators Push to Raise Initiative Filing Fee

A proposal to make it more expensive to file a ballot measure in California is moving closer to becoming law, worrying both liberal and conservative groups that frequently utilize the initiative process.

Democratic Assemblymen Evan Low of Campbell and Richard Bloom of Santa Monica have proposed a 12-fold increase in the fee charged to obtain a title and summary for a proposed ballot measure. Low introduced the measure after a public uproar over anoutrageous ballot measure that proposed a death penalty for gays and lesbians.

“We live in California, the cradle of direct democracy, but we also need a threshold for reasonableness,” Low said in a press release. “Amending laws and making statewide policy is not something that should be taken lightly.”

The bill, which passed the State Assembly in May on 46-28 vote, is now quickly moving its way through the State Senate.

Sodomite Suppression Act spawns fee hike

Since 1943, any Californian with $200 has been able to obtain the necessary paperwork to begin collecting signatures to put their proposal on the ballot. The reasonable filing fee has allowed average citizens and grassroots organizations to shape the political debate. Often times, the text, title and summary are enough to generate free publicity for an idea, including outrageous and blatantly unconstitutional measures.

Earlier this year, Orange County attorney Matthew McLaughlin paid his $200 filing fee and submitted the necessary paperwork to circulate “The Sodomite Suppression Act.” The proposed initiative would have “put to death by bullets to the head” gays and lesbians as well as banned anyone “who espouses sodomistic propaganda” from holding public office, receiving government benefits or being employed by the state.

Low said that the anti-gay measure inspired his decision to introduce Assembly Bill 1100 to increase the filing fee.

“It’s disturbing to hear that a licensed member of the California State Bar is putting forward a measure that attacks lesbian and gay members in our community,” Low said in a March press release announcing the bill. “But Mr. McLaughlin’s immoral proposal is the just the latest – and most egregious – example of the need to further reform the initiative process.”

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....

Tired of high taxes? Maybe it's time to move

Everyone complains about taxes. But millions of American households apparently are doing something about it: Picking up and moving.

A CNBC analysis of tax data and figures provided by two major national moving companies shows that states with the highest per-capita taxes, for the most part, are also seeing the biggest net migration out of those states.

Read MoreWhy your state may be forced to raise your taxes

Take Connecticut, for example.

Earlier this week, the Nutmeg State's legislature approved a collection of new taxes to close a two-year, $40 billion budget to help pay the multibillion-dollar tab to repair and replace the state's dilapidated roads and bridges. The package includes a 50-cent-per-pack hike in cigarette taxes and a bump in tax rates on corporations and the state's wealthiest earners.

The budget battle drew heated debate, along with threats from large employers like General Electric, which issued a rare statement that it might consider moving its Fairfield headquarters.

Republican opponents warned that the tax hikes would likely drive residents to flee to lower-tax states. One legislator suggested that a local moving-and-storage company up for sale should do a booming business moving households from the state.

"I think the best buy in Connecticut right now is a business for sale in Westport," Michael A. McLachlan, R-Danbury, told the AP earlier this month as the debate wore on. "For $650,000, a sharp investor can get up and increase this business into a mega moving company, because that's what people are going to be doing, starting today."

Based on an analysis of 10 years of tax data and the figures provided by United Van Lines and Atlas Van Lines, Sen. McLachlan may be on to something.

Via: CNBC

Continue Reading....

CA Legislature’s Latest Orwellian Practice

A few years ago I wrote a column on the Orwellian practice of politicians who deceive voters by perverting the English language.  For example, the benign sounding terms “investment,”  “new revenue,” “budget solution,” and “fair share,” are all euphemisms for “higher taxes.”

A horrible bill dealing with California’s controversial high speed rail projects just cleared the Legislature.  It compels us to reexamine the lexicon politicians use to create a very clear impression in the mind of the listener that what is being said is benevolent and true, when, in fact, it is not.

This week’s featured terms are “government transparency,” which to normal people means “open and honest,” and “government oversight,” the plain meaning of which is “watchful and responsible supervision.”  To political insiders, however, the meaning of both these terms is “bury it.”Lawmakers have approved Senate Bill 76 that includes language that cuts the currently mandated twice-annual reports from the California High-Speed Rail Authority to once every two years, meaning that time between reports will be four times as long.

Let’s keep in mind that those responsible for the bullet train, which to date is little more than a fantasy, have repeatedly broken faith with the public.

Voters who approved a $10 billion dollar bond to kick start the estimated $30 billion project were told that most of the costs would be picked up by the federal government and private sector investment, and trips between Los Angeles and San Francisco would take about two hours and forty minutes with tickets costing less than $50.  Today’s plan looks nothing like what voters were promised.  The trip times and ticket prices have nearly doubled, Congress is looking to pull the plug and the private sector has shown no inclination to provide funding to help cover what  has become a total cost of at least $68 billion.   No wonder surveys show that most Californians now oppose what has become the most expensive public works project in the history of our nation.

Now, the Legislature — perhaps out of embarrassment over the shortcomings of their pet train program — is agreeing to allow what appears to be a rogue agency to issue reports less often.

Californians cannot be blamed if they feel like they are being poorly served by public officials, who are, in essence, telling them “Move along, there is nothing to see here.”  Most employers — and the public is the employer of record — want to look closely at the conduct of employees who appear to be incompetent and possibly dishonest.  They want more oversight not less.

To add insult to injury, apparently High-Speed Rail officials are underestimating the public’s intelligence.  Commenting on the reduced reporting requirement, spokeswoman Lisa-Marie Alley told the Associated Press, “It’s not about being less transparent, it’s actually about being more efficient in our transparency.”

Perhaps we should add the term “government efficiency” to our list of words used by the political class to mislead the public.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....