Another Tax brought to you by Rob Reiner

As a nation our failure to learn from our historical mistakes dooms us to repeat the same mistakes. This premise could not be more evident in the proposed tax hike from 37 cents to 87 cents by the state of California. The complete failure of the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution and its ultimate repeal by the 21st Amendment. Or the Boston Tea Party, should have taught us something.

Even as a smoker I would not argue that our population would be a healthier one if no one smoked. However we could say the very same thing about drinks containing caffeine, Fast Foods with high fat counts, and even alcohol for that matter.

The leading proponent of this initiative (prop 82)is none other than the liberal activist Rob Reiner

If as Rob Reiner and the proponents of this ballot initiative have as their root motive a significant decrease in the number of smokers in the state of California; then even I see it as a noble cause. The litmus test for the nobility of their cause would be to take 100% of the tax generated by the initiative and invest it in free and fully funded smoking cessation programs for smokers. As the number of smokers declined so would the generation of revenues.

However this is not the intent of the initiative at all. Even the name of his previously sponsered initiative the “California Children and Families First Act of 1998.”, clearly defines the aim and intent of the new tax. The first three paragraphs indicate the motive for this tax:

(a) There is a compelling need in California to create and implement a comprehensive, collaborative, and integrated system of information and services to promote, support, and optimize early childhood development from the prenatal stage to five years of age.
(b) There is a further compelling need in California to ensure that early childhood development programs and services are universally and continuously available for children until the beginning of kindergarten. Proper parenting, nurturing, and health care during these early years will provide the means for California’s children to enter school in good health, ready and able to learn, and emotionally well developed.
(c) It has been determined that a child’s first three years are the most critical in brain development, yet these crucial years have inadvertently been neglected. Experiences that fill the child’s first three years have a direct and substantial impact not only on brain development but on subsequent intellectual, social, emotional, and physical growth.

The Proposition 10 initiative Section 5 calls for additions to the Health and Safety Code.

chairman of the California Children and Families First Commission

SEC. 5. Division 108 (commencing with Section 130100) is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read: Section 130100 paragraph (b) reads:
  (b) The programs authorized by this act shall be administered by the California Children and Families First Commission and by county children and families first commissions. In administering this act, the state and county commissions shall use outcome-based accountability to determine future expenditures.
  This section places in the hands of the “California Children and Families First Commission” the administration of funds resulting from this tax. The chairman is none other than Rob Reiner.
Allocation of revenues generated by this tax provide no funding for smoking cessation programs for smokers.
The revenue generated by this tax if applied to California’s 2004 cigarette sales would be over a Billion Dollars. This revenue being allocated to a variety of children’s welfare programs. Thereby making the smokers of this state primarily responsible for the children’s welfare programs of the state. Let us assume for the moment the shrouded motive for this tax were truly a desire to significantly reduce the number of smokers in California and this goal succeeded. Where would the funds for these children’s welfare programs come from? Would the need for these programs simply evaporate with the smokers? Perhaps we could tax the patrons of Mc Donald’s. Or levy another tax on alcohol? Perhaps a tax on bald people? How about a tax on viewers of  Rob Reiner movies?
Smoking has clearly been defined as an addiction, if we want to tax smoker’s again use the funds on that addiction.
The same Rob Reiner who while he claims to want to ban smoking would be out of business were that objective accomplished. How interesting that to further his own agenda he uses the same tactics Hitler used on Jews, to create a common enemy to bind the masses in support of the real hidden agendas. The same Rob Reiner who believes cigarette smoking is bad but smoking marijuana is acceptable.
Before I pay a tax to support Rob Reiner’s liberal political agenda I will as our forefathers did during the Boston Tea Party dump my cigarettes in the bay!

Prop 82 held a huge lead in the February Field Poll. In that poll, 82 was up by a 21-point margin (55-34). In last week’s poll, 82 had only a 13-point lead (52-39). Yes, that is still a sizable lead, but losing that much support that quickly can’t be a positive for its supporters. But, I think there is another worrisome number hidden in the bottom of the big table of statistics in the poll. If you scroll down to the bottom of that table there is a breakdown by whether the respondent had heard of 82 before the survey. Respondents that hadn’t heard of 82 (44 % of respondents) strongly supported it (55-33-12). However, respondents that had heard of it gave a support/opposition ratio that was within the margin (49 46 5).

The reason that this is worrisome for the future of 82 is that there will be lots of “education” in the next 6 weeks. 82 sounds good on a ballot, but it can be spun negatively. Its costs are uncertain. Its public face (Reiner) is enduring some challenging times and can be villified by the right. In other words, what I’m saying is that Prop 82 is in a classic position of vulnerability to a media campaign.

UPDATE: PPIC’s statewide education survey is out. They have a 11 point lead for 82 as well, but at only 50% support, passage is still in doubt.

Proposition 82 – which would fund voluntary preschool education for all four-year-olds in California through a
tax on wealthy state residents – is currently supported by 51 percent of likely voters, with 40 percent opposed. Democrats (64%) are more likely than independents (50%) and Republicans (38%), and Latinos (63%) are more likely than whites (47%), to back the measure. Is access to preschool perceived as a problem in the state today?
Seven in 10 likely voters express at least some concern that children in lower-income areas may not be able to attend preschool.

More on the flip…

So, yes, it appears that 82 has lost its momentum. Of course there are the numerous politicians who have removed their support. Schwarzenegger couldn’t endorse it due to the radical right wing of his party.  But the SF and LA Chambers of Commerce are taking a little bit of a risk supporting 82, especially as the statewide Chamber is basically now the lead opponent.  By the by, is Rob Reiner running for governor?  No?  Really, Becuase you would sware that he is based upon the website name for the opposition to Prop 82: www.stopreiner.org.  I mean WOW!  That’s some serious pandering to the right.  They always need somebody to hate…this time it’s Reiner.  It’s actually quite unfortunate.  Prop 82 should be judged on its merits…not some BS about Reiner.

But at least part of the progressive shift away from 82 is due to the fact that elected officials are growing tired of legislation bypassing the traditional channels. Would Perata support a preschool program if it was brought in the legislature? Probably? Would it pass? Hell no. Unless the money can be found without taxing, the supermajority rules allow the Reps to block progressive legislation like that. While Burton isn’t in the legislature anymore, that must be part of his logic as well. With the current wave of initiatives, the legislators began quite supportive. They supported the mental health bill that passed a few years ago, they supported the stem cell initiative (for the most part), but now they are realizing that if this tide doesn’t turn, their budget will be eaten alive by the initiatives. Of course in this case, preschool won’t be taken out of the general fund, but rather this new tax on the wealthiest Californians. But, at least in the case of Angelides, this is a tax they already plan on using for other purposes.

Preschool is a worthy cause. And 82, while somewhat flawed, is the best chance of that happening anytime in the near future. Until we reform our governance system to remove these unreasonable obstacles to majority will, we are left with the second best choice. In this case, that is 82.

On the flip, one will find the Californa Blog Roundup for today, if one is so inclined. Teasers: Absolute disaster with McPherson voter registration database, Reiner resigns, CA-50 polling and Busby immmigration policy, Arnold’s new consultants and their classiness, lots of immigration, a little Doolittle, Some CA-2 and CA-11, Kid Oakland, and a good lawyer.

• State Senator (and candidate for Secretary of State) Debra Bowen responds to the godawful voter registration database problems in Bruce McPherson’s Election Division — 43% new voters rejected in LA County, 26% statewide. Simply unacceptable. Seems to me that this kind of thing is a good argument for a change in the Secretary of State. The Brad Blog has a good explanation of how it happened and exactly how insane it is.
• The California Observer breaks the news that Rob Reiner resigned from the California Children and Families Commission. Arnold still digs Reiner, though.
• Chris Bowers of the mighty MyDD has a look at the latest Survey USA poll in CA-50. Francine Busby seems to have a surprisingly large plurality. San Diego Politics reports that Move On is mobilizing for Busby. Also, they’ve got a report of Kaloogian’s weak weak response to the photo fiasco.
• Down With Tyranny points us to Francine Busby’s immigration proposal, which sounds, well, sane. That’s a nice change from the Republican House, at least.
• Alliance for a Better California has more on the Schwarzenegger consultants, who are clearly from the Bush-Rove school of campaigning. Unsurprisingly, Matthew Dowd sees no distinction between the Schwarzenegger campaign and the California government. This is a core insight of the Rove-driven Republican Party, which we are now seeing replicated in California.
• As Seen from Just Above Sunset excerpts a great piece from an author in New Mexico concerning what it is to be American and Latino.
• Leftcoast at Best of the Blogs argues for an official language as consistent with liberal values. Mark Kleiman makes a similar argument, and throws in some reference to the Know-Nothings and Mickey Kaus as a nice historical context. History may not repeat itself exactly, but it does tend to rhyme.
• Jeanne D’Arc from Body and Soul thinks that the official language idea is not so good. Beautifully written, as always.
• Marc Cooper continues his series on immigration, illegal and otherwise, with a personal story. The comments are fun too. Bill Bradley makes several appearances, as does Mark York.
• left i on the news: it’s funny because it’s true.
• Nite Swimming continues the series on John Doolittle’s money-laundering through his helpmeet. Is a shame lobotomy mandatory, or just recommended, in order to become a Republican House member?
• John Drzal of NorCal Progressive has a profile of the Democratic candidate for CA-2, running against Wally Herger.
• PomboWatch wants to know wny Richard Pombo, head of the House Resource Committee, never did anything for the piñeros.
• I was sure the CA-33 blog was dead, but its proprietor has reported on a Culver City Council race. Click through, and show him some love and encouragement.
• Bouphonia has the funniest response to the Kaloogian photo fiasco I’ve yet seen.
• Kid Oakland finds this century disappointing, at least so far.
• Lies.com has a great story in which some lawyers do some good. I’ve met the Fenwick partner who went to bat for the blogger in this story, and by all accounts he’s a good guy. I’m glad to see him using his skill set this way.