Tag Archives: Propositions

California, education

Vote No on Proposition 38 – Molly Munger’s Tax Initiative

This is the nineth part of a series of posts analyzing California’s propositions:

An Unfortunate Proposition…

There are two revenue-increasing propositions before the public. There is Proposition 30, the good one backed by Jerry Brown, and Proposition 38, the bad one. You should vote yes on Proposition 30 and no on Proposition 38. Unfortunately, that’s probably going to confuse a lot of people.

More below.

Proposition 38 is pushed by Molly Munger, a well-meaning attorney (funny how so many of the propositions have such well-meaning intentions yet bad consequences).

Basically, it’s an income tax increase. The tax increase is pretty huge; it catches even lower-income residents. Individuals with income over $7,316 and families or joint filers with income over $14,632 will have their taxes raised. The chart below, taken from the legislative analyst, explains in more detail:

Current and Proposed Personal Income Tax Rates Under Proposition 38
Single Filer’s

Taxable Incomea		 Joint Filers’

Taxable Incomea		 Head-of-Household

Filer’s

Taxable Incomea		 Current

Marginal

Tax Rateb		 Proposed

Additional

Marginal Tax Rateb

$0-$7,316
$0-$14,632
$0-$14,642
1.0%
–

7,316-17,346
14,632-34,692
14,642-34,692
2.0
0.4%

17,346-27,377
34,692-54,754
34,692-44,721
4.0
0.7

27,377-38,004
54,754-76,008
44,721-55,348
6.0
1.1

38,004-48,029
76,008-96,058
55,348-65,376
8.0
1.4

48,029-100,000
96,058-200,000
65,376-136,118
9.3
1.6

100,000-250,000
200,000-500,000
136,118-340,294
9.3
1.8

250,000-500,000
500,000-1,000,000
340,294-680,589
9.3
1.9

500,000-1,000,000
1,000,000-2,000,000
680,589-1,361,178
9.3
2.0

1,000,000-2,500,000
2,000,000-5,000,000
1,361,178-3,402,944
9.3
2.1

Over 2,500,000
Over 5,000,000
Over 3,402,944
9.3
2.2

a  Income brackets shown were in effect for 2011 and will be adjusted for inflation in future years. Single filers also include married individuals and registered domestic partners (RDPs) who file taxes separately. Joint filers include married and RDP couples who file jointly, as well as qualified widows or widowers with a dependent child.

b  Marginal tax rates apply to taxable income in each tax bracket listed. For example, a single tax filer with taxable income of $15,000 could have had a 2011 tax liability under current tax rates of $227: the sum of $73 (which equals 1 percent of the filer’s first $7,316 of income) and $154 (2 percent of the filer’s income over $7,316). This tax liability would be reduced-and potentially eliminated-by personal, dependent, senior, and other tax credits, among other factors. The proposed additional tax rates would take effect beginning in 2013 and end in 2024. Current tax rates listed exclude the mental health tax rate of 1 percent for taxable income in excess of $1 million.

In contrast, Proposition 30’s income tax only affects individuals with income over $250,000, joint filers with income over $500,000, and head-of-household’s with over $340,000.

The revenue raised goes mostly to education, with the rest to repay state debt. Proposition 38’s revenues go to a new fund called the California Education Trust Fund. There are three ways the revenue is distributed: to schools, to ECE (Early Care and Education) programs, and to state debt. The amount given to each each differs per year, although schools get the majority and ECE gets the least. Of the money given to schools 70% goes to education program grants; 18% goes to low-income student grants; and 12% goes to training, technology, and teaching materials grants. Of the amount given to ECE programs, a minority goes to restoring cuts in current ECE programs and the rest goes to expanding the programs (e.g. 51% goes to subsidized preschool for children aged three to five form low-income families). The rest pays state debt. From the legislative analyst:

Allocation of Revenues Raised by Proposition 38
2013-14

and

2014-15		 2015-16

and

2016-17		 2017-18

Through

2023-24
Schools 60% 60% 85%
Early Care and Education (ECE) 10 10 15
State debt payments 30 30a –a
Totals 100% 100% 100%
Growth limit on allocations to schools and ECE programsa No Yes Yes
a  Reflects minimum share dedicated to state debt payments. Revenues beyond growth limit also would be used to make debt payments.

It’s all very long and complicated. In the California official voter information guide, the legislative analysis of Proposition 38 is the longest. Reading Proposition 38’s legislative analysis made my head spin (even more than Proposition 31’s legislative analysis). I don’t like voting for propositions that make my head spin.

…Which Might Actually End Up Cutting Education!

Somewhat amazingly, Proposition 38 might not prevent huge education cuts next year. This is because the legislature passed a series of spending reduction called “trigger cuts” that would take effect if Proposition 30 was not approved. These include $5.354 billion from schools and community colleges, as well as $250 million each from the University of California and California State University systems. Tuition would certainly be raised at California state universities under these trigger cuts.

If Proposition 38 is approved and gets more votes than Proposition 30, then those education trigger cuts will still take place.

That means that under Proposition 38, college students at California state universities will still have their tuition raised (as well as their taxes). There will be both huge tax increases and huge spending cuts for education this year. Then next year there will be huge spending increases for education. That’s a terribly unstable situation.

Remember: Proposition 30 is the good proposition, Proposition 38 the bad one. Vote yes on Proposition 30 and no on Proposition 38.

–inoljt

California

Vote No on Proposition 36: Three Strikes Law

This is the seventh part of a series of posts analyzing California’s propositions:

A Tough Proposition

Proposition 36 is a tough proposition. There’s a strong case for voting yes on this proposition. Out of all the proposition recommendations made in this blog, this one is made with the most hesitancy.

More below.

Proposition 36 substantially weakens the Three Strikes Law. This is a famous tough-on-crime California law derived from another proposition (on a side note: there are way too many propositions out there). A serious or violent felon, if convicted of a new felony, gets twice the sentence. A two-time serious or violent felon, if convicted of a new felony, gets life. The Three Strikes Law is one of the toughest (if not the toughest) in the nation.

Under normal circumstances, this blog would unstintingly argue against voting yes on Proposition 36. Voters should never approve propositions that make big changes in subtle, complex things such as the length of prison sentences. Even if a change would be for the better, that is a job best left to the normal process. There is a reason why a legislature exists, after all: to draft laws. Legislators spend their entire lives on these issues. Voters spend a couple of hours or seconds reading a crazily complicated proposition that makes huge changes in the state. Generally, propositions on complex issues should only be approved if they fix a crisis.

Unfortunately, the normal way doesn’t work in this case. The legislature does not have the power to change the Three Strikes Law. This is because the proposition which approved the law explicitly prohibited this. So California voters are left in the unattractive position of deciding felony prison sentence lengths themselves.

There is also something quite wrong with California’s prison system, for which the description “crisis” would not be ill-fitted. They are famously overcrowded and a recent Supreme Court decision ordered California to reduce the population. The Three Strikes Law has certainly contributed to this negative situation. Finally, the proposition would save California several tens of millions of dollars per year – not something to laugh about during a budget crisis.

Nevertheless, there is also something good to say about the Three Strikes Law. California’s crime level over the past decade and a half has substantially decreased over the past two decades after the enactment of the law. Other states in the country have also followed California’s Three Strikes Law, and overall crime in the nation has been steadily declining for the past two decades. Of course, a number of other factors were behind this as well. But the Three Strikes Law’s aim was to reduce crime – and crime has indeed decreased.

More fundamentally, this proposition still would change the very complicated issue of felony prison sentences. That’s an issue that the vast majority of people are not qualified to deal with. The last clause definitely includes this blogger as well. That’s why this blog recommends a qualified “No” on Proposition 36.

–inoljt

Uncategorized

Calitics Ballot Recommendations

3 Comments

Sorry for the late notice!

by Brian Leubitz

First, I’d like to suggest the Courage Campaign’s Progressive Voter Guide. But, here’s how I’m voting:

Yes on 30, 34, 36, 37, 39, and 40

No on 31, 32, 33, 35, and 38

Now, that’s pretty close to the Courage Campaign’s progressive consensus. However, I differ on Prop 35, the “human trafficking” measure. Now, I think it is important to provide resources to fight human trafficking. However, the measure would have been better written and more thoroughly vetted by proceeding through the legislature. Legislation that can be passed through the legislature, like measures to fight human trafficking, should go through that vetting process.

Anybody else have any thoughts?

Uncategorized

Your California November 2012 Propositions

2 Comments

Lengthy ballot contains several big questions

by Brian Leubitz

Monday, the SoS office released the ballot numbering. Now, typically being at the top of the ballot is better, but unless you are very close it doesn’t play a huge role in the outcome. Here are a few off the cuff explanations. Though many are opinion-based, these shouldn’t be construed as endorsements.

Proposition 30              Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. The Governor’s Tax Measure would bring in billions of dollars for education and public services.

Proposition 31              State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Restricts the budgeting process to a “pay as you go” formula through an unnecessarily strict and inflexible process

Proposition 32              Prohibits Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Prohibitions on Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute. (I work for No on 32) Right-wing attempt to go after labor, yet again. We’ve said no twice already, we need to say NO, NO, NO!

Proposition 33              Changes Law to Allow Auto Insurance Companies to Set Prices Based on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute. Mercury Insurance measure to change loyalty discounts.

Proposition 34              Death Penalty Repeal. Initiative Statute Repeals death penalty.

Proposition 35              Human Trafficking. Penalties. Sex Offender Registration. Initiative Statute. Former AG candidate Chris Kelly helped to get this on the ballot, it would further strengthen laws against sex offenders.

Proposition 36              Three Strikes Law. Sentencing for Repeat Felony Offenders. Initiative Statute. Reforms wasteful 3 strikes sentencing measure.

Proposition 37              Genetically Engineered Foods. Mandatory Labeling. Initiative Statute. Would require labeling of GMOs.

Proposition 38              Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute. Munger tax initiative dedicated to public education. Flat income tax boost.

Proposition 39              Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute. Changes a tax provision of a budget from a few years back. Would use revenue to fund clean energy projects.

Proposition 40              Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum. GOP temper tantrum gone awry. Could invalidate the State Senate Maps.

Uncategorized

Prioritize ballot proposition campaigns

2 Comments

Should Democratic and progressive campaign forces prioritize spending on ballot propositions for the remaining weeks of the election?

I say Yes!  Here are a couple of examples…  

The Democratic establishment is combining a NO on 20 with a YES on 27 message.  But, for better or worse, Prop. 27 is sure to lose.  The Democratic leadership should cut 27 loose and realize that Prop. 20 is truly a bad idea from a national perspective.  They should focus there redistricting campaign effort on defeating Prop 20.  

Some excellent unions and their progressive allies are spending lots of campaign dollars in trying to pass Prop. 24.  They also actively support Prop. 25.  But the apparent focus in trying to pass Prop. 24 could be a mistake.  While Prop 24 is worthy of passage, it is highly unlikely to actually pass.  Those campaign dollars would be better spent in trying to pass the more important Prop. 25–the on-time, majority-vote budget initiative–which is leading in the polls but still has stiff opposition.  

Please share your thoughts.  

Uncategorized

CA Chief Justice Blasts Initiative Process

1 Comment

November’s California Bar Journal, the newspaper sent from the State Bar every month to all California lawyers, off-ledes with a story entitled “Chief justice: Initiative process has led to dysfunctional state.”

The Journal referred to Chief Justice George’s remarks as “unusually blunt.” George’s remarks seemed to indicate he thought reform was important. George is a Republican and was nominated by Governor Wilson for the Chief’s position. George also suggested that money, not merit, had more to do with initiatives passing.

George’s remarks may seem to some to have a tinge of “sour grapes” because he was the author of 2008’s landmark In re Marriage case that legalized marriage equality in California, only to have it reversed by the voters in November.

I believe in democracy. I am both an upper- and lower- case ‘d’ democrat. This means I don’t believe in rule by royalty. Just the same, it also means I do not believe in rule by the mob. These are not the same.

In particular it relates to the process by which laws are made. Democracy means people have the final power, but it is tempered by the wisdom of millenia to go through the process of elective assemblies. When even our state constitution can be amended by only a majority of voters who vote on a certain day-and it has been shown that even our most sacred rights, such as equal protection are subject to this-without much more deliberation than provocative television ads, it is not democracy, it is ochlocracy, mob rule.

This is not to suggest that our representative assemblies in this state are not also disfunctional and broken. But in my opinion, they need reform, not abolition.

Budget

California Election Results — What The Public Wants

9 Comments

Dave Johnson, Speak Out California.

Did the results of the special election on the budget propositions really show that the public is against taxes and government, as the Republicans claim?  Recent polling looked at the reasons the propositions failed.  Polls are a useful way to understand what people really thing because they take a scientific sample, actually asking the voters what they think, instead of just repeating something that Republicans just say.  Let’s see what the voters give as their reasons for opposing the propositions.  From the polling:

  • 74% of voters polled thought the election was just a gimmick, not an actual fix for California’s budget problems.
  • 70% of the voters polled said the legislature is a captive of special interests (possibly because people are learning that the “budget deal” that they came up with in the middle of this emergency included a huge tax cut for large, multi-state corporations.)
  • In a budget battle dominated by Republican demands for spending cuts instead of asking the rich and corporations to pay their fair share only 19% of voters polled said that Californians are being asked to share the pain equally. 
  • And to drive that point home, only 29% of voters polled said that the budget should be balanced only with spending cuts.  According to the polling “even among ‘No’ voters, less than half (46%) say the government should rely entirely on spending cuts with no tax increases.”

In summary, voters resented that the legislature is held captive by the 2/3 rule, and want them to address that instead of coming up with short-term gimmicks to get through another year while making things even worse later.

Additionally, and completely contrary to anti-tax and anti-government claims, the polling showed “broad support for new revenue streams.”  According to the polling report, the public supports:

  • Increasing taxes on alcoholic beverages (75% support)
  • Increasing taxes on tobacco (74% support)
  • Imposing an oil extraction tax on oil companies just like every other oil producing state (73% support)
  • Closing the loophole that allows corporations to avoid reassessment of the value of new property they purchase (63% support)
  • Increasing the top bracket of the state income tax from nine point three percent to 10 percent for families with taxable income over $272,000 a year and to eleven percent for families with taxable incomes over $544,000 a year (63% support)
  • Prohibiting corporations from using tax credits to offset more than fifty percent of the taxes they owe (59% support)

The corporate right has to spin last week’s special election as an anti-tax vote.  What else can they do?  But, as usual, their spin goes completely the other way from the facts.

Let’s put them to the test.  The corporate right claims that this election showed that the public is solidly against government and taxes.  If they really believe that, how about reinstating majority rule in California, instead of requiring a 2/3 vote to pass budgets and taxes? 

Since they claim that the public is solidly against taxes, will they also support a straight up-or-down vote on taxes?  Of course not.  The public is not  with them and they know it. This is just a ruse to continue destroying our great  state and our democratic process.

Click Through to Speak Out California.

San Diego

San Diego County election totals for propositions broken down by community

It took about four weeks for the San Diego County Registrar of Voters to finish counting every single vote of the 2008 General Election and then upload the vote database to their web site. After anxiously waiting for a few weeks, I took the database and converted it into a usable format and started producing some reports that allowed me to drill down and see exactly how each community and city voted.

I’ved used the term “community” to describe a place within the City of San Diego boundary, such as Mira Mesa and La Jolla and the term “unincorporated” means that the place is not a city, such as Julian and Alpine.

The data is first grouped into 18 cities and unincorporated area (19 total groups). The City of San Diego and unincorporated area are then broken down by community. After scanning each of the totals, it makes it very easy to compare the different political viewpoints of each of the communities. For example, Proposition 8 received an unsurprising 83% opposition in Hillcrest, while the Campo area voted 77% in favor of the proposition.

view all of the reports

Uncategorized

Called Races

2 Comments

Yes on 2 passes, according to the Chronicle.  Prop. 6 fails.  So far, so good.  Calitics is 2 for 2.

CNN has called David Dreier, Duncan Hunter and Mary Bono Mack.  There are four races still up for grabs in the Congress.

Right now I see Jack Sieglock up early in AD-10, Joan Buchanan ahead in AD-15, Bill Berryhill up in AD-26, Danny Gilmore actually way up in AD-30, Linda Jones behind in AD-36, Marty Block up in AD-78, and Gary Jeandron up slightly in AD-80.  These are very early numbers.

…if you’re looking at the statewide propositions, I should remind everyone that LA County has not reported anything yet.  And we were hearing 80% turnout in the largest county by population in the country.

UPDATE LA Times calls Prop 7 defeated.

Uncategorized

The Chronicle, The Examiner, The SF Business Times, Asian Week and more Agree – No on H

18 Comments

Disclaimer: I do some work for the No on H campaign. But my views on this measure were decided before I took the job.

Today the San Francisco Chronicle was the latest publication to endorse a “No” vote on San Francisco’s Prop. H. It joins the San Francisco Examiner, the San Francisco Business Times, Asian Week, the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research organization (SPUR) and the Bay Area Reporter in opposing the measure.

I think it’s important to note that much of the reasoning behind these endorsements has to do with the fact that the supporters of Prop. H have put forth some of the most misleading campaign material in recent history. The No on H campaign gets pilloried by the so-called “progressives” as “telling lies” but in fact the objections raised have been based entirely on the actual text of the measure itself.

The Chronicle put it best in the lead today when it said:

“The least advocates of San Francisco’s Proposition H could do is be forthright about their motives. This is not about saving he planet by increasing the use of renewable resources, or commissioning a study to determine the best way to achieve it.

This is about stacking the deck to achieve what has become the Holy Grail of certain “progressive” factions of the city: a municipal takeover of electrical service from Pacific Gas & Electric Co.”

That’s an important point to remember. Voters have rejected every single attempt to have San Francisco, a city of less than a million people and only about 370,000 power customers, go into the power business. Since Sup. Mirkarimi (who has been on a crusade against PG&E for years)  and progressive allies could not get a politically motivated takeover passed by asking the voters straight up, they’ve now used the current popularity of all things “green” to cloak the measure in good intentions. People in the know about these issues have agreed that Prop. H is a poorly written law.

That’s bad enough, as it plays on people’s good intentions to pass a law they’ve rejected in the past. What’s worse is that by voting for this measure, voters would be exchanging tough, enforceable, state standards for a new definition of “clean energy” – that it simply be “non-nuclear.” And all city-owned utilities are exempt from California’s tough, enforceable laws that PG&E has to abide by. Supporters deny this is true, but you can read the measure for yourself what it says. Just go to section Section 8B.129.

Also, it’s important to remember that supporters of Prop. H have no idea where they are going to get all this “clean” energy the measure allegedly requires. It is not as if PG&E is simply refusing to buy or produce power from clean sources (in fact, it has signed some of the largest solar and wind contracts in the world) – there simply aren’t the facilities and distribution networks available right now to do the job. Plus, as I’ve mentioned before, PG&E must comply with California’s strictly defined clean energy standards and timetable – a city-owned one can ignore them at will.

Thus, the City of San Francisco will not only have to issue billions in bonds to buy PG&E’s facilities in town – they’re going to have to issue more to start building plants (clean or not) to ensure the lights turn on every day. And right now is not a great time to be trying to finance new construction, as the financial crisis on Wall Street starts to have an impact on new energy plant construction and all City bond costs.

Likewise, the measure allows the Board to issue revenue bonds for any utility they want to take over – the measure makes no requirement it only be for electricity. Thus, if the Board wanted to go into the Internet business, the garbage business, the telephone business, or really any “utility” business they can thanks to Prop. H. The people who voted for this thinking it was just about a study for clean energy will be powerless to stop them from abusing this new power. No one likes it when this is said, but again, you can read the measure for yourself.

Whenever these points are brought up, the supporters of Prop. H refuse to listen and dismiss them as “lies,” and never answer the questions raised. The evidence continues to build the case against the measure, and the only response are vicious personal attacks, vulgar language and deceptive online videos that claim support from Sen. Obama for their cause (the Sen. has taken no position on this local matter, for the record). Is this the best the City’s progressives can do, using the tactics of bully Karl Rove and the foul language of an X-rated movie? I think not.

If Sup. Mirkarimi and allied progressives want the city to take over the power system, they should ask voters if they want to do that, period. Let them make a decision free of the deceptive and dangerous wrapper they’ve put on this measure to try once again to pass something voters continue to reject. There is a time and place for an honest debate on all sides regarding the role of local government in the utility business. Unfortunately with Prop. H, we’re not getting that now.