NEW: Sen. Lou Correa attacks free-speech rights
Dec. 5,
2012
By John Seiler
Campaign finance “reform” always means one thing: attacking the other guy’s funding sources under the guise of “good government.”
That’s happening with a bill by state Sen. Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana, to reveal so-called “dark money” contributions. This is supposed the end the problem from the last campaign of contributions coming from unknown Arizona donors to California initiatives and Republican candidates. Except that it didn’t take long for the donors to be revealed. And the donors are unlikely to repeat their action because they lost on every campaign.
So it’s another typical California charade of a solution seeking a problem. And get this:
“Working with Fair Political Practices Commission staff, Correa has crafted Senate Bill 27, which would apply existing state campaign disclosure laws to nonprofit donations if the nonprofit is less than two years old, gave more than $500,000 in its first contribution to a California-regulated campaign, or has been giving donations to California campaigns in the last calendar year or four previous years.”
So a state bureaucracy cooperated in making its bureaucratic function more powerful. And the “reform” makes California’s already labyrinthine campaign laws even more complicated. Meaning fewer real people — that is, non-government functionaries or campaign consultants — will get involved in the whole mess. The insular Establishment, which in California now exclusively means Democrats like Correa, gains even more power at the expense of the “little guy.”
And free speech rights overall are reduced.
Welcome to clean government!
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/12/05/sen-lou-correa-attacks-free-speech-rights/
Can Legislators Handle the Truth?
By Jon Coupal
In the stirring courtroom scene from A
Few Good Men, Jack Nicholson’s character responds to a pointed question
with, “You can’t handle the truth!”
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has just released its annual
Legislative Report Card and now we are going to find out if our elected
representatives can handle the truth. Seventy-nine out of 120 members of the
Legislature received grades of “F” for failing to use their votes to defend the
interests of California taxpayers.
The Report Card ignores what most “Sacramento insiders” find important: Special
interest legislation promoted by well-paid lobbyists. HJTA doesn’t care about
political party affiliation, campaign war chests, or how long a member has
served in the Legislature. We do care about the interests of taxpayers, and so,
ask a very fundamental question: Did legislators protect homeowners, allow hard
working Californians to keep more money in their wallets, and protect their
right to engage in their democracy through the initiative process? These are
the truths that matter.
For the first time in a number of years, legitimate two-thirds vote tax hikes
were taken up by both houses of the Legislature. These included: AB 1500, a tax
hike on business, AB 1492, which placed a one percent sales tax hike on the
purchase of lumber products at Home Depot and Lowe’s, and SB 1455 a bill that
increased a number of different vehicle taxes. While only one passed the
Legislature and was signed into law, the bills received dozens of votes. In
response, we deducted 15 points for each favorable tax vote, guaranteeing an F
vote if a legislator voted for all three. Taken cumulatively, the taxes would
have resulted in a $3.4 billion hit to businesses and homeowners, not
insignificant when residents, already pressured by high taxes, are continuing
to flee the tarnished Golden State in droves each year.
Another major factor in determining the final score for members of the Assembly
was Assembly Constitutional Amendment 18, a bill that undermined Proposition 13
by establishing a majority vote -- instead of the current two-thirds -- for
property parcel taxes approved at the local level. It is extremely rare that
Constitutional Amendments attacking Proposition 13 get full votes on the
Assembly Floor, because legislators realize how popular Proposition 13 is. ACA
18 only received 43 votes, 11 short of the amount needed for approval.
In 2012 a record 79 lawmakers flunked, despite the fact that, as has been our
practice, we have given half-credit for all vote abstentions on bills. We
recognize that legislators are constantly buffeted by special interests and
their own leadership, and we want to ensure that those who don’t vote for bills
that increase the burden on taxpayers are rewarded accordingly.
Twenty carefully selected legislative bills were used to judge whether a
legislator was a friend or foe to citizen taxpayers. Scores were generally
negative across the board. Even though up to a third of HJTA members are
democrats, those legislators with a “D” behind their name mostly scored low.
Regrettably, independent Nathan Fletcher and Republican Cameron Smyth also
received failing grades. But Republicans had a few stars. 25 received “A”
grades this year, with nine receiving perfect scores. These are:
- State Senator Joel Anderson
- Assemblyman Tim Donnelly (Second consecutive perfect score)
- State Assemblywoman Beth Gaines
- State Senator Ted Gaines
- State Assemblyman Martin Garrick
- Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (Second consecutive perfect score)
- State Senate-Elect, Steve Knight
- Assemblyman Mike Morrell (Second consecutive perfect score)
- State Senator Mimi Walters
2013 is a year that promises many challenges. Democrats have gained a
two-thirds vote in both legislative houses, making it much easier to raise
taxes if they choose to do so. However, we remain encouraged by how difficult
it is to get taxes through the legislature and, on a bipartisan basis, support
for Proposition 13 remains strong. And that is a truth we all can handle.
To see HJTA’s 2012
Report Card, please click here.
Read the arguments in John Chiang's battle with the Legislature
Today's lead item in The Bee's Buzz column gave a snippet of the legal wrestling going on in ControllerJohn Chiang's battle with fellow Democrats in theLegislature over his move to withhold their pay during last year's budget debate.
Chiang says he was within his rights to withhold the pay, particularly because Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the budget. Democrats say he was merely being "politically expedient" and overstepped his bounds, especially because SCO officials had recently acknowledged they had no expertise in evaluating the viability of the state budget.
The court showdown comes April 10. But the most recent filings lay out the arguments from both sides. Here's the filing Attorney General Kamala Harris made on Chiang's behalf:
Courage Campaign fires back at California Business Roundtable
The war over tax increase ballot measures escalated Friday when sponsors of the so-called "millionaires' tax" denounced the Business Roundtable for its opposition.
Terming it "us vs. Goliath," the Courage Campaign, a co-sponsor of the measure that would raise income taxes on Californians with $1 million-plus incomes, accused the corporate leaders of the Business Roundtable of protecting their own wallets.
"Of course the CEOs of corporations like Chevron, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and PG&E would oppose the Millionaires' Tax of 2012 through their umbrella organization, the California Business Roundtable," said Rick Jacobs, founder of the Courage Campaign.
The Courage Campaign, the California Federation of Teachers and the California Nurses Association are sponsoring the initiative measure, one of three major tax proposals that may be headed for the November ballot.
Earlier this week, the Business Roundtable declared opposition to the millionaires' tax measure, which would boost financing for education and social services, and another income tax measure sponsored by civil rights attorney Molly Munger and the California PTA, whose proceeds would go to schools.
The business group did not, however, oppose Gov. Jerry Brown's measure that would raise sales andincome taxes to balance the state budget, saying that it wanted to see whether Brown and the Legislaturewould enact pension reforms and business climate improvements before taking a position.
Brown has been trying to persuade sponsors of the other measures to pull back, saying that if all three are on the ballot, voters will be confused and likely reject all three. He's particularly concerned about the millionaires' tax, which fares the best among voters in recent statewide surveys, saying that it would do little to close the state's budget deficit.
Jacobs' sharp retort to the Business Roundtable indicates, however, that he and other sponsors of are not backing down, despite Brown's private and public pleas.
"Game on," says an "action report" that Courage Campaign sent to its members, denouncing the Business Roundtable's stance.
Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/03/the-war-over-tax-increase.html#storylink=cpy
McCarthy requests federal high-speed rail audit
BY JOHN COX Californian staff writer
jcox@bakersfield.com | Tuesday, Dec 20 2011 03:19 PM
Last Updated Tuesday, Dec 20 2011 03:24 PM
Rep. Kevin McCarthy joined 11 other Republican members of the House this week in requesting a federal audit of California's high-speed rail project.
Monday's letter asks the Government Accountability Office, Congress' investigative arm, to dig into the $98 billion project's "viability and questionable ridership and costs projections."
McCarthy, the Bakersfield Republican and House whip who has become one of the project's biggest skeptics in Washington, D.C., proposed the same kind of study as part of a bill he introduced Oct. 7 to freeze federal spending on the project, which is supposed to begin construction in the Central Valley late next year.
The chairman of the rail project's governing board welcomed the proposed audit as "more than appropriate."
"As one of the largest projects in the country and as one of the largest job creators in the country, we realize this project deserves careful review," Tom Umberg, chairman of the California High-Speed Rail Authority board, wrote in an email Tuesday.
"We have no doubt that the newly released business plan along with the support of the governor of California, both senators from California and the president of the United States will demonstrate that this public-private partnership will not only pencil out but it will alleviate massive air and traffic congestion, benefit the environment and create a third alternative for millions of Californians and their travel needs."
Monday's letter proposes a study of not only the project's ridership and cost projections but how much public money might be required to operate the system; alternative investments in air travel, freeways and traditional trains; and any adverse impacts of eminent domain proceedings related to the project. It also requests a comparison of the project to other high-speed rail proposals in the United States.
"The California high-speed rail project of today is vastly different from the one California voters narrowly approved in 2008," the letter states. "Since that vote, the cost of building the system has more than doubled, the timeline has been pushed back over a decade, and no private investment has occurred."
Other members of Congress who signed the letter to Gene Dodaro, comptroller general of the United States, are: John Mica, R-Florida, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; Darrell Issa, R-Vista, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; Bill Shuster, R-Pennsylvania, chairman of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines & Hazardous Materials; Brian Bilbray, R-San Diego; John Campbell, R-Irvine; Jeff Denham, R-Atwater; Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine; Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks; Devin Nunes, R-Tulare; Gary Miller, R-Diamond Bar; and Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, R-Santa Clarita.
The 2012 Battle Over High Speed Rail
December 20, 2011, 3:18 pm • Posted by John Myers
It's hardly hyperbole to suggest that 2012 will be the make-or-break year for California's long standing plans to construct a high speed train system.
As supporters push forward on plans to break ground on construction by year's end, critics are demanding a second look and... perhaps... a scrapping of the project altogether. And both camps have the political firepower to wage an epic battle.
This morning, the latest jab from opponents: Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield), the Majority Whip in the U.S. House of Representatives, asked for a formal federal audit.
"Good stewardship of taxpayer dollars is a priority for us," McCarthy wrote in his letter (PDF) to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). "Allowing the money of hard-working Americans to be wasted on a questionable project with many unanswered questions would be an abdication of our responsibilities as elected officials of the American people."
The federal role in the financing of the project is crucial. Dollars from D.C. will be used in the first leg of construction, and additional federal funds must then help build out the initial phase of a train system from San Francisco to Anaheim.
McCarthy asked the GAO to examine seven issues, from ridership projections to the thorny issue of operating subsidies to costs vis-a-vis other systems of transportation and other high speed rail plans across the U.S.
(As a footnote, remember that McCarthy served as GOP leader in the Assembly when the $9.95 billion high speed rail bond was delayed from the 2006 ballot to November 2008. McCarthy voted for that proposal.)
The request for a GAO audit comes on the heels of a contentious Capitol Hill hearing last week about the project which, as we know, itself came on the heels of a GOP led effort in Congress to kill future funding, and new and heated debate about the rail authority's upwardly revised price tag of $98 billion for the SF-to-Anaheim corridor.
All of this seems to have created an environment of uncertainty at the state Capitol. It's unclear whether the prevailing political winds will continue to be behind the project or blow it off course and -- perhaps -- out of existence.
http://blogs.kqed.org/capitalnotes/2011/12/20/the-2012-battle-over-high-speed-rail/
California high-speed rail authority spends millions to polish image
By David
Siders
dsiders@sacbee.com
Published: Sunday, Dec. 4, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
Last Modified: Sunday, Dec. 4, 2011 - 11:55 am
On his way off the California High-Speed Rail Authority board this year, former state Sen. Quentin Kopp ripped into the authority's controversial $9 million public relations contract with Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide, urging its cancellation.
Everywhere, it seemed – from community meetings in the Central Valley to legislative hearings at the Capitol – the project was clobbered for its management and cost, and its worsening image, Kopp said in a March letter to Roelof van Ark, the rail authority's chief executive officer, was evidence of Ogilvy's "inadequate performance."
But the rail authority's public relations campaign has in recent years included not only its contract with Ogilvy – which is now being unwound – but also millions of dollars more in lucrative, publicly funded outreach contracts embedded in agency engineering contracts.
One of those agreements was with a company owned by a former aide to Kopp, and Kopp himself sought to bill the authority more than $1,100 for one outreach-related breakfast in San Francisco last year. Another contract went to a former assemblyman.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/04/4098202/california-high-speed-rail-authority.html#ixzz1fbJqV2q0
Donnelly offers "a little extra incentive"
By Beige Luciano-Adams, Staff Writer
Posted: 11/25/2011 04:37:14 PM PST
Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Hesperia, tried to make the most of the spend-and-save frenzy on Black Friday – urging "patriots" to sign his petition to repeal the California DREAM Act.
Promising that the effort can "put money back in the taxpayers' pockets," Donnelly also plied constituents with the chance to win a $505 gift card from Target or Best Buy.
"To qualify this measure for the ballot, we must engage in `retail politics' – literally," Donnelly wrote on his petition campaign website.
AB 131, the meatier part of the California DREAM Act recently signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown, allows some undocumented students to qualify for government funding, after documented students are served.
Donnelly held a Black Friday drive at the Colonies in Rancho Cucamonga to collect signatures and is now urging people to mail their signatures in by midnight on Monday.
Donnelly has until Jan. 6, to submit nearly 505,000 petition signatures to county election officials, according to the Secretary of State.
California Assembly committee budgets conceal travel by lawmakers' personal aides
By Jim Sanders
jsanders@sacbee.com
Published: Sunday, Nov. 20, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
Much of the money spent for travel by Assembly committees this year went to fly personal aides of Southern California legislators round-trip between the Capitol and their districts.
The trips contradict what the Assembly tells Californians in its annual expenditure report – that committee travel funds are used primarily for hearings to serve the public.
"Staff travel expenditures reported by committee are generally costs incurred in connection with interim committee hearings which are generally held away from Sacramento for the convenience of citizens who wish to provide testimony," the Assembly's annual notice reads.
The disparity offers another example of how difficult it is to pinpoint how much taxpayer money lawmakers use to run their personal offices. Assembly financial reports minimize what individual lawmakers spend by charging costly personal office expenses to the budgets of committees that do the brunt of the policy work in the house.
Nearly three of every four travel dollars spent by committees from December through July were for trips by lawmakers' personal aides, roughly $48,500 of $67,000. Documents released by the Assembly do not specify a reason for travel in every trip involving a personal aide, but many do, and virtually none cite committee hearings.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/20/4067840/california-assembly-committee.html#ixzz1eMproJyy
Opinion: Final tally of bill vetoes and signings leaves small business wondering
By John Kabateck | 11/03/11 12:00 AM PST
As the deadline neared for Gov. Jerry Brown to veto or sign the mounds of legislation that were on his desk this month, small business owners held their breath. Unpredictable at best, would Gov. Brown have small business in mind as he decided? Or would they be a mere afterthought in the Capitol, as so many times before.
The good news is that a number of bills important to small business and
supported by NFIB were signed by the governor. Specifically, we witnessed
the signing of Senate Bill 617 (Calderon and Pavley), which requires a thorough
economic analysis for every regulation with an economic impact of over $50
million. It supports more transparent rulemaking, will improve oversight of
agencies, and will encourage policymakers to implement the most cost-effective
ways to achieve societal goals. Assembly Bill 36 (Perea), which conforms
California law to federal law by exempting employee contributions towards
covering adult children up to age 26 from being subject to state personal
income taxes, was also supported by NFIB and signed.
We were also successful in stopping several bills that would have had
devastating effects on small businesses in the state. Senate Bill 104
(Steinberg) was strongly opposed by NFIB and would have allowed employees
within the agricultural industry to organize unions in the workplace through an
undemocratic, intimidation-based “card check” process, not through a private
balloting process. A bill requiring the tracking and reporting of dog
sales by pet stores (Assembly Bill 1121 - Pan), would have added government
mandates to an industry that is already heavily regulated. Finally,
Assembly Bill 325 (Lowenthal) would have prohibited an employer from refusing
to grant a request by any employee to take up to three days of bereavement
leave or to interfere with or restrain an employee from doing so. It created an
egregious, overreaching private right to sue the employer. All three of
these bills were vetoed by Gov. Brown.
Now for the not-so-good news. There were some bills that NFIB strongly advocated
for - policy that would have helped give small businesses a shred of hope
to one day crawl out of the hole they’re in - that sadly the governor
vetoed. The first and perhaps most important was Assembly Bill 135
(Hagman). The measure required one of the members of the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) to be a small business owner. It is critical that one of
the most powerful regulatory agencies, with enormous authority over the cost of
doing business in California, has input from the business owners that it
regulates. Environmentalists have been opposed to businesses being heard in the
regulatory process, seeing them as the enemy of the environment, and the Sierra
Club and others came out in full opposition to this bill. In the end, Gov.
Brown vetoed the bill, which is truly sad given that this would have incurred
no new state costs and would have demonstrated that our leaders mean businesss
when they talk up small business. Despite this setback, NFIB will
continue our efforts to ensure that small business will have a seat at the
table with government boards and entities whose decisions impact Main Street.
In addition, the governor vetoed Senate Bill 14 (Wolk, DeSaulnier and Huff),
which would have implemented performance-based budgeting in California
government, effectively requiring agencies to prove the need for their own
existence and budgets by focusing managers, supervisors, and workers on
achieving desired goals, to show progress toward those goals, and highlight the
choices available to improve the expenditure of public funds resources. NFIB
supported this as good governance, but the governor called it a “one size fits
all” approach.
Last-minute 'gut and amend' laws bypass scrutiny in California
By Laurel Rosenhall
lrosenhall@sacbee.com
Published: Monday, Oct. 17, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
It was after midnight on the last day of the legislative session last month when the state Senate took up a controversial bill concerning election laws for the very first time.
Most bills go through a months-long process of hearings, negotiations, amendments and votes. Not this one.
Senate Bill 202 was written about 24 hours earlier, when Democrat Loni Hancock of Berkeley deleted the language in a bill about filing fees on voter initiatives and replaced it with a highly political proposal to change the state's election laws in ways that will favor Democrats in 2012.
"The lack of process in this bill is inexcusable," Sen. Ted Lieu of Torrance told his colleagues that night. "We as Democrats should be ashamed at how this came to the Senate floor."
Hancock's bill was the most extreme example this year of the Legislature's penchant for writing new laws at the last minute – but it was by no means the only one.
The Legislature wrote 48 bills in the last three weeks of the regular session, long after the deadlines for most law-making procedures had passed. They did so by deleting the text of existing bills and replacing it with something new and often unrelated – a process known as "gut and amend."
Lawmakers sent 22 of those bills to the governor, who signed all but three of them.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/10/17/3984771/last-minute-gut-and-amend-laws.html#ixzz1b3jXHEUy
2011 -LEGISLATION IN CALIFORNIA
FOR ALL NEWS ON CALIFORNIA LEGLISLATION AND TEA PARTY PATRIOTS IN CALIFORNIA CHECK OUT OUR NEW STATE SITE, www.californiateapartygroups.org
California 'Amazon tax' kicks in – and local businesses could be losers
By Daniel B. Wood, Staff writer / July 1, 2011
Los Angeles
A new California law, taking effect Friday, requires large, out-of-state retailers to collect sales taxes on Internet purchases by California customers. The Golden State is the seventh, and most populous yet, to pass such a law.
Called the “Amazon tax,” the law was signed Wednesday by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) in hopes of raising an estimated $317 million annually to help close a yawning budget gap. At least 10 other cash-strapped states want to do the same.
But California’s new law has plenty of critics, including local business owners who may end up taking a big hit.
“We’re going to have to leave the state,” says Keith Posehn, who operates a website with his wife in San Diego.
California – like New York, Illinois, Arkansas, Connecticut, North Carolina, and Rhode Island before it – is trying to get around a 1992 US Supreme Court ruling that holds sellers can’t be forced to collect sales taxes unless they have a physical presence in the state.
“States in search of revenues try to find ways to establish that out-of-state retailers do have a presence or nexus,” says Stephen Liedtka, associate professor of accounting at Villanova University in Pennsylvania.
Indeed, California has come up with its own way of defining an online retailer’s physical presence in the state. This definition has everything to do with local affiliates, or businesses, that refer customers to the online retailers.
If such referrals result in substantial sales for an online retailer, then the retailer is considered to have a physical presence in California.
“The out-of-state retailer will have to collect tax if it pays commissions to people or businesses in California that refer buyers to the online retailer, and it makes more than $10,000 in sales on those referrals and it has more than $500,000 in total sales in California,” explains Daniel Schibley, senior state tax analyst at CCH, in an e-mail. CCH publishes tax information.
U.S. rejects proposed changes to bullet-train project
U.S. rejects proposed changes to bullet-train project
Federal transportation officials say they cannot postpone the deadline to start construction of the $43-billion project or allow California to move the first rail leg out of the Central Valley.
State Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) said the project needs flexibility because the projected cost has already risen from $33 billion to $43 billion. (Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times / October 8, 2008)
By Dan Weikel, Los Angeles Times
May 25, 2011, 10:57 p.m.
Rejecting the recommendations of a recent state report, federal officials said Wednesday they cannot postpone the deadline to start construction of California's $43-billion bullet train project or allow the state to move the first leg of the proposed system out of the Central Valley.
U.S. Department of Transportation officials said the 2012 deadline is required by federal legislation that provided about $3.1 billion in funding for the project's initial leg, which, they added, was placed in the state's agricultural heartland after considerable study.
Report questions California bullet-train plan's management and governing structure
"This shows that we are on the same page as the feds," said Jeffrey Barker, a spokesman for the California High-Speed Rail Authority. "They are saying no to these huge recommendations. This takes them off the table."
Earlier this month, the California Legislative Analyst's Office concluded in a detailed critique that the project was poorly managed, faced potential long-term funding problems and had a governing structure in need of sweeping reform.
Until those issues could be addressed, analysts called on the rail authority to push back its federally required construction deadline and consider relocating the initial segment to a major urban area where there was more potential for trains to run sooner.
Analysts further recommended that the Legislature not spend any more money on the project if the federal government did not allow the changes in the route and construction schedule.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-high-speed-rail-20110526,0,2238562.story
AB 273 (Valadao) -Regulations: economic impacts review.
Position: Support
AB 273 would codify the current practice of the Department of Finance to conduct a review of an agency’s economic impact statement for proposed regulations, and would require that the Department submit the results of its review into public record during the public comment period for the proposed regulations.
PROBLEM
Current law, under the Administrative Procedure Act, requires state agencies to conduct analyses of proposed regulations and report their estimated negative effect on businesses and the economy. However, agencies are allowed to analyze their own proposed regulations with no oversight. Agencies are not held accountable if their analyses are inaccurate or incomplete, even if the proposed regulations are likely to have a significant negative effect on the economy or a particular industry.
EXISTING LAW
Under current law there is no requirement that proposed regulations be independently reviewed in order to estimate their likely economic impact. By executive order, the Department of Finance currently reviews all economic impact statements (using form STD. 399); however, this is not required by law.
THE SOLUTION
AB 273 would codify the current practice of the Department. It would also add a requirement that the Department submit the findings of its review into public record during the public comment period, holding agencies accountable by allowing the public to know when agencies conduct inaccurate or misleading economic analyses. This will ensure that agencies make a complete and fair assessment of all proposed regulations and pay particular attention to the economic consequences of a proposed action.
Status: 4/11 referred to Business and Professions Committee
AB 333: (Grove)- California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: unemployment.
Position: Support
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gases. The state board is required to adopt a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to the statewide greenhouse gas emissions level in 1990 to be achieved by 2020, and to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum technologically
feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reductions.
This bill would require the state board to exempt from an emission reduction requirement adopted pursuant to the act an emissions source located within a county that on January 1, 2012, has an unemployment rate of 7% or greater, until that county’s unemployment rate drops below
7% for 6 consecutive months.
Status: 2/24 Referred to Natural Resources Committee
AB 598: (Grove)- Environmental quality: environmental impact report
Position: Support
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report (EIR) on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment.
Notwithstanding any other law, a person, other than the Attorney General, shall not commence or maintain an action or proceeding alleging that an environmental impact report, a negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration does not comply with this division.
Status:4/4 referred to Natural Resources Committee
AB 1332: (Donnelly) - State Air Resources Board: abolishment.
Position: Support
AB 1332 would eliminate the Air Resources Board and give its administrative duties to CalEPA and its regulatory duties to local air quality boards. It would also require local air quality boards to have one person from each major industry affected by its regulations to be on the board.
Status: 4/25 going to Natural Resources Committee
AB 1179: (Mansoor)- Employee wages: deductions: union dues and assessments.
Position: Support
Under existing law it is unlawful for an employer to withhold or deduct any amount from an employee’s wages except when authorized to do so by federal or state law or when expressly authorized by the employee, or a collective bargaining or wage agreement. This bill would provide that nothing in these provisions or other law authorizes an employer to deduct from the wages, earnings, or compensation of an employee any union dues, fees, assessments, or other charges to be used by an organization for political activities, as defined.
Status: 3/17- ASM LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
AB 945: (Donnelly)- Voter I.D. requirement
Position: Support
AB 945 will help safeguard our right to vote and instill public confidence in the security and integrity of our elections system. It will: (1) Require voters to show a photo ID at the polls in order to receive a ballot; (2) Require vote by mail voters to identify themselves by writing the last four digits of either their CA driver's license, identification card, or SS # on a concealed flap of the ballot return envelope and; (3) Allow ballots cast by members of the U.S. armed forces stationed overseas to be counted if they arrive up to 21 days after the election, so long as they were voted on or before Election Day.
Status: 4/12 ASM ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
AB 66: (Chesbro)- Taxation: vehicle license fees.
Position: Oppose
The Vehicle License Fee Law, in lieu of any ad valorem property tax upon vehicles, imposes an annual license fee for any vehicle subject to registration in this state in the amount of 1% of the market value of that vehicle, as provided, for a specified amount of time. Existing law also,
until June 30, 2011, imposes an additional tax equal to 0.15% of the market value of specified vehicles, as determined by the Department of Motor Vehicles, to the vehicle license fee, to be deposited in the General Fund and transferred to the Local Safety and Protection
Account, a continuously appropriated fund. This bill would repeal the provision relating to the sunset date and repeal of the additional 0.15% tax, thereby depositing additional moneys
into a continuously appropriated fund. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Status:1/27 referred to Revenue and Taxation Committee
SB 23: (Simitian, Kehoe, and Steinberg)- Energy: renewable energy resources
Position: Oppose
SB 23 is a wealth transfer to other states and even foreign nations. California’s nightmare bureaucracy will not allow the quick construction of green energy plants in the number that would be needed to meet the 33% target, so SB 23 allows for a transfer of California wealth to other states, Canada and Mexico.
Status: Committee on Utilities and Commerce
Sign petition against this bill here: http://coalitionofenergyusers.org/stop-rps/sign-the-petition/
AB 674: (Bonilla)- Vehicles: registration fees.
Position:Oppose
Existing law authorizes, until January 1, 2012, the imposition of a $1 fee, upon adoption of a resolution by a county board of supervisors, in addition to other specified vehicle registration fees, on certain vehicles.
Existing law also imposes, until January 1, 2012, in addition to that fee, a $2 service fee on all commercial vehicles, upon implementation of the permanent trailer identification plate program.
Existing law provides that the money generated by these fees and paid to the Controller is continuously appropriated, without regard to fiscal years, for disbursement by the Controller to each county that has adopted a resolution as described above, and that the money so disbursed may only be used for programs that enhance the capacity of local law enforcement to provide fingerprint identification of individuals who may be involved in driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, vehicular manslaughter, other vehicle-related crimes, and other crimes committed while operating a motor vehicle.
This bill would extend that authorization indefinitely. By extending a law providing for disbursements from a continuously appropriated fund, this bill would make an appropriation.
Status: 4/4 referred to Appropriations Committee
AB 1357: (Swanson)-Voter Registration
Position: Oppose
Under existing law, a person may not be registered to vote except by affidavit of registration. Existing law provides for an affidavit of registration to be included on a multipart card, to be known as a voter registration card. Existing law also expresses the Legislature’s intent to promote and encourage voter registration. This bill would state the Legislature’s intent to permit, and would permit, county elections officials to provide affidavit of registration forms and voter registration cards online.
Status:2/20 Not assigned yet.
AB 123: (Furutani) Personal income tax rates
Position: Oppose
The Personal Income Tax Law imposes a tax upon taxable income at various rates depending upon the amount of that income, and also imposes an alternative minimum tax based upon specified tax preference items.
This bill would declare that it is the intent of the Legislature to reinstate income tax brackets for the highest income earners to address the state’s budget problems.
This bill would, for any taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2012, and before January 1, 2017, increase the tax rate applicable to taxable income over specified amounts to 10% and 11%, and increase the alternative minimum tax rate to 8.5%. This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 2⁄3 of the membership of each house of the Legislature.
This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Status: 5/16 Hearing in Revenue and Taxation Committee
AB 438: (Williams)- County free libraries: withdrawal
Position: Oppose
This Bill would require that any city considering pulling its library out of a county system and contracting with a company to manage its library seek approval from the voters via an election. This bill is clearly targeted at LSSI, who has been contracting with Riverside County for nearly 14 years, and recently won contracts with the cites of Camarillo in Ventura County and Santa Clarita in LA County.
Status: 4/13 Hearing in Local Government Committee
From HJTA
Oppose the local politician taxpayer shakedown
SB 653 (Steinberg)
SB 653 paves the way for increases in income taxes, sales taxes and business taxes
• SB 653 gives local politicians the ability to place taxes on the ballot including but not limited to hikes in your income tax, sales tax and business taxes.
• SB 653 will worsen record high unemployment and kill jobs. According to the Tax Foundation, California is one of the highest states in the nation and has the highest taxes on business. CEO Magazine routinely ranks California worst state to do business and George Mason University ranks us one of the least economically free.
• SB 653 will increase the exodus of productive tax-paying citizens and businesses from the state. In the last ten years, California has lost over 1 million productive citizens, mostly to states with less confiscatory tax climates.
• SB 653 imposes a burden on taxpayers and struggling small businesses that we cannot afford. SB 653 will be heard in the Senate Governance and Finance Committee on April 27th. Please visit these members of the Government and Finance Committee:
Sen. Lois Wolk (D)
Committee Chair
Room 5114
Sen. Robert Huff (R)
Committee Vice Chair
Room 5097
Sen. Mark DeSaulnier (D)
Room 5035
From HJTA
Oppose the local politician taxpayer shakedown
SB 653 (Steinberg)
SB 653 paves the way for increases in income taxes, sales taxes and business taxes
• SB 653 gives local politicians the ability to place taxes on the ballot including but not limited to hikes in your income tax, sales tax and business taxes.
• SB 653 will worsen record high unemployment and kill jobs. According to the Tax Foundation, California is one of the highest states in the nation and has the highest taxes on business. CEO Magazine routinely ranks California worst state to do business and George Mason University ranks us one of the least economically free.
• SB 653 will increase the exodus of productive tax-paying citizens and businesses from the state. In the last ten years, California has lost over 1 million productive citizens, mostly to states with less confiscatory tax climates.
• SB 653 imposes a burden on taxpayers and struggling small businesses that we cannot afford. SB 653 will be heard in the Senate Governance and Finance Committee on April 27th. Please visit these members of the Government and Finance Committee:
Sen. Lois Wolk (D)
Committee Chair
Room 5114
Sen. Robert Huff (R)
Committee Vice Chair
Room 5097
Sen. Mark DeSaulnier (D)
Room 5035
Oppose the local politician taxpayer shakedown
SB 653 (Steinberg)
SB 653 paves the way for increases in income taxes, sales taxes and business taxes
• SB 653 gives local politicians the ability to place taxes on the ballot including but not limited to hikes in your income tax, sales tax and business taxes.
• SB 653 will worsen record high unemployment and kill jobs. According to the Tax Foundation, California is one of the highest states in the nation and has the highest taxes on business. CEO Magazine routinely ranks California worst state to do business and George Mason University ranks us one of the least economically free.
• SB 653 will increase the exodus of productive tax-paying citizens and businesses from the state. In the last ten years, California has lost over 1 million productive citizens, mostly to states with less confiscatory tax climates.
• SB 653 imposes a burden on taxpayers and struggling small businesses that we cannot afford. SB 653 will be heard in the Senate Governance and Finance Committee on April 27th. Please visit these members of the Government and Finance Committee:
Sen. Lois Wolk (D)
Committee Chair
Room 5114
Sen. Robert Huff (R)
Committee Vice Chair
Room 5097
Sen. Mark DeSaulnier (D)
Room 5035
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join So Cal Tax Revolt Coalition to receive important updates related to the San Diego Tea Party, action alerts, and events throughout the region...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help the SOCALTRC team continue to bring these "awareness" events to you!
SOCALTRC is not backed by any BIG money funding, only by the kindness and generosity of you, our FELLOW PATRIOTS! We are a California 501(c) 4 , however, donations are not tax deductible.
Proceeds of any merchandise sales go to help So Cal Tax Revolt Coalition, LLC cover event and on-line operating costs. SoCalTRC earns 20% of net sales from Cafe Press items. Thank you for your support...we could not operate without your generous donations!