So, When Is It OK To Weaken Prop. 13?

In light of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association's endorsement of Assembly candidate Mike McGill, I thought readers might be interested in the following examples of how the HJTA views the type of anti-Prop 13 legislation McGill thought worth supporting.

Here's a column by Dec. 20, 2004 HJTA President Jon Coupal on ACA 7 by Assemblyman Joe Nation. This is a successor to the ACA 7 Cypress Councilman Mike McGill supported -- the pimary difference being Joe Nation's ACA 7 applies to any special tax, whol Dutra's ACA 7 applied to special taxes dedicated to transportation (like Measure M).

Quoth Coupal:

The vote counting machines for the November election have barely cooled, new members of the Legislature have just begun to warm their seats, and already a bill has been introduced to throttle the life out of Proposition 13.

Assemblyman Joe Nation (D-San Rafael) was so anxious to launch his attack on the venerable taxpayer protecting measure, he couldn't even wait until the new year. On December 6, he introduced a constitutional amendment (ACA 7) to eliminate Proposition 13's requirement that local special taxes -- those taxes earmarked for a specific purpose -- receive a two-thirds vote.

And further:

For this reason Proposition 13 was written as a comprehensive package of taxpayer protections. In addition to placing a cap on annual increases in the property tax, Proposition 13 requires that new state taxes receive a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and new local special taxes be approved by two-thirds of the voters.

Now, thanks to Joe Nation, government bureaucrats are drooling over the possibility that taxes, that can be used for anything including pay and benefit increases for public employees, will be much easier to pass.

Then there's this June 2003 news item from the Sacramento Taxpayer Protection League (of which Coupal is Vice President):

MORE ON THE ATTACK ON PROPOSITION 13

The Legislature has intensified its deliberate attack on the two-thirds vote requirement in the State Constitution for passage of special taxes. On May 25th Jim Sanders of The Sacramento Bee described in his article "Further easing of tax votes sought" eight specific constitutional amendments that would make it easier for local voters to increase taxes by reducing the two-thirds requirement.

The column lists several amendemnts, including the two that McGill supported:

SCA 2 - Would allow local government agencies to impose a sales tax or special tax with a majority vote. Purpose: transportation and smart growth.

ACA 7 - Would allow local or regional transportation agencies to impose up to a half-cent sales tax with a 55 percent vote. Purpose: transportation needs

It was pointed out that this is nothing more than an attack on Proposition 13, approved in 1978, which created the requirement that special taxes be approved by a two-thirds vote of the affected residents. Our Vice President Jon Coupal, who is also President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, was quoted by The Bee as contending that leveling taxes is "government's most draconian power" and should never be abused. He also said a property tax can be easier to sell, perhaps, to someone who doesn't own property, and that before dipping into Californian's pocketbooks, the interest of everyone should be considered - not just those of a majority. Further, the US Supreme Court confirmed the need for the two-thirds vote by stating: "in voting to issue bonds voters are committing, in part, the credit of infants and of generations yet unborn, and some restriction on such a commitment is not an unreasonable demand."

These amendments are entirely consequential for taxpayers. Supporting SCA 2 (Torlakson), for example, means supporting the renewal of Measure M by a simple majority rather than the 2/3 majority required due to the passage of Prop. 218. For that matter, supporting SCA 2 calls into question a candidate's support for Prop. 218.

HJTA is aware of McGill's votes. It would be helpful if HJTA would address them directly.

Comments

Well I guess we know who you are supporting. Keep trying to keep that story alive. Let's see if you are consistent in the future with other candidates.

I used to think Jubal was a "journalist", but he has lost a great deal of credibility in my opinion with his one sided railing. This isn't journalism, this is propaganda.

[Quitting HJTA]

HJTA needs to explain itself. Protecting Proposition 13 is supposed to be its ONE and ONLY function. It has never endorsed a candidate who voted to lower the 2/3 protection.

[Jubal's Right]

Jubal's right about this one. There is no excuse for McGill's attempt to end-run Prop. 13 and no explanation for HJTA's endorsement.

[Rex Ricks]

It appears that each assembly candidate has some sort of tax weakness. I guess the thing to do is weigh out absolutely everything out there: PLA's, Pension Spikes, Assembly Bills, Wasteful Spending, etc.

Also don't forget projects that pose external costs to citizens. For example, beach pollution that reduces property values. How about projects that create excess traffic. When I and others are forced to sit in it because of overdevelopment, that is theft of our time. If I breathe dirty air, that is taxing my health. etc. etc.

Taxes and costs come in all kinds of forms, and not just from the government, but from private industry itself.

The best candidate is one who takes ALL costs into consideration and tries to protect us from as many as possible.

[Jubal]

I used to think Jubal was a "journalist", but he has lost a great deal of credibility in my opinion with his one sided railing. This isn't journalism, this is propaganda.

Please point out the factual errors in this post.

[tylerh]

Jubal has never presented himself as "journalist." He's a blogger. Think of him as the OC Republican/pro-growth/anti-choice version of Kos of DailyKos.

Like Kos, Jubal makes no secret of his political opinions or his close ties to various parts of the political establishment.

The closest thing to "journalists" around here are OC Register columnist Steve Greenhut and OC Weekly's Gustavo Arrellano.

[Blog Watcher]

Greenhut. Journalist. HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!!

That's a good one. A good laugh in the afternoon is just what I needed.

[Art Pedroza]

The fact that Jubal can somehow overlook Silva's awful record, while sniping at McGill all the time speaks for itself. Jubal has an agenda, and he does not hide it. Why he is pimping for Silva is beyond me. Silva does not deserve such friends.

[WestOC]

Art, you're myopic about the PLA---you're a single issue guy---you probably agree with Silva 99% of the time but because of the PLA vote he is the antichrist. For many of us conservatives, we didn't like that vote but consider attempts to undercut Prop. 13 to be far worse. Add the eminent domain debacle McGill helped create and Silva looks better all the time.

But what is most ridiulous is the phony face saving excuse that Coupal is parading, that McGill didn't realize what he was voting on. That people in local government do this all the time without connecting the dots. OH PLEASE! Every local government staff gives their members supporting and background information on measures coming before them. It would be spelled out in black and white that this would make it easier to raise taxes. And if McGill is so conservative, why wouldn't he be able to figure this out himself? Is this going to be his routine if elected, "Gee, I didn't realize Fabian meant to slip a tax increase in this bill."

[Art Pedroza]

West OC,

Actually, there are a lot of Silva votes that I didn't like. Certainly his vote to augment the OC union employees' pensions to the point of bankrupting our county comes to mind. The guy is a union sell-out, plain and simple.

[WestOC]

Sorry art, its unions you're myopic about, not just the sub-category of PLA's. For such a union sell out, Silva was for Prop. 75, which to unions was the biggest issue for them since Prop. 226.

Also funny that you've announced your support for Lou Correa(Lupe is just a dream my friend)against soon to be Senator Lyn Daucher. Lou opposed Prop 75 and supported most labor union bills when he was in the Assembly.

[Tax Talk]

Greenhut Nails It Again
From the Register's Blog (http://www.ocregister.com/blog/commentary/), emphasis ours:

Jim Silva: enemy of the taxpayer

Orange County Supervisor Jim Silva, a self-styled conservative who never seems to vote in a conservative way, cast his vote as a member of the Orange County Sanitation District Board of Directors in favor of a massive fee increase last night. The vote received only the slimmest two-thirds majority, which means that had Silva voted correctly, he could have saved OC ratepayers/taxpayers a bunch of dough.

On the county board, Silva in the past voted for a pension spike for public employees, for building the CenterLine light-rail boondoggle, for granting unions a Project Labor Agreement, and on and on. But he justified himself as a conservative because he does not vote for direct tax increases. That's not much of a standard, especially since he votes for spending plans that make tax increases more likely. But now that he has voted for an increase, what will he say? Actually, I can probably guess: It was a rate increase not a tax increases. Too bad his only opponent in the race for Assembly is Diane Harman, who is reportedly even more liberal than her Republican In Name Only husband, Tom. In the Assembly recently, Tom proposed ACA 13, which would expand the ability of special districts to pass the kind of increases Silva just voted for. Can't we do better than this in Orange County?

[MSM]

This morning's Capitol Morning Report shows another hard hitting Silva Bullet. Why hasn't there been a post reprinting the latest silva bullet from anyone in the blogpen? Should OC YAF be taking out flashy banner ads for its stuff to be published?