Brown on Indexing the State Income Tax
One of the hot tax issues during Jerry Brown’s first turn as governor was indexing the state income tax. Brown has noted recently he supported indexing. That’s only part of the story.
Indexing the income tax is a process of widening the tax brackets to account for inflation. Without indexing, a taxpayer would be pushed into higher tax brackets when inflation increased his or her income despite the taxpayer gaining no "real" income gain. Government benefited from this "inflation tax."
Prop 26 Affirms Voters Wishes
Four times over the last three decades voters have offered their support for the right to vote on local taxes and for a two-thirds vote for legislative tax increases. Yet, the politicians have attempted to work their way around that mandate by calling taxes "fees." Fees only require a majority vote in the legislature, or a vote of the governing body at the local government level.
Proposition 26 will reaffirm the voters desires on the tax front.
Will National Political Trends Affect California’s Election?
The key word for this upcoming election is: TURNOUT. With Democrats holding a 13-point voter registration edge over Republicans in California it will take a strong Republican turnout and/or a correspondingly weak Democratic turnout to push Republican candidates across the finish line first.
National polls indicate that enthusiasm is on the Republicans side in this election. The USC/LA Times poll a few weeks ago indicated that Latinos, a core Democratic support group, were less than eager to vote when compared with other groups the poll tested.
Howard Jarvis’s Vote for Governor
I’m not sure how far away these absentee ballots come from, but if Howard Jarvis has one I think I know how he’d mark his ballot for governor.
In last night’s debate, Jarvis made a guest appearance on the back of a question on his prodigy, Proposition 13. Jerry Brown pointed out, accurately, that Jarvis voted for Brown for governor because Brown had worked at implementing Prop 13. Brown also said Jarvis did an ad for Brown. Also true; but at the same time, Jarvis was also cutting an ad for Brown’s opponent, Attorney General Evelle Younger, for defending Proposition 13 in court.
A Debate Surprise?
The last scheduled gubernatorial debate goes off tonight with Tom Brokaw as moderator and one wonders if there will be a surprise launched during the debate to topsy-turvy the race.
Meg Whitman needs to make voters believe she can solve the problems of California. That is all they care about. In the end, the vast majority of voters are not so interested in the battle over Whitman’s maid and Brown’s team’s language. Voters want to believe their vote will make a difference in their lives.
From the Gubernatorial Candidates on the Budget: ‘No Comment’
Californians following the governor’s race through the media think the choice is between one candidate who doesn’t read her mail and another who doesn’t know how to hang up the telephone.
If the candidates have generated no more light than that on who they are and what they will do once in office, whose fault is that?
Is it the media who revel in covering controversy? Is it the candidates who prefer to argue about these matters rather than the complexities of modern-day California government? Or is it the voters who would want to make their choices on character issues rather than trying to decide which candidate is right or wrong on policy?
Poll: Impact from Maid-gate; & those Irritating Robocalls
Orange County based pollster Adam Probolsky released a poll stating Meg Whitman’s illegal immigrant maid controversy is having only a small impact on the race.
Testing 519 voters, the poll reveals nearly 65% of the voters say the issue makes no difference in their voting decision. Of those who said it did make a difference, the poll found those voters who said the situation made it less likely they would vote for Whitman out polled those who said it was more likely to vote for her by about 6%.
Cowboy at the Off Ramp is For Prop 19
Getting off the California Ave. exit from the 99 Freeway in Bakersfield, I came across a man in cowboy hat sitting astride a horse and carrying two Vote Yes on Prop 19 signs. I couldn’t resist. I pulled over and talked to him.
The cowboy was named Howard Woolridge; the horse was named Misty. A retired police officer from Lansing, Michigan who now lives in Fort Worth, Texas, Woolridge is a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, an organization in favor of legalizing marijuana.
Woolridge told me now that he’s retired he can “shout his mouth off” about what he sees as a waste of resources against the use of marijuana when those dollars could be used against serious crime.
The retired officer argued that the reason police departments line up against legalization is because the war on drugs brings money to the departments. He also acknowledged an emotional reason the officers don’t want to end the war on drugs. He said the police don’t want to believe that those officers killed in the line of duty in the drug war died in vain.
Not a Good Budget. Not a Smart Budget. But a Logical One
Looks like we’re getting a budget like we’ve had in the past. One put together containing more hopes and wishes than expressed by a class full of kindergarteners at Christmas. But it is actually a logical budget. Don’t get me wrong. I didn’t say good. I didn’t say smart. But it is understandable how we got here.
This is an election year. The legislators were able to create a budget that didn’t raise taxes and place a wet blanket on the economy; nor did they eliminate welfare programs like CalWorks that keep people afloat in difficult times.
What they did was make a budget that hopes for a brighter future and generosity from Washington that they know will not come. Legislators hope the economy will recover and the money will suddenly appear. There is a danger in this strategy, of course. How many years in a row can this be done before the whole system falls apart?
Death Penalty Trumps Environment in AG Race
In the race for Attorney General, Kamala Harris emphasizing she will be a tough enforcer of law protecting the environment won’t be enough to blunt Steve Cooley’s attack that Harris is soft on the death penalty.
In the debate between Los Angeles D.A. Steve Cooley and San Francisco D.A. Kamala Harris at UC Davis yesterday, Cooley went right for the death penalty issue with his opening comment. Harris emphasized environmental issues in an attempt to connect with voters and to avoid her controversial stand on the death penalty.
Cooley spoke of Harris’s refusal to pursue the death penalty for the killer of San Francisco Police Officer Isaac Espinoza. Cooley was quick to point out his endorsement from the Espinoza family, who earlier this week issued a tough press release stating in part: "Kamala Harris’ arrogant contempt for the sacrifice of law enforcement officers, for the rule of law and for the will of the people has disqualified her from being California’s chief law enforcement officer. She is simply not worthy."