Taxes, Fees, the Constitution and Humpty Dumpty
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’—Alice in Wonderland
Democratic leaders (and their lawyers) think they have cleverly found ways around the budget impasse. Like a sideshow magician, they have crafted slight-of-hand maneuvers to increase sales and income taxes, which they claim are not tax increases at all. They order up an oil severance tax, something rejected not too long ago by the voters. And, they declare taxes on gasoline to be fees so that they can raise those fees by a majority vote.
Wouldn’t life be simpler if we could decide the meanings of words for our own convenience? Then no one would have to play by the rules because everybody would constantly be changing the rules to serve their own purposes. That is what the Democrats are attempting to do by changing the nomenclature of taxes to fees.
The authors of this plan claim they can justify the changes under the law. Their explanations stretch the law like silly putty to fit their needs. We’ll see if a court supports their logic. I doubt it.
However, if courts allow this trickery to proceed then two can play this dangerous game.
The state constitution in Article II, Section 9 prohibits the use of the referendum process for, among a list of items, “statutes providing for tax levies.” This section of the constitution says nothing about fees. If the Democrats say there is a difference between taxes and fees, then clearly a referendum can be mounted to reject a statute containing fees.
The Democrats should remember what happened to Humpty Dumpty.
Profiles in Cowardice
Congratulations to new Democratic Assembly members Alyson Huber of El Dorado Hills, Marty Block of San Diego, Joan Buchanan of Alamo and Manuel Perez of Coachella. In the first important vote of your careers, you demonstrated that all the fancy words from your campaigns about “changing the system” and “not a career politician” as well as “ready to go to work” and “performance not politics” were as empty as California’s bank accounts.
The four of you, joined by wily political veteran Charles Calderon of Whittier, abstained from voting on the tax hikes proposed by your own party. You didn’t vote yes or no, you abstained. Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary says that to abstain means, “to refrain deliberately and often with an effort of self-denial from an action or practice”.
Is it because you all got elected from swing districts and you fear the wrath of the voters in two years? Is this about maintaining “political viability” for higher office and are worried about future campaign attack ads that would include you vote for higher taxes? Did Speaker Bass give you “get out of jail free” cards on the vote because she knew it would not pass without three Republicans, and therefore you would not have a “tax increase” vote on your record? Or is it that you don’t have the guts to stand up and vote “yes or no” because you believe it is the right thing to do, political consequences be damned?
Democrats Tax Plan Illegal Under Prop 13
In perhaps one of the most brazen political moves in California history, Democrat leadership yesterday unveiled a budget proposal that would shred the California Constitution by raising billions of new taxes without the required two-thirds vote.
The tax hikes in the proposal would include a 2.5% surcharge on anyone paying personal income tax, an additional three quarter of one percent sales tax, an oil severance tax and replacement of current taxes on gas with even higher “fees.”
We have no idea who is providing legal advice to the democrats, but they should have been informed before launching this silly proposal that, not only would a lawsuit be inevitable, the challenge would also succeed in preventing the taxes from ever being imposed.
What are the Democrats thinking? The two-thirds vote requirement, one of the most important provisions of Prop 13, clearly provides that “any changes in state taxes enacted for the purpose of increasing revenues collected pursuant thereto whether by increased rates or changes in methods of computation must be imposed by an Act passed by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature.”
California’s Zen Riddle
By now, you could call it the Zen riddle of California. The question gets asked over and over — in conversations about California, in newspaper columns, in gatherings of reformers. “Is the state governable?” I’ve been asked it several times during talks I give in Southern California. I should have a practiced answer by now. But I don’t. I simply don’t know if the state is governable. And I don’t think anyone else knows the answer to the question either.
These days, when I hear the question, I start to feel frustrated. It’s sort of a meta question, a version of “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” or “What thing comes of itself without being looked for?” We could have a conversation about what governable means, and we could talk about how certain governors have managed to govern in some areas. But the real importance of the question of the question is that it’s being asked over and over again. If you’re debating whether your state is governable, it’s obvious that you have deep problems that need to be addressed.
Universal Healthcare – Will the providers choose to participate?
With a Democratic congressional majority behind him, President-elect Barack Obama is likely to make a universal health care program a reality.
What is universal healthcare? No one knows for sure. The idea is that every citizen has some kind of medical insurance coverage. But how is “some kind of” defined? Does that mean there will be coverage for catastrophes or acute problems that are life threatening and require trips to the emergency room? Or does that mean coverage for normal run of the mill physician diagnostic appointments for the flu which includes laboratory work and imagining like x-ray, ultrasound, CT scans and MRIs?
Once the extent of coverage is determined, the issue becomes how the health care system will operate. Will it work like Medicare or Medicaid? Will people be rolled into existing insurance plans that have different tiers of coverage? Will the plan be automatic for everyone with the option of having additional plans that the individual pays for to improve the kind of health care coverage they have? And then who will be responsible for paying for this?