Gov. Brown Ignores the Weak Fraud Argument, Vetoes SB 168
Governor Jerry Brown did the right thing yesterday when he vetoed SB 168 by Sen. Ellen Corbett. The bill would have changed payment for helping to gather signature petitions from a per signature basis to a flat hourly rate. The change in the process would have made it more expensive to pay for signature gatherers, something Brown recognized would favor the wealthiest interests.
More importantly, Brown noted that the bill offered “a dramatic change” in California’s long established democratic process of direct democracy, which the governor knows the people respect and defend.
Some have conjectured that Brown, himself, is looking to the initiative process to raise taxes that the legislative process denied him and if SB 168 became law it would be more expensive for him to succeed. Perhaps. However, Brown’s time serving as California Secretary of State long ago also may have helped create the foundation for this veto.
Five Trades California Should Swing
If you follow sports, this is the season of trades. The
baseball non-waiver trading deadline just passed with a flurry of deals. And
the National Football League has seen a week full of trades, with more to come.
If only we
could make trades in California governance. But you know how that goes –
gridlock, supermajorities, legal realities.
But it’s summer, so let’s leave
reality aside. Here are five deals that would be worth swinging, if we could.
1. Trade Gov. Jerry Brown to Texas
for cash, and a jobs strategy.
Texas has
money in its reserve fund it doesn’t want to use because Gov. Rick Perry
prefers to cut schools and health programs first. And, as it happens, Jerry
Brown still has political capital that he apparently doesn’t want to use on any
of the big changes the state needs. So let’s make an exchange of underutilized
assets.
Our State Court System: Slipping Back Into Pre-‘Fast Track’ Gridlock
Lawyers who appear regularly in California’s various county Superior Courts, our trial courts, and who have enough grey hair, may remember the days in LA Superior Court (“LASC”) when we were issued ‘Beepers’ in Department 1 (the second floor courtroom which is large enough to play Arena Football) of the Central District Moss Courthouse. We then waited for the buzzer to get called to trial. Woe unto you if you had two beepers for two different cases waiting for trial, got beeped on one and appeared with your boxes of documents and witnesses, only to find that you had been beeped on the other case.
You could only get beeper status after the case was approaching the hard, 5-year mandatory dismissal time limit, leaving the court system basically with no choice but to grudgingly find a courtroom to let the case go to trial. Despite a smile and nod to the expression “justice delayed is justice denied,” the reality of overcrowded courts was what it was, and there was nothing we could do about it but ‘grin and bear it.’
Less Tax, More Business
If you have a business in the city of Los Angeles, you probably have two big complaints with City Hall.
One is the absurdly long time it takes – 18 months, in some cases – to get routine permits to start and operate your business. The other is the city’s gross receipts tax.
On the first complaint, the city has made some moves to pare back the permit-waiting time. Granted, they are grudging moves and have spotty results so far, but at least there’s been some effort.
As for the second complaint, the city this week could take a big step toward resolving it.
That’s because a report that analyzes reform options put forward by the city-appointed Business Tax Advisory Committee is to go to the council this week. And a preliminary draft of that report all but concludes what business operators have known for years: The city would be better off without the gross receipts tax.