Saving State Parks and Creating a New Way for Government
Seventy
state parks are scheduled for closure because of budget cuts, which has
promoted a couple of bills now before the governor to find alternative ways to
keep the parks open. In a larger sense, this move to save the parks might be a
roadmap on delivering government services and saving taxpayer money.
AB 42
by Assembly member Jared Huffman would allow non-profit organizations to take
over the operation of parks that are threatened to close. Currently, the
Department of Parks and Recreation are in charge of the parks. AB 42 would
allow the Department to enter into an operating agreement for an entire unit in
the state park system or a portion of the park, with the non-profit having the
ability to develop, maintain and improve the park.
SB
386 by Senator Tom Harman goes a step further. The measure allows for an
individual or other party to enter into negotiations with the Department to
operate and maintain a park that is scheduled to close.
Both
bills open the door for increased use of public-private partnerships to run
functions of the state that previously were the purview of state authorities
and state workers. In fact, the latter issue is one of concern for public
unions who have raised opposition to the bills.
A Referendum on the Bill to Move Initiatives to November is Possible
With Democratic legislators moving toward passing a bill to move June ballot measures to November, a counter move is being contemplated to mount a referendum against such a bill if it is signed by the governor.
This morning, Jon Fleischman reported on Flash Report that SB 202 is the likely vehicle to receive the "gut-and-amend" treatment and carry the language to move initiatives to November.
I am told by a attorney specializing in the field of election law, if a referendum on the expected legislative action qualifies for the ballot, that would freeze the implementation of the new law and all the initiatives that were due to appear on the June ballot would appear on the ballot. Those measures include both the Stop Special Interest Money initiative and the Amazon tax referendum, which appear to be the target of the public unions and Democratic lawmakers.
Obama Halts Enviro Regs, Will Brown?
At the end of last week, President Barack Obama ordered the
Environmental Protection Agency to defer new, strict standards on ozone
emissions. The lack of job growth brought about the decision. If the need for
jobs trumps the implementation of new environmental regulations for the
president, does the same apply to California and our governor?
While the Obama Administration claimed the decision to hold
off the regulation change was based on a need for updated scientific input,
many commentators could not help noticing the announcement came on the heels of
statistics that showed no job growth. A Wall
Street Journal editorial stated flatly that the zero jobs growth "lies at
the center of this (the regulation deferral) startling and welcome decision."
Governor Jerry Brown has pounded the job creation drum of
late, announcing a new jobs czar. However, he is also conducting the green
energy symphony. Meanwhile, California is due to start rolling out regulations
for greenhouse gas controls in 2012 under AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions
Act.
Despite Amazon’s Move, History Says We’re in for a Ballot Brawl
Amazon.com has put forth a plan to avert the referendum to
overturn a new tax law that is ready to qualify for the next election. The
proposal probably falls into the "too-little-too-late" category for Amazon’s
political opponents to avoid a ballot battle. History of a similar referendum
from many years ago indicates the ballot fight will be hugely expensive.
First, to the negotiations: Amazon has asked for a two-year
suspension of the tax law requiring online, out-of-state retailers to collect
sales tax while Congress works on a national solution to collect taxes across
state lines. The company also offered to set up distribution centers in
California, which could create up to 7,000 jobs.
The initial response to the proposal from opponents lead by
the California Retailers Association is that the deal is unacceptable.
President of the association, Bill Dombrowski, said, "We don’t think it’s a
serious compromise."
On this “charge,” the Senator Doth Protest Too Much
"The lady doth
protest too much, methinks."
Hamlet, Act III, Scene
II
On the heels of the California Taxpayers Association releasing an excellent monograph on Understanding Proposition 26, the measure passed by voters last year to clarify what is a tax and what is a fee, the legislature is attempting to pass a tax on gasoline, which would require a two-thirds vote, as a simple majority vote "charge." SB 791 by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg "would authorize a metropolitan planning organization, subject to majority voter approval, to impose, for up to 30 years, a regional transportation congestion reduction charge on purchasers of motor vehicle fuel."
In Section 1 of the bill, from paragraphs f thru l, the author describes how this charge is not in violation of Proposition 26’s requirement for a two-thirds vote.
Seven paragraphs arguing the measure is not a tax! Methinks the Senator protests too much.
The oft-quoted phrase from the pen of Shakespeare is
defined as one can "insist so passionately about something not being true
that people suspect the opposite of what one is saying."
Attacks on the People’s “Precious” Right of Initiative and Referendum Continue
On the top of a legislative effort by Democrats in the legislature to undermine the people’s referendum power, which I wrote about Friday, more skullduggery is rumored that could alter the outcome of specific initiative and referendum proposals by changing the ballot on which the measures would appear before voters.
Given the recent effort to pass a new tax bill on Internet retailers so as to thwart a referendum on a similar tax measure, it is not hard to believe the story circulating in Sacramento that altering election laws could force two measures to a different ballot for political gain. Besides the Internet tax referendum (if the first scheme to undermine it doesn’t get the necessary two-thirds vote to pass a new urgent Internet tax measure), an initiative to limit public employee union and corporation political donations could be pushed to the November 2012 general election ballot instead of the June primary ballot.
The latter measure would require that union committees and other employers obtain authorization in writing from employees who wish to contribute to the organization’s political campaign spending. It also bans unions and corporations from giving to candidates and candidate-controlled committees.
Contempt for Voters in Senate Move on Amazon Tax
The maneuver in the Senate Appropriations Committee
yesterday to undercut the referendum on the Amazon tax legislation is a glaring
example of the contempt with which legislators hold the people’s right of initiative
and referendum. The process is an integral part of the checks and balances
system giving the people control over their government. Clearly, some
legislators don’t want the voters making decisions at the ballot box on actions
taken by the legislature.
Amazon.com challenged a new law that requires online
retailers to collect sales tax. A referendum was filed to put the issue before
the voters. According to the Los
Angeles Times, signature gatherers "already are off the streets, having met
their goal well before the Sept. 27 deadline for turning in completed
petitions."
To foil this process, Senator Loni Hancock pulled what
amounts to a parliamentary parlor trick by gutting a bill and substituting
language similar to the wording in the original tax law calling the revised
bill an "urgency" measure. The constitution declares that an urgency measure,
which requires a two-thirds vote to pass, is immune to a referendum effort.
With Redistricting and Top-Two Primary, Republicans Likely Will Decide Which Veteran Democrat Goes Back to Congress in CD 30
The combination of
a newly drawn congressional district in a heavily Democratic area along with
California’s experimental top-two primary probably means Republican voters will
determine whether Congressman Howard Berman or Congressman Brad Sherman will
represent the newly drawn 30th Congressional District.
Fourteen year
Congressional veteran Sherman will likely face off with Berman, who has been in
Congress twice as long, unless either one decides to seek a different seat,
which appears unlikely.
The two
heavyweights have plenty of connections to the San Fernando Valley where the
new seat is drawn. They each have big
name supporters in their corner. Sherman recently touted the endorsement of
former President Bill Clinton while Berman received fundraising support from
the DreamWorks trio of Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen.
Deliberative Poll Says: Waste Not, Want Not
Results of the Deliberative Poll from a couple of months ago
were revealed yesterday and they seemed to track the feelings Californians
express in more standardized polling.
The poll was conducted over a weekend in Torrance with 400
citizens, a sampling of the voter population, taking part. The participants
were polled at the beginning of the exercise. Over the course of the weekend
they took part in breakout groups, meeting occasionally as a committee of the whole
to hear discussions on four separate issues from experts in State-Local Reform,
the Initiative Process, Representation and Taxation & Fiscal Policy. They
were then polled at the end of the weekend.
For the purposes of this column, I will focus on the
Taxation and Fiscal Policy section since I served on the expert panel in that
category.
A message gleaned from the polls on the taxation issue might
be: Waste Not, Want Not.
Jeff Adachi and Howard Jarvis – Worlds Apart, but Closer than You Think
It would seem a conservative firebrand from a generation ago and the public defender of the state’s most liberal city would have little in common. However, on political strategy, at least, Howard Jarvis, the prime mover behind Proposition 13 and Jeff Adachi, San Francisco Public Defender and newly minted mayoral candidate, made similar political moves with like motivations in mind.
With 40 minutes to spare before the deadline to register as a candidate for mayor, Adachi filed his papers for the office bringing to 16 the number of candidates who seek to be San Francisco’s mayor.
Likewise, Howard Jarvis ran for mayor of Los Angeles in 1977. Both men took on the mayoral runs with a similar purpose in mind – not necessarily to be elected mayor but to use the candidate spotlight to pound the bully pulpit for governance changes each thought was essential. Adachi wants to reform the public pension system. Jarvis’s goal was to change the state property tax formula.