Author: Joel Fox

Former governor Pete Wilson thinks its unlikely that Republicans in the legislature will vote to put Governor Jerry Brown’s tax extensions on the ballot.

I caught up with Wilson yesterday after he appeared on a panel at the Reagan Presidential Library discussing Ronald Reagan’s legacy as part of the centennial celebration of Reagan’s birth. (I’ll have more on the Reagan legacy panel discussion in tomorrow’s post.)

Wilson said with gerrymandered districts, Republican legislators live in districts in which their constituents do not want tax increases.

If the tax measures were to make it on the ballot by whatever means, Wilson thinks the taxes will be difficult to pass. "The only thing that would make it remotely saleable to the public would be if they combine it with a real, honest-to-God spending limit like the old Gann Limit," he said.

Governor Jerry Brown’s executive orders to have 48,000 state cell phones turned in and to cut in half the number of state owned vehicles were smart ways to illustrate the governor is cutting down on waste. Cars and cell phones are items the public can relate to. They have their own phones and cars, which, for the most part, are not subsidized by their companies or anyone else.

By cutting these items, Brown has left his mark that the new sheriff in town is trying to clean up the mess.

As most reporting on Brown’s executive orders note, the savings from the cuts range in the millions of dollars and make only a small dent in the multi-billion dollar shortfall the state faces.

And, there in may lay a problem for the governor and his plans in the long run.

Listening to Jerry Brown quote the California Constitution in his State of the State speech — "All political power is inherent in the people" — gave me a bizarre case of déjà vu. Howard Jarvis, Brown’s nemesis three decades ago, used to cite that same phrase from the constitution all the time.

However, the goals of Brown and Jarvis are at cross-purposes.

Jarvis wanted to encourage a vote of the people through the initiative process to cut taxes. Brown wants the people to vote to raise, or extend taxes.

Perhaps that is the beauty of this constitutional provision — it is a general rule that applies to different points of view.

Republican response to Brown’s State of the State speech criticized what Brown did not say. Some Republicans said Brown should have offered up thoughts on pension reform. Others were looking for reductions in regulations, or an emphasis on job creation.

COURT SAYS BALLOT MEASURE SUMMARIES MUST BE IMPARTIAL

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Court of Appeal
victory yesterday says the legislature cannot dictate the ballot label, title
and official summary. The legislature did just that for the High Speed Rail
bonds that narrowly passed in 2008.

HJTA president, Jon Coupal, said in a release, "the Court’s ruling is a stinging rebuke of the
California Legislature for manipulating voters by substituting the proponent’s
advocacy for what is supposed to be a neutral summary by an impartial third
party."

While the decision is a victory
for California voters, the ruling begs the question about the partisan office
of Attorney General being an impartial third party. The AG is assigned the task
of writing the impartial ballot label, title and summary. Over the years,
attorney generals from both parties have been accused of political maneuvering
in drawing up ballot information.

Perhaps it is time to turn the
task of writing impartial ballot titles and summaries over to a non-partisan outfit
like the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

A superficial read of the latest PPIC poll might encourage the Brown Administration to change course away from across the board tax extensions to taxing businesses. But, such a move would be a mistake.

All ready, the Brown administration is informing business leaders that if the tax extension plan included in the governor’s budget doesn’t move forward, Plan B could be to tax individual industries. Not surprisingly, the poll shows voters would rather tax corporations than tax themselves. PPIC reports that 55% of likely voters favor raising state taxes paid by corporations. Meanwhile likely voters turned thumbs down on the idea of raising personal income taxes (70% No), state sales taxes (64%), and vehicle license fees (62%).

However, PPIC pollsters did not follow up with any questions to test the idea of taxing corporations. Since businesses provide jobs, and increased taxes mean less revenue businesses would have to hire employees, and jobs are important to the electorate (31% of likely voters said it was the most important issue the state faces), clearly reminding the voters of the connection between higher taxes and fewer jobs would effect election results.

That old debate over California’s tax burden is making its
familiar reappearance due to a couple of articles I read recently. 

First came Dan Walters’ Sacramento Bee column last Friday titled, "Just the Facts on California’s Tax Burden." Walters acknowledged that,
"Sorting through the tax rhetoric is not easy." He produced data compiled by
The Tax Foundation,
using the measure of taxation as a percentage of personal income, which ranks
California as sixth-highest in the nation based on 2008 figures.

Walters notes this calculation occurred before the 2009
temporary tax increases in the Golden State that the governor hopes to extend.
However, he acknowledges other states have also raised taxes during the
recession and concludes that, "California has one of the nation’s highest
state-local tax burdens."

If tax extensions make it onto a special election ballot, they will probably have lots of company from reform proposals. At least that’s a scenario that is suggested by a varied cross section of state political observers.

At the beginning of last week, I wrote the governor and legislature put it “all on the ballot,” meaning besides taxes, the voters should decide on spending limits and pension reform.

A few days later, Los Angeles Times columnist George Skelton said a way to get taxes on the ballot is to address what Republicans want to see: “Offer a spending cap, regulatory streamlining and relaxation of workplace rules, along with Brown’s deep budget cuts. Toss in more public pension reform.”

On the same day, conservative commentator Andy Caldwell wrote, “I would offer to swap Gov. Jerry Brown five years of temporary tax hikes he is asking for — not because I believe they are necessary but because he and his fellow Democrats are holding all the cards — in exchange for pension reform and five years of serious regulatory relief from the laws….”

Bravo, President Barack Obama, for issuing an executive order to review and remove burdensome regulations on business.

We should follow the president’s example in California.

In a Wall Street Journal editorial this week, the president stated that he signed an executive order for regulation review because outdated regulations stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive. The president wrote, “we are also making it our mission to root out regulations that conflict, that are not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb.”

The order requires government agencies to consider benefits and costs of regulations and to seek expert advice about regulations, including input from the business community.

The president’s order comes on the back of California congressman Darrell Issa’s letter sent to business leaders asking for a list of onerous regulations on their businesses. Issa is acting in his new role as Chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Like the president, Issa is concerned with regulations hampering job creation.

A prominent piece of Governor Jerry Brown’s proposed budget
is to realign services so that governments closer to the people have more say
over services and more revenue to deal with those services. The Governor’s
argument assumes local governments can do a more efficient job with the
people’s money.

The fly in this realignment soup is headlines that have run
in California newspapers for well over a year dealing with local government
corruption and mismanagement.

• City of Bell officials are
  arrested for misappropriation of public funds dealing with outrageous salaries
  and benefits. 
• Vernon officials are
  questioned about huge salaries and face legal action. The Assembly Speaker
  introduced a bill to dissolve Vernon’s cityhood. 
• Vallejo went bankrupt. 
• FBI officials investigate
  deals made by city officials in Maywood. 
• Chowchilla defaults on a
  bond. 
• The town of Hercules is
  dealing with the appearance of government scandal. 
• Pension crises run amok up
  and down the state in many local governments.