Author: Jon Coupal

It’s been a rough year for taxpayers in California. As 2009 comes to a close, Californians find themselves clutching their wallets more than ever.

Below, a look at the diabolical, dangerous, and downright worst Tax schemes of 2009:

#10: As part of last summer’s Budget deal, Legislators agreed to sneak an additional 10% Income Tax Withholding from Californians’ paychecks just in time for the holidays.

#9: Claiming he could solve the State’s budget crisis with a single puff, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano introduced AB 390. He claimed the bill would close California’s budget gap to the tune of $12 to $18 billion by legalizing – then Taxing – marijuana sales.

#8: Desperate to find revenue, Governor Schwarzenegger threatened to solve the Budget crisis&hellip one Golf course at a time. His plan to tax “greens fees, monthly dues, and golf cart rentals” got caught in the rough. Perhaps he feared a nine-iron to the rear windows of his black Suburban?

Sacramento lawmakers are unhappy with their jobs. Recent complaints by members of the Legislature include: People don’t appreciate them; solving problems is hard work; they don’t have the power they think they deserve; their retirement is mandated by term limits; there is no lucrative pension; and their pay is being cut – although they will remain the highest paid lawmakers in all 50 states at nearly $100,000 annually along with a car and another $30,000 a year in tax free expense money.

If lawmakers don’t like their jobs, their dissatisfaction is not nearly as strong as that of the general public. The October Field Poll showed the Legislature’s approval at a record low 13%.

“Who wants to grow up and be held in low esteem by 87% of the people and have to deal with the budget and not have a darned thing to say about it,” Assemblyman Juan Arambula told the Los Angeles Times.

Last month, the Legislative Analyst Office predicted a budget
shortfall for California’s next fiscal year so large it shocked even
seasoned observers. The projected $20 billion shortfall is larger
than the entire state budgets of all but a handful of other states.
The LAO also excoriated the continued use of budget gimmicks,
including unrealistic assumptions of new revenue and accounting tricks
employed to effectively borrow from future years.

But it is not as though we didn’t see this coming. Try as they might,
our state political leaders simply cannot reduce spending to a level
equal with revenue. Instead, with the help of a few Republicans, last
February the state enacted the largest tax increase ever imposed by
any statehouse in the history of America. The results were
predictable: Like the tax increase of 1991, California plunged deeper
into recession and produced less revenue.

Last week the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association sent the AB 32 Economic and Allocation Advisory Committee (EAAC) a letter spelling out the reasons why we believe that the state has no legal authority to impose a new AB 32 auction tax on California companies and consumers. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Governor have asked the EAAC to provide advice to CARB on how to spend up to $143 billion in new government revenue. We thought it would be wise for the EAAC to consider whether CARB actually has the authority to raise this revenue in the first place.

The idea of an auction tax has long been promoted by environmental organizations and is being considered by CARB as a way to impose a California-only cap-and trade system that would ration conventional energy use as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under AB 32, our state’s Global Warming Solutions Act.

Beyond the fact that imposing a new $143 billion or more tax on California’s already struggling companies would destroy thousands of jobs and force more employers to leave the state, CARB has no legal authority to initiate a cap and trade auction, as the Legislature did not grant any such authority under AB 32. Should lawmakers attempt to bestow this taxing power on CARB retroactively, it will require a two-thirds vote of both houses because imposing government costs through a cap and trade auction is clearly a tax.

Two years ago, when then Assemblywoman Sally Lieber introduced a
bill to prohibit the spanking of children, she was ridiculed for
what many Californians considered to be frivolous legislation. In
light of recent revelations of the “S & M” tinged escapades of a
married, middle-aged lawmaker and one or more lobbyists, some
capitol observers are wondering if Lieber should have targeted an
older demographic.

Although the just-resigned legislator, who described his conduct to
a colleague unaware that he was also sitting before an open
microphone, now says he made it up, it calls into question just what
services and gifts are provided by lobbyists in an effort to
influence legislation. After all, the lobbyist with whom the
official claimed to have this special relationship had business
before a committee on which he served as vice-chair.

The Sacramento Bee recently completed an analysis of gifts, over and
above campaign contributions, that are provided to California
lawmakers. The Bee found that between January 2008 and June 2009
lobbyists gave legislators, their staffs and relatives about
$610,000 in gifts.

Thousands of taxpayers, farmers and small business owners will converge on California’s Capitol in Sacramento tomorrow for a Tea Party rally which is being sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

At the top of the event’s agenda are California’s job-killing global warming law, AB 32 and the devastation of Central Valley farmlands in an effort to protect a 2-inch long minnow. Economists estimate AB 32 will cost our state over 1 million jobs, will cost the average family nearly $4000 annually and will cost the average small business almost $50,000. Many Central Valley farmers have seen their fields turned into a dustbowl by an order shutting down water pumps, and unemployment in some rural communities now exceeds 40%.

From the huge April 15th Tax Day Tea Party, to our overwhelming defeat of Proposition 1A, taxpayers are in revolt. Much like when Proposition 13 was passed, taxpayers are fed up with a government that has made California a state that leads the nation in high taxes and high unemployment. Unbelievably, some state officials are now even pushing for higher gas taxes and higher property taxes on businesses.

This article was co-authored by Pedro Morillas

Readers of this column may do a double take to see CALPIRG and the
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association advocating an identical
position. But when it comes to government transparency, we are
surely reading off the same sheet of music.

There is little debate that confidence in California government is
at a historic low. But even though a budget resolution has been
reached, a big challenge for Sacramento in the months ahead will be
to restore the trust that has been squandered.

Amid the dark fiscal news, one ray of hope coming from the budget
fiasco was the governor’s executive order to put government
contracts online and make them searchable by the public. Budget
transparency, while not a new idea, can be revolutionary. Public
oversight of the state’s purse is a cornerstone of democratic
government and provides an added incentive for those in government
to spend tax dollars as efficiently as possible. Transparency is an
important part of any real budget reform.

The California Commission for the 21st Century Economy was created
by the Governor and Legislature in October of 2008. Its main
purpose, at least that which was represented to the public, was to
deal with the real issue of California’s revenue volatility. By now,
almost everyone knows that California is overly reliant on the
income tax to run the state and, because of its steep progressivity,
we are even more reliant on a handful of the “evil rich” to pay the
lion’s share of that tax. (Of course, notwithstanding this reliance,
our elected leadership still goes out of its way to drive these rich
folks out of California to places where profit and success aren’t
dirty words.)

Days after the Commission was created, this columnist wrote a piece
ringing the alarm bells. At the time, none of the commission members
had been selected but the real concern was that all twelve of the
Commission members were to be selected by individuals — the
Governor and Legislative leaders — who had just actively pushed for
massive tax increases. Without quality taxpayer representation, the
commission would have zero credibility.

Senator Steinberg, I realize that you are not inclined to listen to
the concerns of ordinary taxpayers so you will probably ignore this
message — hmmm, perhaps if we called ourselves a taxpayers “union”
that would get your attention. Also, if you do read this, it will
probably not be for several weeks as, immediately after the
California Senate voted on the budget amendments, you jetted off to
Hawaii.

In the political arena, citizens have come to expect a certain
amount of dissembling from their elected officials. But even
expecting a “normal” level of nonsense from politicians, there are
certain moments when we hear something so profoundly inane from
elected representatives that our jaws drop.

On Thursday, you addressed reporters in the hallway of the Capitol
to discuss the schedule of taking the vote on the negotiated budget
amendments. One of your observations, unprompted by any reporter’s
question, was as follows: