WHICH NOVEMBER BALLOT MEASURES DESERVE A YES VOTE? 32, 33 AND 35

Transcription

1 WHICH NOVEMBER BALLOT MEASURES DESERVE A YES VOTE? 32, 33 AND 35 By Lewis K. Uhler, President National Tax Limitation Committee (website: California voters face a November ballot containing eleven propositions Props some of which are lengthy and confusing. That is likely to cause ballot fatigue and lots of no votes. A no vote is usually a safe out for voters. But not so fast, some measures will be good for California and deserve a yes vote. Our challenge as a taxpayer protection organization, which has aided taxpayers in California and nationwide for over 35 years, is to identify and suggest which ballot measures deserve a yes vote from taxpaying, common-sense citizens. In our judgment there are three yes votes Propositions 32, 33 and 35, which we have analyzed in numerical order: Prop. 32 It is a California campaign finance reform initiative that restricts and controls the special-interest money that flows into California politics and corrupts the political/legislation process. Here is what it does: - Prohibits contributions to candidates by both corporations and labor unions; - Stops government contractors from making contributions to government officials who control their contracts; - Bans the use of payroll deductions for the collection of political dues by corporations and labor unions and requires that all employee political contributions be entirely voluntary. It should be noted that public-employee unions California Teachers Association (CTA), police, fire, etc. are very fearful of Prop.32 because, among other disciplines, it stops the automatic deduction of political dues from the wages of public employees, a practice detested by a large number of public employees. It makes political contributions by employees entirely voluntary. Union leaders whose pay, perks and power flow from the current coerced dues process are pouring millions of dollars against Prop. 32. They 1

2 have been running radio ads, which the Sacramento Bee labels as misleading, claiming that Wall Street and big corporations are exempted from Prop. 32. That is untrue. All corporations and unions would be prevented from making direct contributions to candidates or contributions that constitute a conflict of interest. (Full disclosure: the author of this article participated in the design and drafting of this initiative and assisted in its qualification.) One of the best ways to judge a ballot measure is to check who signs the arguments for and against the proposition. Among those on the yes side of Prop. 32 are Jon Coupal (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association the watchdogs of our home-protecting Prop. 13), John Kabateck (National Federation of Independent Business representing small businesses across California), and amazingly, given California s political divide, former Democrat State Senator and Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero, who is fighting the teachers unions to improve education quality and weed out failing teachers. (For further background on her reasons for supporting Prop. 32, see a Wall Street Journal article, The Trials of a Democratic Reformer, by Allysia Finley, September 1-2, 2012.) Among those signing the no arguments is John Burton, California Democrat Party Chair from San Francisco, whose voting record as a legislator was very anti-taxpayer. Burton s opposition to Prop. 32 would, for many voters, be Exhibit A that a yes vote on Prop. 32 is the right choice. Prop. 33 It is an auto insurance reform initiative that improves competition between California auto insurance companies and offers drivers with histories of continuous auto insurance coverage a broader range of auto insurance choices and prices. Here is what it does: - Changes current law to allow an insurance company to offer a continuous coverage discount on auto insurance to new customers, not just to their existing customers as is now provided, increasing auto insurance competition and lowering consumer costs; - Proportional discounts would be available to drivers with insurance coverage for a portion of the prior five years; - Lapsed coverage would not count against reservists or veterans whose lapse was caused by active duty service, or non-military individuals whose lapse was caused by job loss. 2

3 Opponents raise the objection that this initiative has been financed almost exclusively by Mercury Insurance s Chairman George Joseph, who spent $16 million on a similar initiative in 2010 (Prop. 17), and lost narrowly. Many, if not most, initiative measures which have been placed on the ballot by proponents who will benefit directly from the measure are self-serving and should be rejected. But this measure can benefit Mercury Insurance only if it offers California drivers better auto insurance rates than its competitors which will drive rates down for the benefit of all Californians. And lapses in coverage caused by active military service, job loss, etc., have been addressed in Prop. 33. Supporters include law enforcement, firefighters, veterans groups (including Veterans of Foreign Wars), small business organizations, seniors groups, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, etc. Opposing is Consumer Watchdog (Harvey Rosenfield), the nurses union, Consumers Union and the California Alliance for Retired Americans. If history repeats itself, other opponents will include the California Labor Federation and the California Democrat Party (they opposed Prop. 17 in 2010). Prop. 35 It is a measure dealing with sex-trafficking in California, especially among young girls/women. This is what it does: - Increases fines and penalties for human trafficking; - Designates traffickers as sex offenders who must register; - Requires sex offenders to provide information regarding Internet access and identities they use in on-line activities; - Uses fine proceeds for law enforcement training and victim services. In addition to more severe penalties and longer terms for those convicted, state law would conform to federal law in trafficking cases involving minors: prosecutors need not show that force or coercion occurred. As one would expect, support for this measure is broad-based: Mark Klaas (Klaas Kids Foundation), California Police Chiefs Association, Alameda County District Attorney and other law enforcement elements. Opposition comes from one source in the ballot arguments: Erotic Service Providers Legal, Education and Research Project, Inc. 3

4 The other eight measures include several tax increases, elimination of the death penalty and weakening of our three-strikes law, imposing regional government, special-interest ballot box budgeting (diverting tax dollars to the initiative author s pet projects), etc. They will not help you nor improve California. In fact, they will cost you more in taxes and further undermine the California economy and jobs. They deserve a no vote. In brief, here s what they do: Prop. 30 Gov Jerry Brown s temporary income and sales tax increase measure. Tax increases, especially during a recession, will make things worse, and yet this measure, billed as aiding schools, does not assure additional money for education. Prop. 31 a well-meaning reform advanced by California Forward that would jeopardize future tax cuts (they must be paid for by increasing other taxes or cutting programs which the current special-interest-controlled Legislature will never do) and introduces regional government concepts that will hamper local government autonomy. Prop. 34 would end the death penalty in California instead of speeding up the appeals process so heinous killers get executed before they die of old age. Claims of cost savings are specious. Prop. 36 would change California s successful three strikes law. The courts and districts attorneys already work to avoid harsh application of the law for minor third strikes. Mike Reynolds, who authored the original three strikes initiative in 94 after the death of his daughter at the hands of career criminals, opposes and is working defeat Prop. 36. We should follow his lead. Prop. 37 an initiative dealing with the labeling of genetically-engineered foods. It appears to be a classic example of a special-interest initiative designed by the people (trial lawyers) who expect to benefit from litigation that will flow from the measure s complex provisions. Prop. 38 a $10 billion annual personal income tax increase of about 20% that will fall on California families, starting with increases on households which earn as little as $15,000 a year. This decade-long tax increase will further undermine California s economy, driving out jobs and investment. Prop. 39 a special-interest measure designed and paid for by a hedge-fund billionaire which imposes a billion dollar tax increase on multistate businesses, $550 million to be devoted to green projects controlled by a new nine-member unelected commission. This is ballot-box budgeting at its worst a blank check signed by California taxpayers. (Full disclosure: the author of this article signed the argument against Prop.39 in the voter pamphlet.) 4

5 Prop. 40 a State Senate redistricting measure. Proponents have since abandoned the measure and themselves urge a no vote. That s it. It is really very straightforward. The ballot measures that deserve a yes vote are Props. 32, 33 and 35 because they will help you and all Californians and give California a chance to climb out of its malaise and restore the luster of the Golden State. 5