By Joel Kotkin
In a state ruled by a former Jesuit, perhaps we should not be shocked to find ourselves in the grip of an incipient state religion. Of course, this religion is not actually Christianity, or even anything close to the dogma of Catholicism, but something that increasingly resembles the former Soviet Union, or present-day Iran and Saudi Arabia than the supposed world center of free, untrammeled expression.




Gary Aminoff, on his TV interview show, “The Aminoff Effect” interviewed Tom Del Beccaro who is running for United States Senate in California to replace Barbara Boxer.


As the state grapples with drought, it confronts the decades of inaction by state and federal officials in expanding its water system.

In an article in the Wall Street Journal, the authors criticize the State with failing to solve water problems over the past several decades.

One of the seemingly easiest ways to expand California’s water supply would be to raise the height of the 602-foot Shasta Dam by 18.5 feet, adding the equivalent of another reservoir to the drought-stricken state.

The federal Bureau of Reclamation has been studying the idea to some degree since 1980. But regulatory delays and pushback from critics—including a Native-American tribe that has performed war dances at the dam—prevented it from happening.

Raising the dam, which is a fairly common procedure though not on this magnitude, would cost about $1.3 billion. Getting the project funded through Congress and other sources, however, would be a challenge.

The hurdles in expanding the Shasta Dam underscore a broader problem in the nation’s most populous state as it grapples with a devastating four-year drought: state and federal officials haven’t significantly upgraded California’s water infrastructure in decades.

Since the last major state or federal dam was completed in 1979, California’s population has grown to 39 million people from 23 million. Continue reading “SOLVING DROUGHT MORE DIFFICULT BECAUSE OF YEARS OF NEGLECT”

California Results: This is not Defeat!

We were naturally discouraged at the poor showing of our California Republican candidates this election.  For your information the registration numbers in Los Angeles County at the time of the election are:

Democrats     2,260,449    51%
Republicans   1,048,609     24%
D-T-S             911,394     21%
Other parties    215,556      4%
Total           4,436,008

Democrats outnumber us by better than 2 to 1 in this County.

Statewide, the numbers are:

Democrats       7,615,452    44%
Republicans      5,353,264    31%
D-T-S             3,505,527    20%
Other parties      811,640      5%
Total              17,285,883

This is only one battle in a long war. 

Keep in mind that George Washington lost every battle he fought until the Battle of Trenton.  It would have been very understanding if he and the revolutionary troops had given up.  But despite losing every battle, many soldiers lost in battle, and huge numbers of desertions, Washington kept going until he succeeded.  We need to emulate that.

Redistricting will help in 2012.  We have to increase Republican registration, which we have found is not easy to do, but we must figure out how to do it.  We also have to convince Democrats that our policies work because we can’t win with Republicans only in California.

Jerry Brown, the Democrat legislature, the passage of the proposition where Democrats alone can now pass a budget will likely put California into a fiscal bind we will not be able to easily get out of.  I am not wishing for that, by the way, just the opposite.  I am just saying that is a likely outcome.  That may give us an opportunity in 2012 to come up with a plan to fix the state that will resound with non-Republican voters.

Big government, spending beyond our means, trying to take care of everyone who needs it, supporting the public service employee pension plans, putting unrealistic restraints and higher taxes on businesses, raising utility rates to pay for AB 32, growing the state government are all programs that are unsustainable.

We need to field a good group of California candidates very soon who will be prepared to do what they have to do to win in 2012.

The national scene was much rosier.  We have taken back the House with a substantial number of seats (possibly 65).  

We will be in a position to stop Mr. Obama’s reckless deficit spending and perhaps to reverse some of the terrible legislation that he was able to pass under the 111th Congress.  We will be in a position in 2012 to gain a majority in the Senate and to take back the White House if our elected legislators stick to our principles and do what they were sent there to do. 

America as Texas vs. California: Who’s Moving Where Edition

America as Texas vs. California: Who’s Moving Where Edition

View this map (click on a county) to see whether people are leaving or moving into the specific county.

Texas’s low-cost, liberty-loving atmosphere has become an attractive alternative to California’s oppressive public sector and dysfunctional policy environment. No amount of heart-melting vistas, celebrity sightings, or traipses through wine country can make up for what almost appears a strategic attempt by one of the nation’s largest states to drive businesses and productive people away.

Now let’s look at California. Aside from the appeal of Los Angeles to people living in the high-cost northeast (you might as well have good beaches and sunny weather if you’re paying high taxes for bad services), it appears the city of angels is losing its heavenly radiance in a massive way. San Diego also looks very red. San Francisco (not included here) has a surprisingly black hue to it in defiance of that beautiful city’s high cost of living, but it has a noticeably lower volume than the other great California cities.

How to Fix California

Victor Davis Hanson has written a terrific essay on preserving what was once good in California. As always, Victor Davis Hanson is a wonderful read, and I highly recommend you read the entire short article.

In the article, he comes up with a solution as to how to save California in a single paragraph – not 2,000 pages. Hopefully without discouraging you from reading the entire essay, here is his very clear, excellent solution:

All of which raises the question: how would we return to sanity in California, a state as naturally beautiful and endowed and developed by our ancestors as it has been sucked dry by our parasitic generation? The medicine would be harder than the malady, and I just cannot see it happening, as much as I love the state, admire many of its citizens, and see glimmers of hope in the most unlikely places every day.

After all, in no particular order, we would have to close the borders; adopt English immersion in our schools; give up on the salad bowl and return to the melting pot; assimilate, intermarry, and integrate legal immigrants; curb entitlements and use the money to fix infrastructure like roads, bridges, airports, trains, etc.; build 4-5 new dams to store water in wet years; update the canal system; return to old policies barring public employee unions; redo pension contracts; cut about 50,000 from the public employee roles; lower income taxes from 10% to 5% to attract businesses back; cut sales taxes to 7%; curb regulations to allow firms to stay; override court orders now curbing cost-saving options in our prisons by systematic legislation; start creating material wealth from our forests; tap more oil, timber, natural gas, and minerals that we have in abundance; deliver water to the farmland we have; build 3-4 nuclear power plants on the coast; adopt a traditional curriculum in our schools; insist on merit pay for teachers; abolish tenure; encourage not oppose more charter schools, vouchers, and home schooling; give tax breaks to private trade and business schools; reinstitute admission requirements and selectivity at the state university system; take unregistered cars off the road; make UC professors teach a class or two more each year; abolish all racial quotas and preferences in reality rather than in name; build a new all weather east-west state freeway over the Sierra; and on and on.

While he admits that implementing the solution will not be easy, let us see if we can elect some state legislators and governors who would have the foresight and courage to undertake to restore California using VDH’s remedy. If we want to preserve this once golden state, it is what we must do.

An Important Day For California

An Important Day For California

News Release from the Republican Party of Los Angeles County:


Los Angeles County Defeats Propositions 1A-1E
and Elects Tina Park, Carmen Trutanich

Strong Message Sent to State Government

Los Angeles, CA – May 20, 2009 – Los Angeles County sent a clear message to state legislators in yesterday’s election. Strongly rejecting a contrived budget remedy that did little to curtail runaway spending and sought to further burden Californians with an additional $16 Billion in taxes in Propositions 1A-1E.

Voters soundly rejected the legislation, saying enough is enough, go back to the drawing board, and implement real fiscal strategies for a better future, not gimmicks that do not address the systemic problems that plague us year after year. Chair of the Republican Party of Los Angeles County, Jane Barnett said; “Today we relish a small victory for all taxpayers of the State of California. Now our legislature must exercise the same restraints they ask of you, me and our families.” Chair Barnett said, “We cannot spend money we don’t have.” A good lesson for all forms of Government.

In other races, Carmen “Nuch” Trutanich won his race for City Attorney of Los Angeles defeating a Villaraigosa-endorsed Democrat, Jack Weiss.

In addition, Tina Park handily won her race defeating Democrat-incumbent Angela Reddock for the Community College Board of Trustees, Seat #2.

Jane Barnett says; “We expect that Tina will be vigilant, assuring that recent Prop J bond monies are not wasted like previous taxpayer dollars spent by the Community College Board. ”


Press Contact:
Ashley Ingram
Executive Director

Propositions 1A – 1F – An Analysis

The Propositions

Statewide Special Election - May 19

By going to the web site of the California Secretary of State, which you can do by clicking here, you will find both the text of the propositions and the arguments for and against it in separate pdf files.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Vote No on Prop. 1A

March 7, 2009

“We are a government of the People and for the People instead of by and for the Politicians.”
– Howard Jarvis, 1977

Proposition 1A is a blatant attempt to raise all Californians’ taxes to support the continual overspending by Sacramento politicians.

Sacramento Politicians Wage War Against California Taxpayers!

Sacramento politicians just raised taxes on all Californians while 1 in 10 is unemployed, foreclosures are at record levels, and people and jobs are leaving the state.

These new taxes will cost the average California family over $1,100 per year.

That’s right, higher sales taxes, higher income taxes and a higher car tax. If you have children, you have lost much of your tax credit for dependents.

Now is the time to fight back! It is time to show Sacramento that “WE THE PEOPLE” are the government. The people we elect are not the bosses, we are!

The Governor and two-thirds of the Legislature have voted to make California taxpayers the highest taxed people in the country for the next two years.

To make matters worse, these same political elitists have placed Proposition 1A on the May 19 special election ballot, which would DOUBLE the damage to taxpayers if passed.

Here is what is important about Proposition 1A: Masked behind a phony spending limit is an extension of the massive tax increase just approved. Proposition 1A means an additional two years, for a total of 4 years of record high taxes. That’s another $16 billion of your money!


Prop. 1A will raise taxes on all Californians and extend them for an additional two years, taking another $16 billion from you! The already approved tax increase will cost a typical California family $1,100 annually.

HIGHER SALES TAX! Prop. 1A will extend the sales tax hike for another two years. California taxpayers already pay the highest sales tax in the nation – this is a direct attack on all working families, especially low-income residents.

HIGHER CAR TAX! Prop. 1A will extend the DOUBLING of the car tax. This affects every California car owner.

HIGHER STATE INCOME TAX! Prop. 1A will extend an income tax increase for two extra years. Californians already pay the highest income tax rates in the nation. And now they will collect more from you.

REDUCTION OF TAX CREDIT FOR DEPENDENTS! Californians with children will see a reduction in the tax credits for dependents, costing families $200 per child. Prop. 1A will extend this attack on families for an extra two years.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is urging a vote of “NO” on Proposition 1A, which DOUBLES the tax increase!


DON’T BE DECEIVED by statements that this is a “SPENDING LIMIT” initiative.

Those Sacramento politicians, who made a backroom “deal” to resolve the budget process with a tax increase that will cost the typical California family over $1,100, are offering another deal they hope will fool voters.

What they are offering is a package of measures on the May 19 Special Election ballot that will confirm their tax increase budget. However, the lynchpin of their plans is Proposition 1A.

1A is being promoted as a spending limit that will compel those under the Capitol dome to behave responsibly. This spending limit is a limit in name only because it will automatically go up as taxes are increased by the Legislature.


On March 13th the LAO released a budget report containing a graph that clearly illustrates how Proposition 1A would extend California taxes.

CLICK THE GRAPH below to open a larger version.

Prop 1A Chart

Legislative Analyst’s Office says: “Proposition 1A Results in Tax Increases.”

Click here for complete analysis by the California Legislative Analyst.


SPREAD THE WORD with our printable fact sheet. This one-page summary explains in clear English exactly why Proposition 1A means HIGHER TAXES. Print out as many copies as you like and give them to your friends, family and neighbors. Keep one for yourself so you’ll know what to say when people ask you how they should vote on May 19th. You’ll have all the answers right in your hand! Click here to download our Prop. 1A Fact Sheet.


The following are also part of the Sacramento politicians’ budget and tax package:

Prop. 1B: Provides extra funds for schools and community colleges starting in 2011 to compensate for cuts in the current budget.

Prop. 1C: Allows the state to borrow $5 billion against future state lottery sales; allows the state to change the lottery system to generate more revenue and use funds for programs other than education.

Prop. 1D: Allows the state to divert $608 million from Proposition 10 (tobacco tax for children’s health care) to general-fund costs of children’s health care in the fiscal year beginning July 1. The amount drops to $268 million a year from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2014.

Prop. 1E: Allows the state to divert $230 million a year from Proposition 63 (taxes the wealthy to fund mental health programs) to offset general fund costs of other mental health programs for two years beginning July 1.


Knowledge is power! Get informed, be informed and stay informed.

Related Information
Official “NO on Prop. 1A” Window Sign
“NO on Proposition 1A” Facebook Group
Prop. 1A Fact Sheet.

To see this article on the HJTA web site go here.

A Letter from Steve Poizner to the CRP
Steve Poizner

Steve Poizner today sent the following letter to California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring. Steve called on the CRP to formally oppose Proposition 1A on the May 19 ballot.

Steve is vigorously campaigning against Proposition 1A because its passage would result in $16 billion in higher car, income, and sales taxes for an additional two years. A copy of the letter follows:

For the text of the letter, click here.

Sonoma County Analysis

The Republican Party of Sonoma County did a thorough review of the Propositions. They came up with the following information, which I have read and find that I agree with.

The Measures
The measures are set up as a “family”- all measure 1, but with alphabetical sub-designations to divide distinct items as Propositions 1-A through 1-F. This listing tends to produce confusion among the voters on the various parts of the “family” of propositions, making it more difficult for voters to remember which to favor and which to oppose on a divided ballot. It is a way of getting voters to vote on the “package” without looking carefully at the contents. Unfortunately, some will fall for this calculated ruse. The Sonoma County Republican Party thinks the voters are due more than disrespectful ruses from their government. We have looked carefully at each proposition and have come to a common conclusion: it is not just the ballot numbering that is a ruse.

In this election, California voters are facing a barrage of unparalleled falsehoods and misrepresentations. Proponents of these bogus measures called for a May vote hoping for a low voter turnout. Do not be bamboozled. We hope you will vote as we suggest, but at all hazards: VOTE in this election!


VOTE NO on this fraud. If politicians could be prosecuted for deceptive advertising this little item would land a bunch of Sacramento hacks in jail. According to the Secretary of State’s Ballot Label for this proposition, the measure would “limit future deficits by increasing the State’s ‘rainy day’ fund,” but it would also exact “higher state tax revenues of roughly $16 billion.” Yes, Proposition 1-A is nothing less than the authorization of a massive tax increase to deposit in a state “reserve;” but these additional reserve funds are intended to be spent when state revenues drop below the amount “needed” to fund the government. Those who decide how many dollars are “needed” to fund the government also decide when to spend the reserve. In the end, the State “Rainy Day” reserve is nothing more than another pot of money to feed the big government monster.
VOTE NO on this “save now – pay later” scheme. The Secretary of State says, “Potential state savings of up to several billion dollars in 2009-10 and 2010-11. Potential state costs of billions of dollars annually thereafter.” Temporary cuts to education made now will be added back to the education budget later and taxpayers will receive the bill for the “repayment.”

VOTE NO on this shell-game gamble. If “modernizing” means increasing the public debt by writing IOU’s in the name of California taxpayers to the California State Lottery, then this could rightfully be considered as a contribution to progress. The State is having problems selling its unsustainable debt instruments to investors, so why not just strongarm some more credit from one of its own public-private partnerships?

VOTE NO on this bait and switch sham. The California Legislature imposed a tax on cigarettes a few years back on the pretence that the new tax would yield money for early childhood programs. Now, here is that same Legislature in your face telling you that it wants to move that money around in whatever way it sees fit. Make a promise. Find an excuse. Break the promise. See a pattern here?

VOTE NO on this hand-is-quicker-than-the-eye scam. Californians voted in 2004 to provide funds for specific mental health services. It was called Proposition 63. Now comes the Legislature to undo the work of the supporters of Proposition 63 by getting what they hope is a forgetful public to take money from that purpose and give it over to another purpose. So much for public earmarks! You may get your wish today, but ultimately all forms of revenue will go to the general fund where politicians can use it to meet their own agendas. Don’t fall for this undermining of the California initiative process.
VOTE NO on this sly bit of chicanery. The measure only empowers the Director of Finance to prevent the Citizens Compensation Commission from recommending an increase when a deficit year is declared. Of course, the politicians can still pass their own increases; but even if they don’t, it would be a small loss compared to the big money showered on their campaigns by the unions and other special interests. Why punish our own people for having the courage to represent us?

May Propositions: Fix is in

Dan Baren, Chairman of the Lincoln Club of Orange County and Richard K. Wagner, President of the Lincoln Club of Orange County wrote an article in the Orange County Register. You can read the article here.


The governor claims these “reforms” will solve California’s current budget crisis and prevent future calamities. He will ominously warn that all hell will break loose if voters fail to pass these initiatives. The governor’s propaganda machine will go largely unanswered – as potential opponents of the initiatives, both from the left (labor unions) and the right (business and taxpayers groups), have tacitly signed on to the deal or are simply sitting this one out.

That’s unfortunate because the initiative package championed by the governor is a sham and does nothing to address the real problems in Sacramento – runaway spending, an ever-increasing tax burden and a budgetary process that is controlled by special interests, namely state employee unions.

Start with their blatantly dishonest packaging. Proposition 1A, the cornerstone measure of the package, asks voters to rubber-stamp one of the largest tax increases in state history. You would never know it by reading the official title of the measure – “Spending Cap Amendment.”

Even worse, the official ballot statement opposing 1A makes no mention of any tax increases. Rather than use the persuasive anti-tax message submitted by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Irvine Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, the secretary of state selected an argument authored by labor groups and lamenting that the spending cap will make it too hard for the state to keep spending.

The fix is clearly in.

Other Information on 1A -1F

There are many other articles, but you get the gist.

After reading all of the above material, you have probably come to the conclusion that Propositions 1A -1F should be defeated on May 19th. Do not be fooled by the so-called “spending cap” in Proposition 1A. As you have read above, it is not a true spending cap, and, of course, Proposition 1A extends the higher taxes for an additional two years.

If you still have some questions, or doubts about whether to oppose the Propositions, please feel free to contact me.

Before closing, I would like to address one other issue. I have heard it said that the Republican Party is just the Party of No. That all the Republicans do is oppose other people’s ideas, but don’t have any good ideas of their own.

There was an alternative to the vote of the Legislature to approve the present budget last February. Most Republicans in the legislature knew that. Republicans have presented viable alternatives to the huge budget that the California legislature adopted in February, including myself. It is not true that the only possibility was to adopt the budget presented because there was no way to cut further spending and because the State would have become insolvent. You can read my proposal here.

We are Republicans. We stand for liberty, limited government and low taxes. The Propositions 1A through 1F raise taxes and increase spending, the opposite of what we stand for. Higher taxes decrease Liberty. We need to take a principled stand for what we believe in.

Vote NO on Proposition 1A and on the other Propositions.


Gary Aminoff
San Fernando Valley Republican Club


Former Los Angeles Mayor, Richard Riordan says May Ballot Propositions are a scam.

Go here to read the article in the Los Angeles Times

Here is an excerpt:

If you think Bernard Madoff is the swindler of the year, stop and consider Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, the gang responsible for the ballot measures we’ll be voting on in May.

Let’s start with the misleading titles of their initiatives.

Take Proposition 1B. It’s called “Education Funding. Payment Plan,” but all it really does is allow the Legislature to continue stealing money from education with the promise that the state will kick in $9.3 billion to K-12 education and community colleges starting in 2011.

Or how about Proposition 1C, the “Lottery Modernization Act”? What this measure does is allow the state to borrow against future lottery money to fund this year’s budget. It also promises to improve marketing of the lottery to sell more tickets. But by its nature, the lottery places a disproportionate burden on the poor, who are more likely to buy tickets. It’s hard to see how that’s “modernization.”

Then there’s Proposition 1D, with its clunky and dishonest title: “Protects Children’s Services Funding. Helps Balance State Budget.” How does it “protect” children’s services funding? By taking $1.6 billion currently committed to children’s health services and preschool and throwing it into the budget maw.

Proposition 1E, “Mental Health Services Funding. Temporary Reallocation,” is another travesty. It simply grabs $450 million that voters specifically directed to mental health services.

Additional Update – April 27, 2009

Michael Hiltzik, a Los Angeles Times reporter and analyst, wrote an article today titled,California budget fixes on May 19 ballot are mostly shams and frauds


One can always tell that a California election is drawing near because commercials lying about ballot propositions start crowding commercials lying about detergents and pharmaceuticals off the TV.

So it is with the May 19 election. Every time I turn on my set, I can already detect the acrid stench of political mendacity billowing into the room. And nearly a month yet to go.

The May ballot features six propositions, dubbed 1A through 1F, that the Legislature concocted to end this year’s embarrassing budget stalemate in Sacramento. The claim is that these measures will finally put state budget procedures on a sane path to “fiscal responsibility.”

How? By undoing some of the excesses of the past and shuffling budgetary powers around a bit, mostly so the governor will get some powers he didn’t have in the past and lose some authority he has today. Are we jazzed yet?

Read the whole article.

It remains obvious to everyone, except the uninformed public, many of whom will be swayed by and believe the deceitful advertisements that unashamedly lie about the Propositions, that these Propositions do nothing to fix the State Budget problems. Time to send the Legislature back to the drawing board to cut the fat. Don’t believe them when they tell you there is no room to cut. Spending by the State Government has increased 50% in the past five years, while the population of California increased 10% during the same period. Why? The State has added 50,000 employees to the State payroll over the past 5 years. Why?

There is room to cut. The problem is the legislators don’t want to offend the special interests that fund the Democratic Party.

California: Paradise Lost

In the wee hours this morning,in an egregious act of irresponsibility,the California Legislature imposed new taxes on the People of California to the extent of a minimum of $70 Billion.

Rather than doing the hard work of reducing spending, lawmakers felt it was easier to solve the problem mostly by raising new taxes. The legislators voting to impose these additional taxes on Californians were 100% of the Democrats in the Assembly, 100% of the Democrats in the State Senate, three Republican Senators, Maldonado, Cogdill and Ashburn and three Republican Assemblymen, Niello, Villines and Adams, all of whom broke their word because they signed a “no new taxes” pledge. No other Republicans supported the tax increase proposal. I want to congratulate those Republicans who stood strong and tried to defend the people of California against these taxes. In particular, Assemblyman Chuck Devore, candidate for U.S. Senate, and State Senator Dennis Hollingsworth, new Minority Leader, although all Republicans who chose not to vote for the measure should be commended.

It is, in my view, unconscionable for Republicans to have supported the imposition of this huge additional tax burden on the residents of California. I know that those who voted for it thought that it was the only way that anything was going to get passed that would close the budget gap and prevent the State from having to go bankrupt, and I also know that they were strongly pressured by the Governor. I think they chose the easy way out rather than doing the hard work.

What were the alternatives, you ask? Well, let me say that one possibility was going back to the 2003 budget, which was the year we recalled Gray Davis and Arnold came in, and increase each line item in that budget by two factors: 1) the increase in population since 2003, and 2) the inflation rate for those years. The other possibility was to start over. Do Zero-based budgeting. That is you start with each line of the budget and decide what is necessary and what isn’t. Each line starts out at zero and then you justify each addition.

Let me give you some examples of why the budget is out of whack (a professional term). In 2003 the population of California was approximately 35 Million. Today the population of California is about 38.5 Million. An increase in population of approximately 10% in five years, or roughly 2% per year.

The State spent a total of $78 Billion in the 2002-2003 fiscal year. The State spent a total of $105 Billion in the 2007-2008 fiscal year. That is an increase of 35% in spending in 5 years, or roughly 7% increase in spending every year. The population is increasing at the rate of 2% per year and spending is increasing at the rate of 7% per year. Is something wrong here?

The number of employees of the State of California in 2003 was approximately 321,000. The number of employees of the State of California today is approximately 360,000. An increase of 40,000 employees in five years, or an increase of an average of 8,000 new State employees per year, or roughly 30 new employees on the State payroll added EVERY DAY. Is the legislature saying that the State can’t run without adding 30 new employees every day? Is the legislature saying that the State can’t run if we lay off 20,000 of the new employees that we have added since 2003? Why not? The state ran with 40,000 fewer employees in 2003.

Are you telling me that the only way to make up the budget deficit is by raising taxes? Is reducing spending not an option?

The special interests in California who have Democratic legislators in their pocket are running the state and driving it into bankruptcy, and driving businesses out of California. California was the sixth highest taxed state in the nation before this bill was passed. We will soon have the distinction of being the highest taxed state in the nation.

Here are just a few of the new taxes Californians can look forward to:

* You will pay a state income tax “surcharge” of 5.25%
* Your sales tax on most everything you buy will boosted a full 1.00%
* Your car tax (Vehicle License Fee) will mushroom to 77% higher than now.
* Your dependent tax credit will be slashed by two-thirds, in effect, costing you $200 per child

I don’t understand why any Republican would vote for a bill that will cost the average family between $1,000 and $2,000 per year in additional taxes. If you want to get an idea of what this new bill will cost your family, you can calculate it here.

But wait, there’s more.

This tax increase will not solve the problem. I can almost guarantee that the projected tax revenues will not be received. There will be another shortfall within a few months and they will be back to take more money out of your pocket. This is not the end of your being over-taxed by a Democratic legislature that wants to take your money, because they feel they know how to spend it better than you do, and because they would rather take more money from you than make the difficult choices about cutting spending. More to come.

Because Abel Maldonado knew that he could not win a statewide election in the future where there were only Republicans voting, he made, as a condition of his agreeing to the tax increase bill, that there be open primaries in the State of California. That will be on your ballot soon. What does that mean? It means that Democrats will be able to vote in Republican primaries, and vice versa. That means that, if the measure passes, from now on, Democrats will choose who the Republican candidates are.

This bill is going to cause severe economic problems in the State of California, along with AB32 which places impossible burdens on businesses in California. Business are already moving out of state. California is now ranked as one of the most business-unfriendly states in the union.

This tax increase bill, coming on top of the huge devaluation in our currency (inflation) which will result from the gigantic federal stimulus spending package, will mean much economic pain for Californians over the next five or six years.

The car tax increase will not generate the revenue that the legislature and the Governor think it will. I heard two people today tell me that they are now going to postpone buying a new car because of the car tax. How does that help the auto industry? There are always unintended consequences of raising taxes.

What can we do about it? There is only one answer. Elect fiscally conservative honorable Republicans to the State legislature to replace profligate Democrats. California Democrats, as well as Republicans, will be hurt by this bill, and they may be more willing to listen in the future to candidates who care about their financial well-being and who will take a stand for them in the legislature.

My daughter and son-in-law left Los Angeles to move to Nevada in 2008. While I personally hadn’t considered leaving the State before, I feel it is now something to think about. Nevada has no state income tax.

Prop. 87 – Economic disaster for California

Prop. 87 – Economic disaster for California

The November 2006 California Ballot includes a measure “California Clean Alternative Energy Act” (Proposition 87). It is a measure that is likely to drastically diminish every Californian’s quality of life, while devastating the California economy.
Continue reading “Prop. 87 – Economic disaster for California”