LEAGUE PRESIDENT IN HOSPITAL

Joe Sullivan President of the Sacramento County Taxpayers League underwent surgery last week. You can send Joe a get-well card, addressed to him, to our office 1832 Tribute Road, Suite 210, Sacramento, California 95815.

10 REASONS TO OPPOSE PROPOSITION 56:

1. Buried in Prop. 56’s “budget reform” language is the provision [Section 12(f)(1)] with the furthest reaching consequences: an elimination of the 2/3rds legislative vote requirement currently needed before the legislature can raise our taxes.
2. The real aim of the “Blank Check Initiative” is to make it easier for the legislature to increase our income tax, sales tax, property tax, car tax, and other state taxes, year after year. Prop. 56 pretends to discipline Sacramento’s politicians, but it actually rewards them with an open-ended blank check.
3. Voters put the 2/3rds legislative vote requirement in the state constitution with Proposition 13 to put some reins on runaway taxes and to force bipartisan consensus and strong justification before politicians increase taxes. Prop. 56 would remove those taxpayer protections from the state constitution.
4. The California Taxpayers’ Association believes the 2/3rds legislative vote requirement is one of the few and most important protections taxpayers to have against unjustified tax hikes. Throwing it out the window would open up the floodgates to higher taxes and more runaway spending.
5. In its analysis of how 50 states spend, tax and balance their budgets, USA Today ranked California rock bottom as “the worst-performing state.” A proposition that makes it even easier for Sacramento’s politicians to approve unlimited new tax increases will only institutionalize over-spending and mismanagement.
6. Even with the 2/3rds requirement, Californians still pay $130 billion in state and local taxes every year! Imagine what we’d be paying if we made it easier for the legislature to raise taxes.
7. In this past legislative session alone, state politicians proposed more than 100 tax and fee increases totaling nearly $65 billion. Do we really want to make it easier for them to pass these increases?
8. Increasing taxes on individuals and California businesses will further devastate California’s economic engine. Giving the Legislature an even freer hand to pass unlimited tax increases will only drive more companies out of business or out of state.
9. Jobs and the income tax revenues they produce are the state’s number one resource for funding the budget. A higher tax burden on California businesses and individuals will hurt the state’s economic recovery, force more families onto the unemployment line, and ultimately require more cuts to education, health care, law enforcement and other budget priorities.
10. Voting NO will send a strong message to Sacramento. No more blank checks, cut the waste, and better spend the taxes we already pay. How about some real accountability?

LEAGUE’S “SACRAMENTO WATCHDOGS” TELEVISION PROGRAM

Special guest for January, appearing on The League’s monthly 30-minute television show Sacramento Watchdog, is Carol Evans.

Ms. Evans is the Chief Spokesperson for the “No on 56” campaign. If voters pass this terrible proposition in March, the measure will undercut Proposition 13. This initiative seeks to eliminate the most important protection taxpayers have against unjustified tax increases, the now required 2/3rds vote by the legislature to pass a budget or raise our taxes.

If Proposition 56 does pass, the state budget will be approved by a vote of just 55 percent of state legislators and our taxes will go through the roof (taxes are already through the ceiling). Liberal special interest groups and government union “leaders” are licking their chops like a pack of hungry wolves over the prospect of Proposition 56 passing.

“Sacramento Watchdog” airs on cable channel 17 on Saturday Jan. 17 at 5:00 PM, again on Sunday Jan 18 at 9:00 AM and on Monday Jan. 19 at 1:00 AM.

For more information email Carl Burton at: carl@sactax.org

SACRAMENTO CITY HALL EXPANSION COSTS

The price tag for Sacramento’s City Hall expansion continues to climb. In the last three years the cost to remodel the old City Hall and build the adjoining city administrative building has soared from $46.3 million to more than $85 million.

THE BUDGET ACCOUNTABILITY ACT INITIATIVE

There is little doubt that the Budget Accountability Act Initiative will be on the March 2004 ballot. The proponents for the Measure have collected over one million signatures against a 600,000 signature requirement for qualification. The Act is a constitutional amendment that would lower the legislative threshold for passing a budget from a supermajority (66.6%) to 55%, and in addition, cause the governor and legislators to forfeit pay and living expenses for every day they exceed the state’s June 15th budget deadline. The Act exempts property taxes, but would lower the number of votes needed to raise sales, tobacco, gasoline, income and other taxes. The measure would make it easier for the Legislature to pass a budget and in the course of doing so raise taxes. Opponents to the measure have termed the Act the “Blank Check Initiative.” If the “Blank Check Initiative” succeeds, the tax and spenders of the majority party of the legislature will be able to pass every tax increase they desire without a single Republican vote. The Taxpayers League Board voted to oppose the Budget Accountability Act at its August 21st Board Meeting, and will join the coalition, Californians Against Higher Taxes/No on the Blank Check Initiative who will fight the change to the State’s Constitution.

If this Act qualifies for the March ballot it is anticipated it will encounter a legal challenge. It emulates Proposition 24, the Legislator’s Compensation, Reapportionment Act of 2000, which proposed to take control of redistricting of political election boundaries after each 10-year census from the Legislature, and give the responsibility to the Supreme Court. Proposition 24 also reduced Legislator’s salaries from $100,000 per year to $70,000 and their per diem from $122 per day to $75. Based on having two sections of an Initiative dedicated to two different issues, the California Supreme Court ruled Proposition 24 was unconstitutional as it violated the “single-subject” provision of the State Constitution, and would not permit the Act to go on the ballot.

MEASURE A - THE TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX OF 1988

Measure A, which in 1988 added a half-cent tariff as part of the County’s present 7.5% sales tax, was aimed at supplementing county, cities, and the transportation agency’s funding for transportation projects. It is due to expire at the beginning of 2009. Local officials intend to ask voters to extend Measure A, hopefully in a ballot Measure in November of 2004, well before the 2009 expiration date. The League’s Board, consistent with its original position to support Measure A in 1988, voted to support the new Measure, trusting voters will recognize the importance of continuing improvement and expansion of transportation capabilities, and will extend the tax. However, the League’s support carries the caveat that the tariff be no more than a half-cent, and that other terms involving distribution of the money not be altered. The tax accounts for about 20 percent of the money spent in Sacramento for transportation related projects, and the flow of such money is essential to assure local matching funds are available to obtain federal funds for major projects. Executive Director Carl Burton is the League representative in the Transportation Authority, which projects transportation needs of the future.

SPLIT ROLL, SB 17 AND ACA 16, ATTACK PROPOSITION 13

The California Taxpayers Association has pointed to these proposals in the Senate and Assembly as precursors to attempts to require commercial property to be assessed at current value more frequently than residences. With regard to Senate’s SB 17, Daniel Weintraub of The Sacramento Bee wrote that the bill is likely to become a vehicle to split the property tax roll by altering change-of-ownership rules to trigger more frequent assessments of commercial property.

ACA 16 takes almost the same tack to split the roll. It requires businesses to be reassessed to current market value when more than half the company changes ownership.

The California Taxpayers Association also states that backers of these actions contend that the change-of-ownership definition for business property reassessment to current market value, without altering the Proposition 13 tax rate of 2 percent, can be done by majority votes of the Assembly and Senate, and increase property tax revenue by $3 million or more a year. Opponents say that this is an end-run around Proposition 13, and that owners of commercial property are paying taxes based on assessments closer to market value than other property.

LIVING WAGE

The so-called “Living Wage”, in the form of a City of Sacramento Ordinance, is rearing its ugly head again. It’s one of those terrible “sounds right” efforts that invariably is put into place by elected officials, or by external efforts in the form of Propositions or local Measures, and then blows up in the face of those believing they had done the “right thing”. Californians seem to want everything they can get from government, but only if it is virtually without cost to themselves. The Sacramento Bee August 9th article, “Living wage favored in new poll” demonstrated the dichotomy. It asserted that a Field Poll showed Californians “strongly back the idea of boosting the earnings of lower-paid workers on government-financed projects”, and within two sentences wrote, “Support dropped substantially, however, when people were asked if they would be willing to pay an extra $40 to $50 in taxes per household every year to finance the living wage.” The key words in those two sentences are “government financed projects” which in real terms means “subsidized by the taxpayers.” And when put in the terms of “are you willing to pay by agreeing to raise your taxes?” the enthusiasm quickly wanes.

Let’s take a good look at what The Living Wage really involves. The concept is that contractors who receive public funds for services will be required to pay wages above the minimum. Ordinances that implement the Living Wage cover contracts to private firms that provide services to the public and to a city government. In addition, they cover licensees of city property that perform propriety interests of the city government, and those businesses and individuals that receive subsidies that enhance economic development. In simple terms anything touched by city money or gratuities. It requires that both permanent and temporary employees be paid a minimum of $10 per hour if health benefits are provided, or $12.84 per hour if they are not. It also requires written agreements between an Employer and Labor Organization regarding representation of employees; dispute requiring binding arbitration, and a myriad of other things like contracting out city services that result in displacement of city employees, seniority rights when reducing employees, automatic retention rights for displaced employees, etc. City employees and union employees are exempt, which will raise an equity issue in labor negotiations.

Opponents argue that more than three-fourths of the nation’s labor economists believe the Living Wage is an ineffective and inefficient way to help the working poor. The point out that the total cost to the City and employers is $8.7 million per year, and another $5 million to the City if they apply Living Wage to their own employees.

If one looks at Living Wage dispassionately, it is not just about wages. It has a definite union stance as is demonstrated above. Its backers are the Sacramento Central Labor Council, and a national social equity group called ACORN, the Organization of Communities Organized for Reform. This was pointed out by the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, in an article by Dave Butler, its Senior Vice President, titled “Living Wage?” which appeared in the May 2003 issue of Inside the City. The Chamber opposes Living Wage, and also pointed out that the California Federation of Labor supports Living Wage Ordinances because it “reverses the tide of privatization.” More than two years ago, the first two groups approached Councilman Dave Jones, who, evidently on their behalf, introduced the Living Wage Ordinance to the City Council.

Dave Butler wrote that The Metro Chamber, working with the Sacramento County Office of Human Assistance and Area Congregations, developed a program, Direct Contact, as a counter to Living Wage. Direct Contact would connect lower-income workers, via employers, with undersubscribed federal and state programs that support work and increase workers’ net earnings. These programs include earned income tax credit, health insurance, transportation assistance, food assistance and job training. He also wrote that The Sacramento Bee’s columnist Mark Paul supports the Metro Chamber’s position, and in a March 9 op-ed piece Paul wrote that the “economic multiplier” effect used by experts to predict the net economic benefit of public policy decisions does not support a mandated living wage for low-income workers since it results in a net loss of dollars in the local economy.

The League has opposed the Living Wage concept from the outset, and believes that if the City wants to foster a Living Wage Ordinance, it should follow the lead of its author, Councilman Dave Jones, and submit the concept to the voters.

MEMBERSHIP RECRUITMENT

Our Members constitute the League’s strength, and we need our Members to recruit others to enlarge our base. Taxpayers are about to be assailed as never before for additional money from every level of government in the form of fees, assessments, rates, and taxes. Locally, the Taxpayers League is the only recognized and organized defender of the County and its Cities’ taxpayers capable of putting up a viable defense.

Over our 42 years, we have successfully defeated many attempts to raise taxes, rates and fees in the County of Sacramento. Such battles are expensive. And those we are engaged in now, and new attacks to be faced, are frightful. Members must remember that the League is composed of dedicated volunteers who battle not only on Member’s behalf, but also on behalf of people who virtually cannot help themselves forestall the onslaught. To be successful we need Members to strengthen the League by recruiting friends and associates as League Members, to donate money to the General or Defense Fund if possible.

LETTERS TO THE LEAGUE

We seek “Letters to the League” from Members concerning projects and issues on which we are working, along with recommendations on those we should look at. Letters may be edited and republished in any format, primarily in the interest of available space. Send letters, faxes, or e-mail to the Sacramento County Taxpayers League. Our e-mail is sactaxleague@prodigy.net; our telephone and fax number is (916) 921-5991; and our address is:

Sacramento County Taxpayers League
1832 Tribute Road Suite 210
Sacramento, CA 95815

Workers’ Compensation may go on the ballot in November

The People’s Advocate filed an initiative with the Attorney General’s office to reform workers’ compensation. In addition, a business group with ties to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed a ballot initiative to cut workers’ compensation costs.

While California is, for now, fortunate in that workers’ compensation costs haven’t completely stifled the state’s economy, this 90-year-old system desperately needs modernization. Companies in California pay outrageously high workers’ compensation insurance premiums — 184 percent higher than neighboring Oregon’s and 259 percent higher than Arizona’s.

Since 1997, average medical costs per California workers compensation claim have increased nearly 20 percent a year. To make matters worse, the number of workers compensation claims in California is nearly three times the national rate. California’s outdated workers’ compensation system encourages litigation and excessive filing of minor claims. Despite some legislation signed this fall, the regulations remain woefully outdated.

Specifically, we need to reword the law so that employers are responsible for compensating only those injuries that are predominately caused by the workplace. We also need to revise the current Medi-Care standard of cure and relieve. This vague, lawsuit-inspiring threshold should be changed to medically necessary. In addition we need tough anti-fraud enforcement to get the crooks out of the workers compensation business.

Finally, permanent disability benefits should be based on objective medical findings of physicians before they are paid. These incredibly simple changes will go a long way toward reducing the high cost of doing business in California.

Carl Burton

<< Back to Index

Officers