A bill introduced by Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia, D-Bell Gardens, would roll back the sales and usage tax exemptions for certain, less-nutritious, snack foods.

The measure, part of Garcia’s agenda to highlight inequities in the tax code, requires a heavy lift to become law. In 1992, voters repealed a tax on snacks, leaving most candy and junk food exempt from sales tax. The measure requires two-thirds majority and a vote of the people.

Garcia’s office estimates the measure would bring in around $1 billion in tax revenue annually. 

While the additional revenue could fund any number of priorities, Garcia has long sought to make a point that snacks with little nutritional value are not taxed, while necessities — feminine hygiene products like tampons — are.

“As I took a closer look at our tax code, it became apparent that while California’s policy is to tax luxury items, the reality is that it’s inconsistent,” Garcia said in a statement. “We tax necessities like tampons but exempt chocolate bars.”

Anti-tax groups are already lining up against the measure, arguing that it was an “administrative nightmare” to tax some items and not others.

“California voters repealed the snack tax 25 years ago by a resounding two to one margin,” said David Wolfe, legislative director for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “They stated very clearly then that they didn’t want a regressive and punitive billion dollar tax that predominantly targeted low-income individuals. Nothing has changed.” 

Alejo honors his mother Woman of the Year. Courtesy of Alejo’s office.

At a time when voters are increasingly convinced the system is rigged, some state legislators are making that perception worse by giving district-wide awards to their family members, critics say.

While it’s not uncommon for legislators to participate in award ceremonies recognizing constituents for their accomplishments, it’s becoming more common for those honorees to be friends and family members of the legislators.

In March, members of the Legislature honored women from their districts to be Woman of the Year: Assemblyman Luis Alejo picked his mother. In May, Assemblywoman Nora Campos selected as Small Business of the Year a brand new political strategy firm both her brother and her longtime political consultant work for, which had also held fundraisers for her. And just a few weeks ago, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez picked her boyfriend, Nathan Fletcher, a former state legislator, to be Veteran of the Year.

“These ‘awards’ are a generally cost-free technique for buying some goodwill in the community,” said John J. Pitney, Jr., a Roy P. Crocker professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College. “Generally, they are harmless, but when lawmakers give them to their relatives, friends and squeezes, they just contribute to the sense that the political system is rigged.”  

“We already have a surplus of cynicism, and this nonsense makes it worse,” Pitney said.

Hurts the association

This was the first year Campos, a San Jose Democrat, chose to participate in the Small Business of the Year award, selecting Voler Strategic Advisors, which had been in business less than one year and does not have a working website.

The same month the award was given, Voler held a fundraiser for Campos’ Senate campaign — Campos is challenging Sen. Jim Beall, a fellow San Jose Democrat.

“This is absolutely not the spirit of the award,” said Samantha Toccoli, legislative coordinator for the California Small Business Association, one of the groups in charge of the program.

California Small Business Day was created by an Assembly resolution in 2000. Toccoli said she was unaware of any familial relationship between Campos and Voler and added that the organization is run by volunteers who have no way of efficiently vetting every honoree.

“I would hope that this reflects on the legislator and not the integrity or intention of our organization and the 25 other organizations that host the event,” Toccoli said. 

A Campos spokesperson countered that the award was technically given to Voler’s owner, not Campos’ brother, Xavier, who is a senior vice president, or her longtime political consultant and former communications director, Rolando Bonilla, who is Voler’s chief strategy officer.

Look no further

For Alejo, a Watsonville Democrat, it’s his last year in the Legislature, having been termed out and elected to the Monterey County Board of Supervisors — he said he “could not think of anyone better” for the award than his mother, Maria Luisa Alejo Covarrubias. 

“I wanted to honor my mother during my last year in the state Assembly,” Alejo said in a statement at the time. “Our mothers are our first teachers and made us who we are today. My mother has done so much for my family and for our local communities, and I could not think of anyone better for this year’s Woman of the Year for Assembly District 30.”

Alejo did not respond to requests for comment.

Cronyism?

Because Gonzalez’s boyfriend is a former legislator, her awarding Fletcher was more conspicuous than the two prior examples. On Instagram, Fletcher said: “Honored to be chosen as Veteran of the Year by my Assemblywoman:)” 

San Diego Republicans blasted Gonzalez, a San Diego Democrat, for choosing her boyfriend, which she defended on Facebook by highlighting Fletcher’s work with veterans, by denouncing the attacks as partisan and by blaming the media. She pointed out that others, including Republicans, had done the same.

“It is well known that Nathan and I are in a committed relationship, but there is a long line of assemblymembers who have picked husbands, wives, fathers, mothers and other relatives for recognition,” Gonzalez wrote. “Never once has it been questioned.”

Not who it is but how it looks

But the question isn’t so much whether Fletcher or any of the others are deserving of the awards, it’s a question of what message these actions send to the public, which is already weary from the perception of widespread double standards and cronyism. 

“These examples reflect poorly on the Legislature,” said David Wolfe, legislative director for the right-leaning Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “We need to ask if the awards program as a whole is in the best interest of California taxpayers.”

“If the Legislature truly desires to honor [taxpayers] it should rededicate the hours that they currently spend on pomp and circumstance shows like these and instead focus on fixing real problems, like our state’s $500 billion unfunded pension liability,” Wolfe said.

Lax leadership?

So far, the three incidents are isolated to Assembly Democrats and it’s unclear if Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood — who waited more than two months to take action against a committee chairman accused of domestic violence and under a temporary and then three-year restraining order — will ask fellow legislators to abstain from taking actions that give the appearance of cronyism.

Rendon did not respond to requests for comment.

The high-profile coalition of supporters — which spans the partisan divide with powerful advocacy groups and influential members of both parties — is aiming for a vote in the Assembly next week to block law enforcement from circumventing strict state law by partnering with the federal government in a program called “equitable sharing.”

On the right, Republican consultant Mike Madrid and Shawn Steel, a former chairman of the California Republican Party, are urging Republican support while California Democratic Party Chairman John Burton is working with Democrats. 

It’s uncommon for Madrid, who specializes in Latino issues, to weigh in so heavily on policy issues inside the Capitol. But, as he told CalWatchdog, Senate Bill 443 is a “no-brainer” because it upholds the core Republican values of “not preying on the poor” and the right to due process, and, politically, it could make inroads in minority communities that have been disproportionately affected by the current civil asset forfeiture system.

“If you can’t do this, you don’t have a shot at expanding the base,” Madrid said of Republican lawmakers.

Madrid said Republican lawmakers who opposed the measure lacked a “political backbone” because they are “afraid of offending law enforcement,” which is a historically strong ally on the right. 

Madrid added that Assembly Republican Leader Chad Mayes has a “unique opportunity” to help the poor, which has been a central theme of the Yucca Valley Republican’s agenda since becoming leader in January.

A Mayes spokesperson on Monday told CalWatchdog he had not announced how he would proceed. Mayes voted against the measure in September.  

Those affected

A report issued this month by the ACLU of California showed 85 percent of proceeds from equitable sharing in California go to law enforcement agencies in communities with a majority of people of color.

The study also reported that the counties with higher per capita seizure rates have below average median household incomes and that the number of California law enforcement agencies participating in the equitable sharing program increased from 200 to 232 over the last two years.

Who cares? Isn’t it just drug dealers?

The program was designed to seize the assets of large criminal enterprises, toppling them in the process — which the law would still allow if SB443 were to pass. But as budgets were cut, law enforcement saw it as a viable revenue stream, and the claims of abuse started piling up.

One notable example was the attempted seizure of a $1.5 million building in Anaheim because the landlord rented space to a medical marijuana dispensary (which was legal in CA).

Another case involved Bob Alexander, who had $10,788 in cash that he was about to use to purchase a car for his daughter before the money was seized in Mendocino County because he had medical marijuana on him (along with the doctor’s recommendation for the marijuana, which was shown to police).

Alexander did get his money back eight months later. No charges were ever filed.

Current law

Current California law already bars the practice of seizing property without a conviction for assets valued at under $25,000, and requires “clear and convincing evidence” of a connection to a crime for assets exceeding $25,000 in value.

Law enforcement can get around that if the seizure is done in coordination with federal law enforcement and 20 percent of the proceeds are kicked up to the federal government. Yet there’s often not even an arrest because federal law doesn’t require it. Instead, there only needs to be suspicion that the property, not necessarily the person, is attached to some criminal activity.

People often get their property back after considerable time and frustration — but sometimes they don’t. So the bill, sponsored by Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, and Asm. David Hadley, R-Torrance, would close that loophole and require a conviction for seizure of assets of any amount. Proponents like Mitchell and others say the practice often violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Support builds

It’s not just Republicans whose support is being whipped. A large share of Assembly Democrats either voted against the measure or just didn’t vote, after nearly unanimous support in the Senate.

Burton — who as a member of the Legislature decades ago and authored the bill that established much of the state’s relatively strict civil asset forfeiture laws—- has been reaching out to Democrats.

“I am especially disheartened and disappointed to learn that the state reforms that I and your predecessors worked so hard to put in place have been cast aside by California law enforcement agencies in favor of less protective federal laws,” Burton wrote last week in a letter to Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount. Rendon voted in favor of the bill in September.

However, Republicans are in a tighter squeeze than Democrats, wedged between law enforcement and limited government intrusion. But the right-leaning Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association gave lawmakers political cover on Monday when it issued a letter of support, pointing to the sharp increase in seizures from the federally-supported equitable sharing program.

“(T)here is also no denying the fact that law enforcement is largely to blame for the situation that SB443 aims to fix,” wrote David Wolfe, legislative director for HJTA. “Rather than use the federal law selectively, they have overplayed their hand.”

Law enforcement’s position

Opponents of the bill argue that law enforcement doesn’t police for profit, and asset seizure is a vital tool used to cripple criminal organizations, partially by funding costly investigations. The California District Attorneys Association claimed the bill would “deny every law enforcement agency in California direct receipt of any forfeited assets.”

“California’s asset forfeiture law will be changed for the worse, and it will cripple the ability of law enforcement to forfeit assets from drug dealers when arrest and incarceration is an incomplete strategy for combating drug trafficking,” Sean Hoffman, CDAA’s director of legislation argued in a letter against SB443.

“Narcotics investigations are costly, and the California asset forfeiture law’s dedication of forfeiture proceeds to the seizing law enforcement agencies speaks to the serious resource needs involved when drug traffickers and their ill-gotten gains are pursued,” Hoffman added.

A CDAA spokesperson on Tuesday said the group was still opposed to the measure, but did not lobby against “inactive” bills, which SB443 is at the moment. 

Actually, nearly half of the state’s personal income tax revenue comes from the top 1 percent of earners — 150,000 individual tax returns. And personal income tax revenue is 65 percent of total revenue, which means the One Percent provides 33 percent of the state’s total revenue. 

Besides volatility of the revenue stream — the One Percent’s personal income comes largely from capital gains, which are generally tied to the stock market — what happens if a Mark Zuckerberg or a Larry Ellison — #6 and #7 on Forbes’ list of wealthiest people in the world — leaves the state?

In New Jersey, another top-heavy state, one billionaire relocated to Florida, leaving as much a $140 million hole in the budget. 

Few in California dispute the over-reliance on top earners is an issue. It’s in Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget summary and even the credit rating agencies Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s have warned against it. However, there is conflicting opinions of what needs to be done. 

There could be tax reform, but is that a flattening of the tax code? Or a shift to sales tax on services? Higher property taxes? Would the solution be revenue neutral, meaning tax increases in one area are offset with decreases elsewhere? And what are the new consequences that might come with new tax dependencies? 

What requires a frank discussion has so far drawn only whispers. Many on the left feel that while this is a problem, the state is on a good path, with reduced debt, a growing reserve fund, increased education spending and moves to address the state’s unfunded liabilities.

Republicans, on the other hand, lose sleep over the more than $400 billion in debt (including unfunded liabilities), the warnings from credit agencies and outside groups saying the state will falter in an economic downturn and a proposed 12-year extension of a “temporary” tax imposed on the wealthiest of residents that they see as only perpetuating the problem. 

“I’m very concerned about where we’re at today,” said Assembly Republican Leader Chad Mayes of Yucca Valley. “You’ve got a very few people paying a vast majority of the revenue collected by the state. That doesn’t put us in a very good spot.”

A downturn is coming likely sooner than later

It’s a question of when, not if, an economic downturn will occur. In Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget introduction released earlier this year, it warned that California is in “its seventh year of expansion, already two years longer than the average recovery.”

“While the timing is uncertain, the next recession is getting closer, and the state must begin to plan for it,” the introduction continued. “If new ongoing commitments are made now, then the severity of cuts will be far greater — even devastating — when the recession begins.”

Tax reform

As a starting point, both sides agree some kind of tax-code overhaul is necessary. However, that’s about where the agreement ends. 

Senate Budget Chairman Mark Leno told CalWatchdog the state is “to a certain degree overly dependent on the highest wage earners,” and suggested increasing the vehicle licensing fee (the “car tax”) because it’s more stable, although he conceded the toxicity of the issue makes it difficult. For example, Congressman Ted Lieu, when he was in the state Senate in 2012, pitched the idea of increasing the car tax, but relented only five days later after backlash from hundreds of constituents, including his wife.

Another idea Leno, the San Francisco Democrat, pitched was extending sales tax to services, to reflect a shift in the state’s economy away from manufacturing, which he again agreed was “a difficult conversation to have.” He lauded the efforts of Sen. Robert Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, who is sponsoring legislation to do just that. 

David Wolfe, legislative director for the right-leaning Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, suggested a simplified tax code — not quite a flat tax rate, but close. Wolfe said with the proper analysis sales tax on services is an idea “worth considering,” but it would require cuts elsewhere for their support.

“Of course, the overall sales tax rate would need to be lowered in order to make it revenue neutral because the base is being broadened,” Wolfe said.

Additional burdens

There are a few programs that limit the state’s flexibility, even though the individual programs may be beneficial:

• Prop. 13 capped the rate property taxes could increase annually at two percent.  
• Prop. 98 requires that a large percentage of the state’s general fund be spent on education. 
• Prop. 2, also known as the Rainy Day Fund, sets aside a certain amount of money annually to buffer the budgetary effects of an economic downturn. However, even if fully funded it would only reserve 10 percent of the general fund tax revenues.

“While a full Rainy Day Fund might not eliminate the need for some spending reductions in case of a recession, saving now would allow the state to spend from its Rainy Day Fund later to soften the magnitude and length of any necessary cuts,” according to Brown’s budget explanation. 

Prop. 30 extension

It’s likely that voters will consider a 12-year extension to Prop. 30, which is a “temporary” tax on top earners and a quarter-cent sales tax increase.

It was approved during the last downturn primarily to avoid deep cuts in education. It is set to expire in two years, but proponents saw this campaign cycle as more favorable. 

The Prop. 30 extension only perpetuates the state’s over-reliance on personal income tax, said Carson Bruno, a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. 

“Prop. 30 doubles down on this problem by making the income taxes even more reliant on the highest earners,” Bruno said. 

Bruno agreed Prop. 30 expiring would leave a hole in the budget, but said legislators should have been preparing for this, as it was “temporary.”

“If they haven’t been doing that then that’s kind of irresponsible,” Bruno said.

By Katy Grimes

An Assembly Constitutional Amendment attacking Proposition 13 is expected to be heard in the Assembly today, and some are saying it may even be passed by the Assembly.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association learned only yesterday that Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8 by Assemblyman Bob Blumenfield, D-Los Angeles, was moved out of the Assembly Local Government Committee and taken up without committee hearings or public vetting, and moved directly to the Assembly Floor today along with the other budget bills.

I had a chance today between floor sessions to talk with David Wolfe, Legislative Director for the HJTA, about ACA 8.

HJTA is a non-profit association “dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights, including the right to limited taxation, the right to vote on tax increases and the right of economical, equitable and efficient use of taxpayer dollars,” according to their website.

While a two-thirds vote is required to pass ACA 8 because it amends the Constitution, there are enough Democrats in the Assembly to pass the bill.

“This represents a direct attack on Prop. 13 because it lowers the two-thirds vote to 55% to fund various infrastructure projects,” Wolfe, told me.

“This sets up an unexpected opportunity to tarnish the Governor’s budget,” Wolfe explained. “We can now make the case that instead of demonstrating restraint, Democrats are showing their true colors. All they’ve ever really wanted to do with their supermajority is raise your property taxes.”

According to Wolfe, ACA 8 is a direct attack on Proposition 13 because it undermines the one percent property tax cap. Any bonds or special taxes approved by voters are added onto property tax bills ‘below the line’ and are separate from Prop. 13’s stable one percent threshold.

This is why Californians commonly pay 1.2 or 1.3 percent on your property tax bill. Lowering the two-thirds threshold would mean this amount will go even higher.

“For evidence of what happens when the threshold is lowered, look to Proposition 39 school bonds,” Wolfe said. “Hundreds of millions of dollars of bonds have been approved across California in the last 12 years that would not have occurred with a two-thirds vote.”

Prop. 39 was passed in 2000, specifically to reduce the threshold required to pass local California school district bond issues from a 2/3rds supermajority vote to a 55 percent supermajority vote. “Prior to the passage of Proposition 39, about 60% of local school bond ballot questions succeeded in getting the previously required 2/3rds vote. In the wake of its passage, about 75% of local school districts are passing with the 55% requirement,” according to Ballotpedia.

Even with Prop. 13, California is only 14th in combined state-local per capita property tax payments according to the Tax Foundation. “If ACA 8 clears the Legislature and is approved on the statewide ballot, this will move property taxes closer to the number one rank we already hold in other broad-based tax categories like income taxes, sales taxes, and gas taxes,” Wolfe said. “Only property owners will pay for these bonds over 30 years but everybody gets to vote on them, making the two-thirds vote of crucial importance.”

 Public infrastructure projects’ snowball effect

The language of “public improvements” listed in ACA 8 is incredibly broad. It does not just target public safety infrastructure facilities but targets streets and roads, sidewalks, transit systems, highways, water and sewer systems, parks and the furnishing and equipping of buildings,Wolfe explained. “The ‘life-cycle cost’ on this bond debt would be heinous,” Wolfe said.

“For those who say ‘Ah, let the people decide’ well, they have,” Wolfe added. “According to polls released this month, 62 percent of voters still support Prop. 13.”

“A recently released Field Poll showed well less then 50 percent of voters supported a change to lower the two-thirds vote threshold for special taxes under any circumstance.”

If ACA 8 passes, it will be unprecedented, Wolfe said.