Nearly 60 percent of voters in 2014 approved Prop. 47, which recategorized certain low-level drug and property offenses from felonies to misdemeanors, in an attempt to ease prison overpopulation. 

Since then, many have attempted to link criminal justice reforms like Prop. 47 with a spike in crime in 2015 and 2016. There was even a failed ballot proposal earlier this year that would have rolled back some reforms.

The PPIC found that the two-year rearrest rate for those released after serving sentences for Prop. 47 offenses was almost two points lower than individuals released before the reforms. Meanwhile, the two-year reconviction rate was more than 3 percent lower.

However, the study cautioned that “it is too early to know” how effective Prop. 47’s redirection of funding toward treatment for offenders was.

The study found that much of the purported increase in violent crime post-Prop. 47 was the result of methodological factors, such as police departments in years prior under-reporting violent crimes or the FBI expanding the definition of sexual crimes. Meanwhile, upticks in violence were already starting in 2013 and early 2014, before reforms were enacted.

With property crime, however, the study concluded that Prop. 47 was in part to blame. “It may have contributed to a rise in larceny thefts, which increased by roughly 9 percent (about 135 more thefts per 100,000 residents) compared to other states,” the report read.

Finally, while several thousand inmates were released as a direct result of Prop. 47, the PPIC concluded its effect was more apparent in a shift by law enforcement from arresting potential offenders to citing and releasing them.

According to a Public Policy Institute of California poll released Wednesday, a majority of Californians support government efforts to improve the environment, despite possible rises in energy costs and ongoing debates about the legality and effectiveness of the state’s environmental policies.

The study, which surveyed around 1,700 California residents about various environmental concerns, found that the majority of Californians supported existing plans to combat global warming, and were willing to expand these laws, even if that means paying more for gasoline and electricity.

“We find strong support today for the state’s greenhouse gas emissions targets set 10 years ago,” PPIC president Mark Baldassare said. “The commitment to help reduce global warming includes a surprising willingness on the part of majorities of Californians to pay higher prices.”

Big dreams for a cleaner California

Sixty-nine percent of Californians approved of plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels, as laid out in AB32, one of the state’s landmark environmental laws.

But government plans to reduce emissions have been met with mixed results. The cap-and-trade program, created by the Air Resources Board in response to AB32, places carbon emission limits on businesses and allows them to purchase credits for exceeding those limits. But at May’s quarterly auction, businesses purchased only 2 percent of the anticipated revenues.

The program faces legal challenges as well. A lawsuit by the California Chamber of Commerce claims the program is actually an illegal tax on businesses, requiring a two-thirds vote to become law.

Critics have complained about how the cap-and-trade revenue is spent – that the money doesn’t often fund projects that meet the required emission reduction goals. Assemblyman Adam Gray, D-Merced, said he is concerned about how the revenues are spent, calling the program “a feeding frenzy for a multitude of pet projects,” according to The Sacramento Bee.

And though there has been a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions, some say the lower levels may reflect outside factors like business scale-backs during the Great Recession.

“The jury’s really out on whether we’ve seen a lot of reductions caused by cap-and-trade,” James Bushnell, an energy economist at UC Davis, told the Los Angeles Times. 

Despite varied expert opinions, 54 percent of respondents in the PPIC survey approve of the cap-and-trade program – after the surveyors gave a brief explanation to the 55 percent who had never heard of the program before.

Respondents also support a proposed new law that would ramp up AB32’s plans to control emissions, which would exceed AB32’s reduction goals and extend the program to the year 2030.

And 58 percent of those surveyed believe local and state governments should devote more resources to other environmental issues, as well – electric cars, solar power and drought management.

A big paycheck for California residents

Californians know that reducing greenhouse gas emissions could raise energy costs – and they are ready to foot the bill.

The majority of respondents said they would be willing to pay more for gas (63 percent) and solar- or wind-generated electricity (56 percent). The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that gas prices would rise 11 cents as a result of the cap-and-trade program.

But this widespread support of energy reforms comes alongside equally widespread opposition by those who prioritize economic concerns over the environment.

How it’s playing in 2016

Alternative energy plans come with a cost – and according to Assemblywoman Cheryl Brown, the Inland Empire may not be able to afford it. In 2015, the San Bernardino Democrat opposed a petroleum-reduction provision of Senate Bill 350, another key piece of California’s environmental policy, citing concerns that potential rising energy costs could harm lower-income families.

However, some voters said Brown’s opposition amounted to a rejection of the entire clean energy campaign and retribution was swift. Protests, rallies and criticisms from other officials have threatened Brown’s re-election, while the campaign has become a proxy war between Big Oil and Big Environment. 

“Do you ever feel that something is not going quite right?” Brown asked the Los Angeles Times in March. “They are after me, and I still don’t know why. I don’t know who ‘they’ are. But I will find out soon.”

Concerns about the impracticality of California energy reforms are reflected in the PPIC survey, as well. The majority of respondents supported clean energy programs like electric cars and charging carports, with 68 percent in favor of tax credits for purchasing electric cars, and 77 percent supportive of infrastructure for charging the vehicles.

But less than half (47 percent) are actually considering purchasing an electric car themselves, suggesting that good intentions may not match up with environmentally conscious decisions.

• 

  Denise Cross / flickr

  Auto voter law to add millions to electorate, diversifies
• Legislature doin’ budget work
• How to become a pot tycoon
• No more low- and zero-emission car subsidies
• What’s going on with Rep. Hunter’s campaign finances?

Good morning! Welcome to Thursday.

California’s electorate could grow by more than 2 million voters once a new law implementing automatic registration through the DMV starts working in 2017, according to a new study.

The study, conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California, predicts that as voter registration increases, so will diversity in the electorate among underrepresented groups.

However, determining how much the electorate will grow largely depends on the rate with which eligible voters decline automatic registration at the DMV, according to the study. 

CalWatchdog has more.  

In other news:

• The Legislature approved a $170.9 billion budget on Wednesday “that increases some funding for social services but stashes more away in a rainy-day fund,” writes the Los Angeles Times.
• And on Thursday, the Legislature will consider bills that implement budget decisions. The Sacramento Bee has more. 
• The San Jose Mercury News has everything you need to know if you’re considering a career in the CA pot industry.
• State lawmakers are ending a program subsidizing individual purchases of low- and zero-emission vehicles. The Los Angeles Times has more. 
• Did Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, pay for his kids’ school lunches with campaign funds? The San Diego Union-Tribune has more. 

Assembly:

• In at 9 a.m. 

Senate: 

• In at 9 a.m. 

Gov. Brown: 

• No public events scheduled.

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New followers: @kjt231 @dfmworkers

The study, conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California, predicts that as voter registration increases, so will diversity in the electorate among underrepresented groups.

However, determining how much the electorate will grow largely depends on the rate with which eligible voters decline automatic registration at the DMV, according to the study. 

How it works

Under the new law, the DMV will transfer data on customers, who come in for a new license or a renewal, to the Secretary of State for automatic voter registration. However, the individual can decline to participate in the process. This process is estimated to start in July 2017.

As a benchmark, the study used statistics from Oregon, where 7 percent of eligible voters declined automatic enrollment under a similar law. 

About 7.4 million Californians are eligible to vote but remain unregistered. 

Increases diversity

The new law will increase the share of the electorate for underrepresented groups. Latinos would increase their share by 4 percent, up to almost 28 percent. Asian/Pacific Islanders would jump to 16.6 percent, an increase of 1.7 percent.

The gains made by Latinos and Asian/Pacific Islanders would have a diminishing effect on African American’s share of the electorate, as their share would decrease slightly to 7.3 percent — a loss of .2 percent.

The largest jump would be among Californians with no college education, who would increase their share of the electorate from 26.8 percent to 33.1 percent.

“In general, registering the unregistered population involves bringing a very different group of people into the electorate: one that is younger, more diverse, more mobile, poorer, and less educated,” writes the study’s authors Eric McGhee, a research fellow at PPIC and Mindy Romero, founder and director of the California Civic Engagement Project at the UC Davis Center for Regional Change.

Will it lead to turnout?

Despite the new law increasing the share of the electorate among underrepresented groups, gaps will persist. For example, voters with two foreign-born parents currently experience a 15-percentage-point gap between their share of the adult population and their share of the electorate. The new law would shrink that gap to below 11 points.

The study’s authors concede that it’s difficult to determine exactly how large the new electorate will be, with the rate of declining to register as the largest variable. And the larger registration rates will not necessarily boost voter turnout, which has been decreasing for decades, but was particularly low in the 2012 primary.

“Even if (the new system) does significantly boost registration, it does not solve the problem of low turnout; it simply removes one barrier to participation,” wrote McGhee and Romero. “Many of the new registrants will be coming from disadvantaged communities and will be disengaged from politics, never having been contacted by any candidate or campaign.”

Meanwhile, according to the poll, the Republican brand is falling in California, even among Republicans, although neither party’s voters are widely satisfied with their choices for president.

And while it’s unclear how Californians will vote in November, they are currently rejecting by a wide margin Trump’s immigration positions to build a wall along the U.S./Mexico border and to deport all or many of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country.

CA will probably still chose a Democrat for president

Clinton, the former U.S. secretary of state, leads Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, 46 percent to 44 percent of California Democrats and independents, just two weeks away from the June 7 primary.

Trump, the business tycoon, leads the Republican field with 67 percent of likely Republican voters saying they’d support him. Of course, he’s also the only major candidate left standing, but 26 percent of likely Republican voters say they’d vote for someone else.

Unsurprisingly, since California hasn’t chosen a Republican for president since George H. W. Bush in 1988, both Democratic candidates lead Trump in a head-to-head matchup.

Of the two Democrats, Sanders fares better among likely voters against Trump, leading 53 percent to 36 percent with 11 percent either undecided or ready to vote for someone else. Clinton also leads among likely voters against Trump, 49 percent to 39 percent.

Are there no more options?

A majority of California voters dislike their options for presidential candidates, with only 42 percent responding that they’re satisfied. In May 2012, the same poll showed 57 percent responded that they were satisfied with their choices, which included the sitting Democratic president, Barack Obama, and the presumptive Republican nominee, Mitt Romney.

Much of the disappointment is among Republicans and independents, with only 36 percent and 35 percent, respectively, liking their choices. Fifty-three percent of Democrats are satisfied.

Republican favorability plummeting

Neither party is particularly popular in California at the moment, but Republicans are faring much worse than Democrats.

Less than half of likely voters (42 percent) said they have a favorable impression of Democrats, while only 23 percent have a favorable view of Republicans.

Even worse for the Republican Party is that among registered Republicans, favorability plummeted to 38 percent after having been at 74 percent in December.

Democratic favorability among Democrats is largely unchanged from December, having dropped only two points to 74 percent.

Californians dislike the wall

One of the most identifiable positions Trump has taken is a promise to build a wall across the entire U.S./Mexico border, which is an idea that only 33 percent of likely voters in California think is a good one.

Trump had also previously suggested that he’d deport all 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the country, although he has since softened his stance to say it’s negotiable. But 75 percent of likely voters in California say there should be some type of path to citizenship for those living in the country illegally.

This certainly contributes to why 69 percent of Latinos in California have an unfavorable view of Republicans, compared to 61 percent having a favorable view of Democrats.

Denise Cross / flickr

According to the recent Public Policy Institute of California poll, state residents like the initiative process but think too many initiatives appear on the ballot. To borrow a line from Al Jolson: “You ain’t seen nothing yet!”

Of the 100 or so initiative proposals that have been filed with the Attorney General, maybe 20 percent will make the ballot. As Los Angeles Times Sacramento bureau chief John Myers reported last month, 15 to 19 look like possibilities, the largest number of propositions since 20 appeared on the March 2000 ballot.

In the nine November general elections since 2000, the ballot has averaged about 10 propositions per election. Remember, the law was changed in 2012 to force all initiatives – measures put on the ballot by petitions – to the November elections. No longer could they appear on the June primary ballot. So the longer November ballot in 2016 could be a harbinger of future elections.

However, it is possible another rule change that is about to come into play might also limit the number of initiatives on the ballot. Now, initiative proponents are allowed to pull their initiative before a measure is certified even if enough signatures have been gathered to qualify the measure.

The idea behind this change is for initiative advocates to try and work out a legislative fix to the problem they are addressing with their initiative thus avoiding a costly ballot fight. However, the power to pull an initiative also gives proponents the ability to negotiate with others who may have a conflicting initiative and come to a mutual agreement thus avoiding a ballot duel.

As of now, gathering signatures on the street are initiative measures for death penalty repeal, parental notification on abortions, minimum wage and property tax increase on million dollar properties. These measures will soon be joined by a host of others, including an effort to hasten the use of the death penalty, which could give a clear policy choice to voters in November.

Already qualified for the ballot are measures dealing with hospital fees, voting on revenue bonds, use of condoms in adult films, school bonds and a referendum to overturn legislation on one-time use plastic bags.

The thing that voters like about the initiative process as captured in the PPIC poll is the ability to have their voices heard on policy issues. Looks like the voters will have plenty of opportunities to participate in decision-making next year.

Which in turn will probably have them grumbling again about the number of initiatives they have to consider.

But the way the questions were asked must be considered when weighing the results.

The idea of extending Proposition 30 is becoming more practical than theoretical with the submission of two separate ballot measures to achieve that goal. One measure, filed chiefly by the California Teachers Association, would extend Prop. 30 for 12 years. The second measure filed by the California Hospitals Association, a health care union and a children’s advocacy group, would make the Prop. 30 taxes permanent.

Voters Divided

The voters appear divided on extending Prop. 30 with 49 percent in favor of extension and 46 percent opposed. However, those favoring the extension drop to 32 percent if the taxes are made permanent.

One odd result from the poll was the great support for the Prop. 30 extension in the San Francisco Bay Area (63 percent) and much less support in the Central Valley (50 percent); odd, because this tax is centered on the wealthy, those with incomes of $250,000 and more. There are many more high-end taxpayers in the Bay Area than the Central Valley.

However, the way the question was asked may have something to do with this disparity. The question described the Proposition 30 tax that exists today. Poll respondents were asked if the taxes on incomes over $250,000 and the quarter cent sales tax should be extended. But, the quarter cent sales tax portion of the Prop. 30 tax measure is not included in either of the extension plans that were filed.

Could Central Valley voters have focused on the sales tax piece and would their answers be different if they knew the extension only affected high-end income taxpayers?

Split-roll property tax

Once again, PPIC asked about splitting the property tax roll under Proposition 13 treating commercial property differently than residential property by taxing commercial property according to current market value. Likely voters approved of the idea by 55 percent, with 39 percent opposed.

But this basic question doesn’t inform potential voters of consequences related to this issue. There was no effort to deal with either the potential positives or negatives of changing the property tax system. Those issues will certainly be aired during an expensive campaign over a split roll and undoubtedly would lead to different results than the poll currently reflects.

Two other taxes that are being discussed received quite different results. An oil extraction tax found 49 percent support with likely voters; a cigarette tax was supported by 66 percent of likely voters.

There could be a lot of money spent in a campaign opposed to these taxes and a fair amount of change in support. However, looking at all the tax measures at this moment in time, if the old rule were applied that an initiative needs to have at least 60 percent support in early polls to have a fighting chance at passing, then only the cigarette tax looks possible at this time.

Of course, if the ballot is full of tax proposals the old rules may not apply.

Those results from a Public Policy Institute of California survey are similar to the dissatisfaction with and distrust of state government that Californians expressed 10 years ago. The reason for that disaffection and what should be done about it was the focus of the Jan. 22 meeting of the state watchdog agency the Little Hoover Commission.

The findings in the survey of 1,704 adults conducted from Nov. 10-17 (with a sampling error of 3.7 percent):

• “Do you think the people in state government waste a lot of the money we pay in taxes, waste some of it, or don’t waste very much of it?” 54 percent – waste a lot, 35 percent – waste some of it, 8 percent – don’t waste very much of it. Seventy-eight percent of Republicans, 60 percent of independents and 46 percent of Democrats believe state government wastes a lot.
• “Would you say the state government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves, or that it is run for the benefit of all of the people?” 67 percent – run by a few big interests, 28 percent – run for the benefit of all of the people.
• “How much of the time do you think you can trust the state government in Sacramento to do what is right?” 61 percent – only some of the time, 25 percent – most of the time, 7 percent – just about always, 5 percent – none of the time.

The results were similar for all three questions across regional and demographic groups and similar to a survey conducted a decade ago. But they are slightly better than an even worse skepticism of state government in an October 2010 survey.

Federal and state governments

State officials can take minor consolation that Californians are even more skeptical about the federal government. On the other hand, Californians are less distrustful of local government, particularly in the area of wasting tax dollars, according to a May 2011 PPIC survey.

“In summary, negative perceptions about the effectiveness, responsiveness and efficiency of state government are pretty consistent over time and widely held in the public today,” PPIC President/CEO Mark Baldassare told the commission. He listed four implications of the results:

• “Californians will continue to value the citizens’ initiative process as they seek to have a say in the major decisions made by their state government.
• “Many Californians will be skeptical about the need for higher taxes and more state revenues, given their feelings about waste.
• “Proposals to move authority and control to the local level from the state level are the kinds of proposals that will resonate with Californians today.
• “Last but not least, civic disengagement will continue to be a problem. The kind of civic disengagement that we saw in the record low turnout in last year’s election. And we may not have seen the lowest of low turnouts yet, given the disengagement Californians feel from state government today.”

Only 30.9 percent of California adults voted in the Nov. 2014 general election and just 18.4 percent in the June primary, according to Baldassare, who said in his blog: “Millions of Californians who could register to vote did not, and millions of Californians who could vote opted out. These numbers clearly point to a California public that is disconnected from their state government today.”

Hopeful

But Baldassare, perhaps anticipating the PPIC survey released this week showing increased optimism that the state is heading in the right direction, closed his remarks on a more hopeful note.

“In the wake of a growing improvement in our economy and fiscal situation, which has led to higher approval ratings of the governor and Legislature than we’ve seen for several years, and also at a time when we’ve just gone through a series of major legislative and fiscal reforms that the voters have approved in recent elections, the public is signaling their support for those reforms as well as efforts to move some activities from the state to the local level through both the local control of school funding and our corrections realignment,” he said.

Asked to explain the reasons for residents’ disconnection with government, Baldassare said part of it is a general skepticism of all institutions, particularly by independent voters. He added it’s also due to Californians’ unsatisfactory experiences dealing with state government. “They do have real experiences which confirm these broadly held beliefs,” he said. “That’s where you have control.”

The question of what the state can do to win the confidence of residents became the focus of the rest of the 2½-hour hearing.

“We should focus on the things which state government can directly affect,” said Commissioner David Beier. “To me that’s the building of trust through the delivery of governmental services. One of my business school colleagues said, ‘Building trust is a question of two things: intention and competence.’ I don’t think anybody has any question about the intention of state officials to deliver high quality services and positive outcomes.

“The question is one of competence. And it’s not a question of the qualification to deliver high quality goods and services. There are better, smarter ways to deliver service. And if we can identify the top agencies and the frequency of interaction with citizens, I think we can affect at least that component of government trust.”

No respect

A big part of the problem is that the message Californians receive from state government, whether via the Internet or waiting in line at the DMV, is that state officials don’t respect them, according to Cyd Harrell, a user experience expert with Code for America, which specializes in government technology.

“Design sounds like icing on the cake or making things pretty,” she said. “But at the core, design is creating an effect on purpose. People compare the best the private sector has to offer in the same space, the five-inch screen, where it gets Facebook, Amazon or an online game. When the government experience doesn’t live up to the level of experience of the other institutions they interact with, there’s an assumption that the effect is being created on purpose.

“That’s part of where that distrust in government comes from. There’s an assumption that if I have difficulty reading it or difficulty filling out a form or it doesn’t speak in a language that I easily understand, then that’s an effect the government intends, or at least is comfortable creating as part of the design.

“In the private sector, we have companies competing to offer people the best experience for their money. Government is different, naturally. If I don’t like the experience of interacting with the government when registering my car or seeing if I’m eligible for benefits, I can’t exactly take my business elsewhere. So in some ways that can be seen as a free pass [for government officials]: ‘Don’t worry about it, where else can they go?’

“But I truly think there’s a moral imperative. Government needs to serve all of the people. It needs to offer them experiences that respect their time and dignity and their abilities, whatever those may be.”

Currently, few government agencies practice what Harrell calls human-centered design. But she said it’s not that expensive to implement. It just takes commitment from top government officials to want to do it. “So the critical thing, in my opinion, is a mind shift,” she said.

Worst enemy

Other experts at the meeting agreed that government is often its own worst enemy when it comes to working smarter and better. Bob Stone, a performance adviser for the city of Los Angeles, provided an example of the Los Angeles Fire Department’s procedure for providing two replacement pieces of uniform for each firefighter annually.

“If you were to be awarded two pieces of clothing, most people would go to the Internet, Amazon or Wal-Mart and they would buy it,” said Stone. “What the city does: the firefighter fills out a form, gets a supervisor to approve it, gets a station chief to endorse it. It’s sent to the battalion chief across town, he endorses it, sends it to the procurement office. They gather up all these things and put in an order with the supplier. A big box of supplies comes into the central yard. We pay somebody to unpack the boxes, and these go to Van Nuys and these to San Pedro, send these to West Los Angeles. That’s the way we do things.

“It’s crazy. It was a sensible way to do things in the 1950s. What they are doing, and they are going to start hopefully in the next month, they are going to give the supplier a list of fire department members who have this entitlement. And they are going to tell each of these people, ‘You’re entitled to two pieces of clothing that we’ll pay for. Go to the supplier’s website, they know who you are, identify yourself and order what you want. If you want more than two, you can buy whatever you want, you just have to pay for it. We’ll pay for the first two.’

“And this happened because we told the people that were working there, ‘Don’t do anything crazy on purpose. We do enough things crazy by accident. If you’re doing something dumb, stop it and do something smart.’ So they did this. And I’m hopeful that there are going to be thousands of examples like this.”

The Little Hoover Commission plans to submit its recommendations to the state in a report, probably later this year.

While quarterly economic growth numbers showed the fastest growth rate in a decade and a recent Gallup poll found 36 percent of respondents said it was a good time to find a job, compared to just 30 percent a month ago, a report on California from researchers at the Public Policy Institute pointed out some troubling numbers on the employment front.

While California’s unemployment rate dropped from 8.4 percent to 7.2 percent over the past year, PPIC researchers Monica Bandy and Sarah Bohn note the unemployment rate does not account for California adults who are underemployed, working part-time when they prefer full time employment, and those who have stopped looking for work — discouraged because they lack skills for the jobs available or cannot find jobs.

The researchers suggest that, when these areas are considered, California’s un- and under-employment number is actually 15.4 percent, or 8.2 percentage points above the official unemployment rate.

According to the blog post Bandy and Bohn wrote for the PPIC site:

“While California’s economy is improving, the recovery has not been strong or fast enough to keep up with the growth in California’s working-age population. Additionally, the recovery has been uneven across sectors and metro areas, and the unemployment rate is still higher than it was before the recession began. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, California has the third-highest unemployment rate in the nation — only Mississippi and the District of Columbia have higher rates. In numerical terms, 1.35 million Californians are looking for work — and more than 35% of them have been looking for at least six months.”

Understanding the full situation of the job market and those who want to work is important to move the legislature toward reducing barriers to job creation in the Golden State.

Mark Baldassare writes of a new poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, which he heads:

As the April 15 deadline for filing taxes looms, we asked Californians in the latest PPIC Statewide Survey how they view their state and local tax burden. Their responses point to a disconnect between public opinion and the views of many fiscal reformers.

A record-high 60 percent say that they pay more than they feel they should in state and local taxes. Just two years ago, 46 percent held this view. Today, six in 10 Californians also have the perception that California currently ranks above average or near the top in state and local tax burden per capita. And they are correct: A Tax Policy Center report recently ranked California’s 2011 state and local tax burden as the 11th highest in the nation.

Further, a record-low 50 percent of Californians say that the present state and local tax system is very or moderately fair. In contrast, 57 percent said it was at least moderately fair two years ago. Across income categories today, perceptions of the fairness hover around 50 percent.

Baldassare said one reason the for the change is that Proposition 30 raised the sales tax a quarter cent, soaking all taxpayers, including the poor and the middle class, for an extra $1 billion a year. It also raised the tax on “millionaires” — defined in California as middle-class folks making $250,000 a year — grabbing another $6 billion a year.

And for what? The schools and roads remain among the worst in the country.

Pensions

The extra tax dollars ensure that the pensions for retired state and local government workers remain the highest in the country, with 12,388 now enjoying the Lucullan luxury of the “100K Club” — those raking in $100,000 or higher pension payments a year. The highest is Michael D. Johnson, formerly of the County of Solano, who pulls down $371,043 a year. That’s more than double Gov. Jerry Brown’s salary of $165,228.

Baldassare continued:

But Californians appear to have little interest in changing the tax system in ways that may impact their pocketbooks. Among four types of state taxes that we asked about in our March 2014 survey, six in 10 oppose extending the sales tax to services that are not currently taxed, and fewer than half favor extending the sales tax to services even if it means lowering the overall state sales tax rate. However, six in 10 would support raising income taxes on the wealthy, while about half favor raising state taxes paid by California corporations. 

That reminds me of the old libertarian saw, “Don’t tax you. Don’t tax me. Tax that fellow behind the tree.”

And the public-employee unions might take heart from that poll result and start plumping for more taxes on those greedy rich folks and corporations, who once again need to “give back” more.

But if you tax corporations and the rich more, they have less money for jobs creation, expansion and raises. Some corporations and rich folks even leave the state, or the entire country.

So Californians still don’t know all “the true gen” (intelligence), as old Hemingway used to say.

But they’re catching on.