Maybe sell it and make a few bucks for ya. At least before taxes.

California Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor’s recent “The 2015-16 Budget: California’s Fiscal Outlook” forecasts:

“the end of the Proposition 30 PIT [personal income tax] rate increases will not necessarily cause a sudden revenue dropoff—a ‘cliff effect’—for the annual state budget process. Because these rate increases expire at the end of calendar year 2018, it means that state PIT revenues essentially will include an entire fiscal year of Proposition 30 revenues in 2017–18, half a fiscal year of those revenues in 2018–19, and none of the Proposition 30 revenues in 2019–20. Accordingly, if the economy is growing at that time, as our main scenario assumes, then the expiration of Proposition 30 is likely to result in a slowing of PIT revenue growth in 2018–19 and 2019–20, but not an outright decline in PIT revenues.”

So, the main thing is to keep the economy growing. Such as, for example, not increasing taxes even higher by passing expected tax initiatives on the ballot in 2016 and 2018.

Or passing even more extremist anti-business legislation like AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, when — lo these eight years later — Weather.com reported on Nov. 22:

“There have been more than 400 record lows and record cool highs set, covering 43 states, since Sunday. That leaves only five states in the contiguous U.S., all in New England, that have not experienced record cold temperatures this week. 

“On Wednesday morning record lows were broken or tied from New York to Houston. Thursday morning 在线扑克 brought more record cold to parts of the Southeast.”

With the 2014 election finally over, attention is turned to possible tax measures on the 2016 ballot.

I previously wrote about groups looking to raise taxes on commercial property, oil extraction and cigarettes; and extending or making permanent 扑克 the income-tax piece of Proposition 30, which voters passed in 2012.

Marc Lifsher covered similar ground in the Los Angeles Times over the weekend. The Public Policy Institute of California released a poll last night that asked voters about some of the possible tax increases they could face on the ballot.

The key to which major tax measures will advance to the ballot very well could be Gov. Jerry Brown.

It may not seem unusual for proponents of tax increase proposals to want a popular, re-elected governor to support their agenda. However, the key to getting Brown on board is not so much for his endorsement but for his influence with certain powerful political players.

During the Prop. 30 campaign, Brown was effective in neutralizing opposition from the business community. While some business leaders grumbled about the tax, and the board of the state Chamber of Commerce had extensive debate over whether to oppose the measure, in the end the business community, particularly big business, generally withheld opposition to Prop. 30.

Supporters of proposed tax ballot measures would like to see the same script in 2016.

Temporary

In the most recent election season, the governor emphasized the Prop. 30 taxes were temporary. He also warned against taking on Proposition 13 and its property-tax protections, which voters passed in 1978 during his first stint as governor.

While Prop. 13 was not tested in the new PPIC poll, Prop. 30’s extension received support from 52 percent of likely voters, while 43 percent were opposed.

Pro-tax advocates will have to convince the governor they have a winning measure. Then they will push for the governor to use his influence with the business community to hold fire on whichever measure – or measures – move forward.

This is particularly true with the major tax issues, less so with so-called sin taxes on proscribed goods or services, such as the tax on cigarettes.

There is also the issue of a major overhaul of the tax system that has support from some reformers.

Any group considering pushing a tax increase in 2016 will have to consider how the governor plans to use his influence on the issue.

By John Hrabe

Just a day before the election, California Democrats seem intent on self-destruction. Liberal activist Molly Munger has been trashing Jerry’s tax hike. Brad Sherman and Howard Berman have spent more than $13 million in their battle to the death. And Rep. Pete Stark has engaged in a “defamation” campaign against fellow Democrat Eric Swalwell.

Scott Lay, publisher of Around the Capitol, recently observed, “The governor’s tax increase has a very uphill battle at this point, after a hammering from the No on 30 campaign and mixed messages associated with Molly Munger’s Proposition 38.”

“How Molly Munger can live with herself — after virtually every independent political analyst in California advised her that she would crush school finances by going ahead with her self-indulgent ballot measure — we have no bloody idea,” lamented CalBuzz’s dynamic duo Jerry Roberts and Phil Trounstine.

But, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. California Democrats haven’t quite perfected some of the California GOP’s finest circular firing squad techniques.

5. Draw Clear Ideological Battle Lines: “You’re Either With Us or Against Us”

All parties have battles between party purists and moderates. What makes the California GOP so special? The California GOP has a particular knack for turning its ideological differences into organized grassroots fights.

When infighting reaches the level of your grassroots youth organization, you know it’s a serious problem. For years, California Republicans had not one but two young Republican clubs, the California Young Republicans and the Young Republican Federation of California. The state wasn’t overrun with baby elephants, thereby justifying two clubs.

The second young Republican group was the result of an ideological split between conservative activists and the liberal Bill Thomas machine. In 2011, the two clubs finally reunited, but not without one last stand from the former Thomas-ites.

This feud groomed an entire generation of GOP activists in the tradition of party feuding. How many of the party’s problems were compounded by the young Republican divide? How much resentment dates back to meaningless endorsement votes by the Y’s? Conflict causes grudges and, in turn, more conflict.

For Democrats, Gov. Jerry Brown has sown the seeds of a similar intra-party ideological divide. On pensions, the death penalty and school funding, Brown has staked out moderate ground, which should offend younger liberal activists. In a desperate effort to save Prop. 30, Brown has even courted the state’s business community with a recent appearance “at the headquarters of the Bay Area Council in San Francisco.”  The Occupy crowd within the Democratic Party can’t embrace Brown’s solicitation of big business.

Brown has moved so far to the right it’s unlikely that his younger self would approve. Brown once persuaded his father to stay the execution of a convicted rapist. In 2010, the former seminarian proclaimed, “There’s probably no person in America who has fought to enforce the death penalty more than I have.” This brash George W. Bush-style rhetoric can’t sit well with liberal Democrats, nor can Brown’s budget cuts. How can liberals accept Brown state budgets that spend more on prisons than schools?

The top-two primary will result in more “moderate versus liberal” Democratic general elections. In the Bay Area, Sally Lieber, a former three-term Assemblywoman, is doing her best to win a State Senate seat against the moderate, pro-business Assemblyman Jerry Hill.  Moving forward, the Democrats’ litmus test could be Prop. 30 and Prop. 38. Did you back the moderate measure or stand up for schools?

4. Offend a Key Voting Bloc

The California Republican Party’s downfall is inextricably linked to its poor standing with Latino voters.  It’s perfectly reasonable to disagree about immigration policy, but you can’t ignore the cost of that position.  Just compare California to Florida, where Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than half a million voters. Although Florida Republicans are outnumbered, they hold more than two-thirds of the seats in both houses of the state legislature. One savvy California political consultant told me that’s all because the Florida GOP courted Latino voters.

How do Democrats match that act? Can Democrats really offend a key voting bloc like California Republicans did with the Latino community? It’s tough to see a comparable scenario. But, it’s worth pointing to Brown’s latent sexism in his treatment of Munger. Brown’s first response to Munger was to dispatch his wife as an intermediary. Gust is a power player in her own right, but she doesn’t hold any official position.

Male donors aren’t passed off to a spouse, why was Molly? Can anyone say gender didn’t play a role in how the Brown team responded to Munger’s insurrection?  If Brown was serious about avoiding the 30 vs. 38 battle, why didn’t he personally call Munger?

The California Democratic Party has been no better than Brown in supporting women. The party has few high-ranking Democratic women in leadership positions. Governor, Lt. Governor, Controller, Treasurer, Superintendent of Schools, Insurance Commissioner, California Democratic Party Chair, Speaker of the Assembly, Senate President Pro Temp and the mayors of Los Angeles and San Francisco: man, man, man, man, man, man, man, man, man, man, man. Women hold just four of the highest positions: Secretary of State, Attorney General, Assembly Speaker Pro Tempore and Senate Majority Leader.

3. Use the Party Machine to Defeat Republican Candidates

The California Republican Party has a long history of officials using the party machine to exact revenge. Between meaningless party resolutions and votes to censor party officers, there are just too many examples to recount them all. The most recent example of party machinery working against Republican officials is occurring in the congressional battle between Rep. Gary Miller and State Sen. Bob Dutton. According to the Press Enterprise’s Cassie MacDuff:

“With two Republicans running against each other for the vacant 31st Congressional District seat, the California Republican Party has taken sides.

“A mailer showing a snoozing state Sen. Bob Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga, hit mailboxes this week. It paints him as a “big spender” who needs to ‘wake up.’ The CRP sent out at least three other mailers supporting Dutton’s foe — Rep. Gary Miller, R-Rancho Cucamonga — who was faced with having to run against another fellow Repub in his home district (in and around Diamond Bar), or move east to the new district (Rancho Cucamonga to Redlands) and take on Dutton. He took on Dutton.”

By using the party machine to exact revenge, you force people to take a side publicly. Only one official Democratic organization has endorsed Prop. 38: the Santa Monica Democratic Club. If Democrats want to really cause intra-party chaos, they should use the party machine to punish these renegades. De-charter the organization. Refuse to reappoint the party members. This mutiny can’t go unpunished, if Democrats want their circular firing squad to lock and load.

The Stark vs. Swalwell battle has gone down this path. The San Francisco Chronicle’s Carla Marinucci reports, “The president of a major East Bay Democratic Club has expressed revulsion at what he calls the ‘defamation’ campaign being run by Democratic East Bay Rep. Pete Stark, 81, who’s seeking his 21st term in a close contest against Democratic Alameda County prosecutor Eric Swalwell, 31.”

2. Scare Away Donors

The California Republican Party’s finances mirror the state’s. Both go through boom and bust cycles: the party waits for one wealthy benefactor or rich gubernatorial candidate to infuse it with cash in much the same way that California has relied on windfall profits from tech companies. Both need a broad base of support for long-term financial stability.

California’s many unions fund the Democratic Party. How on earth could Democrats scare them away? Prop. 30’s failure could set off a mad scramble among unions for precious state dollars. If Brown’s measure loses, there won’t be enough money to keep everyone happy. Education leaders could regret their decision to back Brown’s tax increase. Higher education already has broken ranks with legislative leaders. Should the tax increase fail, budget animosity will increase.

1. Losing Just Proves We Were Right!

The most important factor to a successful circular firing squad is interpreting your party’s losses as proof that you were right in the ideological fight. Loss isn’t a reason to change positions, tactics or your losing approach. It’s just proof those other guys screwed up.

Again, it doesn’t matter which side you’re on. Party purists and centrists selectively use party losses to reaffirm their moral superiority and self-righteousness. Look at the California GOP’s track record of failed US Senate nominees. In 2000, Tom Campbell proved voters wouldn’t embrace a moderate Republican. In 2006, Dick Mountjoy proved that conservative Republican candidates lose statewide elections. In 2010, Carly Fiorina was too conservative. In 2012, Elizabeth Emken was too moderate.

On Wednesday, look for similar recriminations from Democrats as they continue to take aim at one another.

John Hrabe’s first piece on Democratic circular firing squads is here.

Commentary

Nov. 5, 2012

By Bey-Ling Sha, Ph.D.

There comes a time in every parent’s life when she has to decide how much she is willing to sacrifice for the good of her children’s education. In our family, I have given up time, money, sleep and emotional tranquility to support the education not only of my own children, but also other children in California’s public schools.

Like many other parents, I began with basic school fundraisers to support various programs lost to budget cuts, such as art, music and field trips. Most recently, I have been promoting Proposition 38 as part of the California State PTA’s biggest fundraiser in history. Sponsored by attorney Molly Munger, Prop. 38 would raise $10 billion per year for the next 12 years and allocate those funds directly to schools, bypassing the black hole that is the California state general fund. I support Prop 38. wholeheartedly, without reservation.

The California State PTA is a major endorser of Prop. 38, but it has remained officially neutral on a competing tax-increase measure, Proposition 30, Gov. Jerry Brown’s initiative to raise taxes $6 billion a year. On Saturday, I resigned as the PTA’s Prop. 38 chairman in San Diego and Imperial counties. Now, I can speak as only myself, as a parent who cares about education funding in the long term, for at least the next 12 years, and not just the next 12 months.

In a word, Prop. 30 is dirty. It is a short-term, stop-gap measure that irreparably harms public education in California in the long term. As someone who hopes to live in California long enough to send her grandchildren to its public schools, I simply cannot support Prop. 30 at the ballot box, although I have come to this decision only after much, much reflection and soul searching.

California voters are being told that Prop. 30 must pass to prevent $6 billion in education trigger cuts this school year. That is true. But, it’s true only because the state Legislature and the governor have already taken those funds from education and used them for other stuff. Why? Because they figured that voters would raise taxes on themselves to fill a funding hole for education, but not necessarily for something else.

Next year?

But what about next school year? Prop. 30 essentially keeps K-12 education funding level, which means that we still would be 47th out of 50 states in per pupil funding. Regarding higher education, even Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom has publicly said that Brown is misleading college students to believe that passage of Prop. 30 will prevent 2013-2014 tuition increases at campuses of California State University and the University of California systems. (It won’t.)

And what about the school year after that? Most voters don’t seem to realize that Prop. 30 is a constitutional amendment that permanently moves a portion of the state prison responsibilities (and its corresponding budget) down to the county level. This is called “realignment,” and it sounds great in theory. But, here is the dirty part: Realignment shrinks the state general fund. Oh, so what?

Well, education funding in California is determined each year as a percentage of the state general fund. Basic math tells us that X percent of a smaller number will be smaller than X percent of a bigger number. So, Prop. 30’s realignment provision, by shrinking the state general fund, actually reduces the funds for public education in the long term.

Californians should know better than most Americans that ballot-box wins today often are societal losses tomorrow. Exhibit A: Proposition 13, which froze state property taxes. Prop. 13 was a win for tax-averse voters in 1978, but it is one fundamental cause for the chronic state funding shortages today.

Will Prop. 30 be the Prop. 13 of this generation? That nightmare is what compels me to write this piece for public consideration, rather than merely in my personal journal.

Going public is scary. I teach at San Diego State University, which will see part of $250 million in trigger cuts if Prop. 30 fails. My university president and my faculty union are public supporters of Prop. 30. My children attend San Diego public schools whose teachers are promoting Prop. 30. Most of my personal friends and colleagues in the education community support Prop. 30.

But, I have decided that I am willing to sacrifice not only time, money, sleep and emotional tranquility in the interest of public education. I am also willing to sacrifice peace at the office, popularity on the playground, and privacy in my life to say what needs to be said: The children of California deserve better than Prop 30. And so do all Californians.

Bey-Ling Sha is the mother of a 7th grader and a 5th grader. She lives in San Diego.

By Dave Roberts

When the Assembly Budget Committee held an informational hearing in September on Proposition 30, it featured a classic liberal-conservative debate. Trudy Schafer of the League of Women Voters argued that taxes need to be raised in order to save public schools, which have been decimated by budget cuts in recent years.

David Wolfe with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association countered that a $6 billion yearly tax hike would be another blow to California’s struggling economy, and that Sacramento politicians cannot wisely spend the money they already have.

But later in that hearing the discussion turned to Prop. 30’s doppelganger, Proposition 38. Then it became a dogfight between Prop. 30 tax-and-spend liberals and Prop. 38 tax-and-spend liberals over who should get their hands on taxpayers’ wallets.

Prop. 38 is sponsored by wealthy lawyer Molly Munger. It would put a much bigger bite on taxpayers, siphoning $10 billion annually for 12 years by increasing the income tax on nearly all earners. Top earners would be hit hardest, paying an extra 2.2 percent of their income to the state.

For the first four years, about $6 billion would go to K-12 public schools annually, then increase to about $8.5 billion. Childcare and preschool programs would get about $1 billion annually. For four years the state General Fund would receive about $3 billion annually.

Prop. 38 is joined at the hip with Prop. 30. If both measures pass, only the one receiving the most votes would take effect. Prop. 30’s money is targeted for schools. But unlike Prop. 38, it would actually all go into the General Fund to be spent however the Legislature wished.

The arguments in favor of Prop. 38 made by Carol Kocivar, president of the California State PTA, were similar to those made by Schafer for Prop. 30.

“Imagine a kindergarten class that’s small enough for a teacher to meet the individual needs of each young child,” said Kocivar. “Imagine an elementary school with a librarian, a middle school that teaches art and music, a high school with enough counselors to help our kids take the right courses to get into college. Imagine restoring the instructional time that’s been cut from our public schools. That’s what’s going to happen in our local schools when Proposition 38 passes.

“For way too long, education funding in California has been cut and our children have lost. That’s why the California PTA helped write Proposition 38. To restore what we have lost: music, science, small-class size. This makes education a priority again. Parents and families, voters throughout California believe adequate funding for our schools and access to a complete quality education is an urgent matter. And it is time to stop engaging parents and communities in heart-breaking decisions on how to cut things out of our schools. And start engaging our parents and communities in those important decisions on how we can start to restore the programs that we need in every school in California.”

Economic harm

Kocivar did not address the potential economic harm from raising taxes in a state that is still struggling to recover from the Great Recession. She did note that “millionaires and multimillionaires pay more, and those making less pay little or none.” That’s true, but in order to not be hit by the tax, you would have to earn less than $7,316 per year, which is nearly impossible to get by on in any state, let alone in expensive California.

There was not a word in the Prop. 38 debate about its potential for economic harm. Instead, the opponents essentially argued that they don’t like the measure because they aren’t guaranteed a cut of the action.

“I like the world Ms. Kocivar would have us imagine,” said California Medical Association Vice President Lisa Folberg. “But what I don’t want to imagine is California children sitting in that classroom unable to see the blackboard because they haven’t been able to get access to the health care they need to get basic preventative services, including getting their eyesight checked. I don’t want to imagine that child with an empty stomach coming to school.

“The physicians that care for the state’s low-income population through the Medi-Cal program know the reality of the budget. They’ve been caught in the crosshairs of an unsustainable budget model in California for quite some time. That’s a model in which expectations and revenues are not aligned. The CMA understands that something needs to change. But we do not believe that Prop. 38 is the right solution.

“Prop. 38 restricts the purposes of new funds without other funding priorities in the state. This limits California’s ability to be flexible and to respond to changing needs and priorities. I don’t think any of us would have imagined five years ago we would have been gearing up to implement federal health reform, for example. A dollar that is not coordinated with the General Fund may not lead to logical solutions.”

Prop. 10 disaster

An example of the illogical allocation of budget dollars is what occurred with passage of Proposition 10 in 1998, said Folberg. That 50-cent per pack cigarette tax hike brings in hundreds of millions of dollars annually, which can only be spent on programs for children under 6. Some counties have been challenged to come up with programs to spend the money on.

“Proposition 10 brought in billions of dollars of revenue for the state,” said Folberg. “But there was no flexibility for the Legislature and governor to spend that money in an appropriate way. For example, as we were looking at very severe cuts in the Medi-Cal program to the very lowest income children in our state on the one hand, on the other hand when I had my daughter I received a welcome box from the Proposition 10 Commission folks because they were trying to find ways to spend their money. And that is a very illogical way to budget in the state of California.

“One of our concerns with Prop. 38 is that you will end up with a version of that. The goals of where the money goes in Prop. 38 are very laudable. But the concern is that you are not coordinating with the General Fund, with other state priorities. And you could potentially end up in a similar kind of situation where the Legislature isn’t able to evaluate the budget needs of the state and budget accordingly.”

Higher education

Ironically, although Prop. 38 is touted as helping education, it does nothing at all for higher education, which is why it’s opposed by the California Faculty Association, which represents professors, librarians, counselors and coaches in the state university system.

“I also would love to live in Ms. Kocivar’s projected world,” said CFA representative Charu Khopkar. “Unfortunately, that world does not seem to include any sort of higher education. Imagine the student who is able to go to their counselor and talk about their options for college, and facing the reality of a restricted California university system that does not have room for them. Or in fact has room but with a 5-, 6-, 7-year graduation timeline.

“The passage of Prop. 38, which inevitably means the failure of Prop. 30, would mean an immediate $250 million cut to the CSU, making it $1 billion [in cuts] over the past two years. That would mean another student fee increase, which is on top of the 318 percent increase over the last 10 years, 20,000 students denied enrollment in the CSU system, and 1,500 faculty and staff layoffs. Which means fewer classes, longer timelines for students graduating and becoming teachers, business people, scientists, what have you, graduating and becoming taxpayers here in California.”

And once they become taxpayers, they could be stuck paying the extra tax burden posed by either Prop. 30 or Prop. 38. Or perhaps not. The Nov. 1 Field poll indicates that both measures could fail to gain a majority. Prop. 30 has 48 percent support with 38 percent opposed. Prop. 38 fares worse with only 34 percent support and 49 percent opposed.

So does that mean that the $6 billion educational Armageddon threatened by Gov. Jerry Brown is inevitable? He said cuts would be “triggered” should his tax increase fail. Not so fast, said Assemblyman Don Wagner, R-Irvine.

“The bottom line is the trigger cuts are a function of action by this Legislature in this year’s budget passed on a majority vote,” said Wagner. “And they can be undone next year on a majority vote if that’s the will of the Legislature. So isn’t that the answer? We really don’t need to worry about these trigger cuts. The Legislature next year can undo them all if education is really a priority. There’s no reason other than throwing a hissy fit to enact the trigger cuts if the revenue comes through a different vehicle. So I think that’s the answer: We make education a priority and look for other cuts.”

By John Seiler

The Nooner site on California politics has compiled a nifty grid with all the newspaper editorial-page opinions on the 11 propositions. Click on the Y or N for the link to each individual editorial. Here it is:

As you would expect, the more liberal papers are tax-giddy. The San Jose Mercury-News, the L.A. Times, the S.F. Chronicle and the Sacramento Bee all backed Gov. Jerry Brown’s Proposition 30 tax increase.

The Bakersfield Californian opposed Prop. 30, but backed Molly Munger’s Proposition 38.

Daily News

Strangely, the L.A. Daily News, usually conservative, backed Prop. 30. They wrote:

“It is this ultimatum — pay up or the children will suffer — that has given our editorial board the most trouble in taking a position.

“On the one hand, this is a page that has criticized Sacramento’s bad management of the state treasury. The principled stand is that Californians must refuse to bail lawmakers out of the financial hole they dug themselves. Let them reap the financial chaos they have sown and perhaps we will finally get some real budget reform for the state.

“But what happens in the meantime to the education of our children? California already ranks among the lowest in per-pupil spending. The state’s largest school district, Los Angeles Unified, already has the shortest school year in the nation.

“There’s too much at stake to oppose this measure on principle, which is why we’re recommending a yes vote….

“Critics of Proposition 30 are correct that California’s taxes are high — but the revenue from this initiative represents just over half of what was lost when three other taxes expired in 2010 and 2011. The overall tax burden will still be lower than it was two years ago.”

But those tax increases were supposed to be “temporary.”

“General fund spending will be $11.6 billion lower than five years ago and will represent the same share of the economy as in 1972-73, according to the department of finance. This is not profligate spending.”

Yes it is. Five years ago was 2007, the height of the real estate boom that turned into a bust. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was spending like berserker Oktoberfest Austrian, increasing the general fund by 25 percent in just two years. The extravagance couldn’t last, didn’t, and shouldn’t be restored.

As to the level of spending being the same as 1972-73, that’s because revenues — and spending — always drop during tough economic times. Today’s economic “recovery” is the slowest since the Great Depression. What’s needed is not more jobs- and business-killing tax increases, but a complete overhaul of the state budget, beginning with the bloated pensions.

Prop. 39

On another tax measure, Proposition 39, the Daily News came out opposed. The measure would impose a new $1 billion tax on out-of-state businesses, killing jobs here (contrary to the misleading pro-39 TV ads). Curiously, the liberal Chronicle also opposed it, but for liberal reasons. They wrote:

“California needs to fix a corporate tax system that gives an undue break to out-of-state companies. But Proposition 39, which would direct about half of the extra $1 billion in annual revenue to energy-efficient projects, corrupts a very good idea (tax reform) with a very bad one (ballot-box budgeting).

“The last thing voters in a state with such dire fiscal problems should be doing is locking in more than $500 million a year in spending for a program that is undeniably worthy — but not necessarily the highest priority. Californians should consider whether that revenue would be better spent on education, public safety, parks, foster care or myriad other priorities that have been cut severely — and may be facing even deeper cuts if the two tax measures (Props. 30, 38) fail in November….

“This loophole should be repealed in the Legislature, and all of the new revenue should be available for the highest state priorities. Vote no on 39.”

So they still want the tax increase, just not the designated spending. That’s another good reason to saw S.F. off from the rest of the state and let it be its own state, or even country.

By Chris Reed

Gov. Jerry Brown’s weekend call for teachers to go all out for Prop. 30 and his agenda in the remaining two weeks before the election needs to be seen in the context of all the different ways school employees have illegally used taxpayer resources to promote ballot measures in California.

FPPC regulations built off unequivocal California Supreme Court decisions have made clear that public funds should not be used to urge the public to raise its own taxes or to take a stand on ballot or legislative matters.

But with the all-powerful California Teachers Association and its junior partner, the California Federation of Teachers, seeing the Nov. 6 vote as being key to their continued stranglehold on the state, they won’t need much encouragement from the governor to flout the law.

If Proposition 30 fails, some school districts will be so strapped for cash that parents, administrators and maybe even teachers finally will have an honest discussion of the nonsensical assumptions driving the K-12 business model.

In that model, most teachers get automatic raises just for time on the job, not for their perfomance.  They can secure additional raises through collective bargaining, which is easy when times are good because teacher unions often control school boards, or by taking additional graduate courses that have no positive effect on their teaching skills. And not only do teachers have very strong job protections, nearly all the tim, they are granted tenure after minimal serious scrutiny. Even liberal newspapers realize this is nuts.

These interrelated issues drive both the school budget and the teacher accountability crises. Automatic raises without regard to teacher performance hollow out school budgets, unless the economy is booming and revenue is rolling in. These pay practices explain veteran teachers’ adamant battles on behalf of the status quo.

Prop. 32

Which brings us to the second existential threat to teachers’ hegemony over California: Proposition 32. Banning automatic political contributions from teachers every paycheck instantly would change the balance of power in Sacramento as well as in the many local districts where board majorities are elected thanks to local teacher union spending.

So with or without Gov. Jerry Brown’s encouragement, here’s what we’ll see the next 15 days: Teachers giving students political fliers to take home to their parents; teachers holding rallies on school time and school property; administrators getting on intercoms to exhort adult employees to get out and vote; and a vast use of government emails, phone banks and more to push for Prop. 30 and against Prop. 32.

The lawbreakers have nothing to fear. No one in this Democratic-but-often-undemocratic state ever enforces the laws banning public employees from using taxpayer resources to encourage taxpayers to pay higher taxes or to encourage taxpayers to protect their union oppressors.

The comfort zone that teachers unions and their elected puppets feel in flouting the law just keeps expanding. In San Diego, when reporters began asking questions of school board President John Lee Evans over his use of school district email to push for passage of Props. 30 and 38, Evans not only wasn’t contrite — he had the infinite gall to suggest his First Amendment right to free speech was under assault.

But if the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers have a lot at stake with Props. 30 and 32, so do all Californians. Education reform that focuses on teacher performance and accountability is now so mainstream in U.S. politics that President Barack Obama embraces it with little backlash.

Yet in the Golden State, even as teachers kill bills to speed the firing of classroom predators, the argument that teachers are fighting for the best interests of students is somehow accepted by many parents and far too many in the media.

If only they would listen to Woody Allen. In his 1973 comedy, “Sleeper,” Allen constructed a post-apocalypse world that contained an in-joke for New York audiences: the nuclear war that obliterated the planet occurred after “a man by the name of Albert Shanker got hold of a nuclear warhead.” That was a reference to the Manhattan teacher who turned the teachers union movement toward militancy beginning in 1959. Shanker shut down New York City schools in 1967 and 1968 with illegal strikes — one of which lasted 36 days.

And after he died, who gave him the Presidential Medal of Freedom? President Bill Clinton.

It’s about time Californians figured out what Woody Allen did 40 years ago. Teachers unions are not remotely about protecting kids. They are about protecting their own power. The students? Many individual teachers are wonderful and dedicated. But to their unions, kids are props — cute, handy props. Props used to prop up Prop. 30 — and to pull down Prop. 32.

By Mark Landsbaum

If you wanted to destroy an economy, what would be a good way to go about it?

You might take money from those who earn it. Can there be a more perverse disincentive than to take money from people on a progressive scale, such as California’s stair-stepped income tax rates? The more one earns, not only more is taken, but proportionately more. At some point, the earner will say, “Enough is enough” and conclude it’s not worth the effort to earn more.

Next, you might divert money from those who earned it to enrich others. The harder one works, the more one enriches someone else.

Welcome to California, where perverse disincentives abound, and where private-sector workers labor to enrich public-sector employees.

On the November ballot, Propositions 30 and 38 urge Californians to double down on this economy-killing formula by increasing their taxes, which already are among the nation’s highest and most progressive, in order to further enrich public sector workers.

If you wanted to concoct an excuse for such redistribution of wealth, from people who produce it to people who desire it, you might argue that it’s for a good cause. You might say that it’s “for the children.”

On the November ballot, Californians are told that, if they just inflict more of this economy-killing pain on themselves, they can improve public schools. Sure, turning over more of your hard-earned money is painful, but after all, it’s “for the children.” Buck up, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer. Your sacrifice will be for a good cause.

Money is fungible

If you wanted to bamboozle voters and taxpayers into buying this swindle, you definitely wouldn’t mention that money is fungible. Pouring more taxes into the pot is no guarantee it will benefit “the children,” despite disingenuous ballot arguments to the contrary. What is certain is that the benefit will go to California public-school teachers, who already are among the highest paid in the nation. And, of course, it will benefit their top-heavy school administrations, which teach nothing.

While bamboozling voters and taxpayers, you wouldn’t want to mention that no amount of money, short of paying for individual tutors for each of California’s 6 million public school children, will substantially improve what emerges at public high school graduations. Los Angeles public schools spent $25,208 per year per public school student, according to an analysis of all school spending conducted by Cato Center for Educational Freedom in 2010, even though the district reported spending only $10,053. Washington, D.C.’s public schools spent $28,170 per student.

(The fact that public schools grossly under-report how much of your tax money they spend per pupil ought to be a red flag to signal something’s amiss. As Cato author Adam Schaeffer explained in his study, school officials “believe certain expenditure categories should not count,” even though things like health and retirement benefits and debt service “are expenses borne by the taxpayer that are used to support the K-12 education system.”)

D.C. schools

If there exists a correlation between how much money is spent and educational outcome, District of Columbia kids ought to be far more accomplished than California kids. Instead, as economist Walter Williams points out, despite spending more money per student than any state, the District of Columbia “comes in dead last in terms of student achievement.”

While persuading voters and taxpayers to act against their own economic well being, you wouldn’t want to mention that the surest guarantee of a quality education is for a kid to come from a home where Mom and Dad read, and encourage junior and sis to do the same. You wouldn’t want to remind taxpayers and voters that no amount of tax increases will change home life for kids whose parents can’t speak English, or where parents don’t bother to instill a work ethic in their children because Mom and Dad didn’t develop one of their own.

It’s painful to admit that the greatest determiner of how kids do in school is their home life. At least it’s painful for public school employees to admit. But isn’t that what every grownup knows in his heart from personal experience and from the experience of public schools?

Californians could double or triple their tax burden and effectively grind the state’s economy to a halt, and pour every dime of it into public schools, and what would the outcome be? Kids still would resemble their parents.

It is no secret that the best public schools are located in the best neighborhoods. Sure, someone will object to this generalization by pointing out an exception here and there. But the fact that the exceptions are exceptions makes the point best of all.

Prop.s 30 and 38

What Props. 30 and 38 on the November ballot will do, if voters buy the spiel, is enrich public workers, most of them public school teachers and administrators. What the propositions won’t materially change is what emerges at high school graduation.

Indeed, these tax increases are extremely unlikely to measurably change the lives of children on path to drop out of school because they are acting out values they learn at home. Parents, and most tragically the lack of parents, particularly the lack of a father in the home, are the greatest determiners of kids’ educational success or failure. Not tax money.

Public school teachers will resist admitting this out loud, even though they are the first to protest that they shouldn’t be held accountable for kids who come to school unprepared to learn. Nevertheless, in the same breath they will insist they can do what the obscenely funded Washington, D.C., schools fail to do year in and year out — if only they can have more taxpayers’ money to do it with.

Don’t believe them.

Voters and taxpayers can take another step in November to dismantle California’s economy by voting to divert yet more of the private sector’s money to feed public schools’ insatiable appetite. Or they can reject the fatuous argument that it’s “for the children,” and say, “Enough is enough.”

Providing more money to a system that consistently fails to do what it is paid to do is unwise. Well-off communities don’t need more money for their well-off children to do well. And economically disadvantaged communities’ children won’t do well simply by pouring more money into their public schools.

Can public schools be improved? Not with more money. But perhaps kids’ education can be improved by letting parents use that money to shop for a better, private school. When vouchers are offered anywhere in the nation, the list of applicants far outstrips the available cash. If the product public schools sell must compete against private schools that can and do provide more for less, the competition will improve both.

The fact that so many parents intuitively recognize that they can improve their children’s lot by escaping the grip of public education speaks volumes. The fact that so many public schools refuse to free the children from their grip speaks volumes about what public schools really are all about.  And it’s not “for the children.”

By John Seiler

In the debate over the Proposition 30 and Proposition 38 tax increases, the question comes up: Will such tax increases drive millionaires from California?

The liberal-oriented California Budget Project just teased us with an email:

“In the debate around the revenue-raising measures on the November ballot, including Proposition 30, a persistent ‘urban legend’ has resurfaced: that increasing taxes on the wealthy would cause them to leave California. However, new research on the migration patterns of California’s personal income taxpayers could help put this claim to rest. 

“On Monday, October 22, from noon to 1:30 p.m., Charles Varner, doctoral candidate at Princeton University, and Cristobal Young, Ph.D., assistant professor of sociology at Stanford University, will discuss their new study that looked at Proposition 63’s ‘millionaire’s tax’ and found no evidence that millionaires left California in order to avoid the higher tax. Varner and Young will discuss their findings in a presentation titled Flight of the Millionaires?: Experiments in Taxing High Incomes in New Jersey and California, at an event hosted by the University of California Center Sacramento. For additional details, read the event flyer.”

I guess we know which way the study will look at this “urban legend” then “put it to rest”!

Except I personally know wealthy people who have left this state because of its high taxes. And Joseph Vranich used to tally the large number of companies leaving the state. Comcast and Campbell’s just relocated hundreds of jobs out of the state.

It will be interesting to see the study’s take on Prop. 63. It took effect in 2005, right in the middle of the real-estate boom. A lot of rich folks might have figured, “I hate this tax. But I’m making so much money off real estate, it’s worth it to stay.”

Then real estate crashed, of course, in 2007-09.

I’ll be looking at what years the study covers.

By the way, if raising taxes on millionaires doesn’t drive them out of the state, then why stop at raising California’s top state income tax rate at 13.3 percent, as Prop. 30 does? Why not raise it to 20 percent? How about 40 percent?

By John Hrabe

For the past two decades, California Republicans have perfected one thing, the circular firing squad. No political party, organization or institution has been better at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The Republican monopoly on this self-destructive habit is about to end, thanks to Gov. Jerry Brown and civil rights attorney Molly Munger and their dueling tax measures.

This week, Munger’s Yes on Prop. 38 campaign began to compare its ballot measure, which is behind in the polls, with Brown’s tax hike, which is polling ever so slightly above 50 percent. Education leaders are worried that Munger’s comparison ads will doom both measures. Tax-raisers see that as the worst-case scenario. Education leaders tried to engage the two campaigns in what the LA Times described as a “peace summit.” 

But, it’s not just Jerry and Molly that can’t play nicely in the Democrats’ sandbox. This week, San Fernando Valley Congressmen Howard Berman and Brad Sherman got into a physical altercation at a debate. The race has been a conflict between two giant liberal egos rather than issues or ideology.  The two share almost identical voting records, but neither man was willing to run in the neighboring congressional district.

There’s not much advice to offer Howard and Brad, who are doing a first-rate job of wasting millions of Democratic dollars smearing each other. Might we simply suggest that the Berman team consider filing assault charges for Brad’s aggressive hug?

Jerry and Molly, you’re also off to a great start—on the verge of a truly historic mutually assured destruction. But, you also still have a long way to go before matching California Republican’s worst infighting. That’s why CalWatchDog has assembled a list of suggestions for the liberal circular firing squad.

10.   Stop Talking to Your Opponent & Refuse All Peace Offerings

The first step to any successful circular firing squad is to cut off all communication with your compatriots and turn them into mortal enemies. In 2000, the New Majority expressed its frustrations with the lack of minority and moderate candidates brought forward by the Orange County GOP. Instead of working cooperatively with conservative party officials to develop a candidate recruitment program, the moderates spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on what USA Today described as a “hostile takeover of the county GOP’s controlling body.” (I’m sure both sides object to my characterization of the dispute.)

Dialogue and engagement inevitably lead to compromise. You don’t want to compromise, do you? And besides, they started it!  Brown’s campaign seems to be well on its way to adopting this mantra. According to a late update to the LA Times’ most recent story, the Yes on Prop 30 campaign has refused the PTA’s peace summit:

“Brown’s campaign, which has ramped up its criticisms of Munger’s campaign tactics in recent days, dismissed PTA’s call for a meeting. 

“‘Why would we meet with her?'” said Dan Newman, a spokesman for the campaign. ‘We’re minding our own business, running a positive campaign and not mentioning any other initiative — while she’s spending milions in false attack ads against us.’ 

“[Updated 8:40 p.m.: Munger’s campaign, on the other hand, said ‘Molly would be happy to meet with Governor Brown.’ However, spokesman Nathan Ballard said Munger would not drop her advertising critical of Proposition 30. 

“[‘If the Prop 30 campaign takes down their misleading ads, then we would certainly consider taking down our ad responding to them,’ he said.]”

9.       Stick to Personal Attacks Instead of Policy Disagreements

California Republicans have proven it’s best to ignore the policy arguments in favor of ad hominem attacks. Call your opponents a squish, RINO or my personal favorite “a computer screen conservative.” There’s nothing like a personal attack to turn a one-time disagreement into an irreparable conflict. Gov. Brown is to be commended for launching the first personal attack. In September, he implied that by opposing his tax hike, Munger was committing a “sin.” When asked why he couldn’t stop Munger, Gov. Brown replied, “There’s something called free will. Even God can’t stop somebody from sinning if that’s their free will.”

Well done, Governor. To clarify— is Ms. Munger committing a venial or mortal sin?

8.       Coin a Clever Acronym (RINO) to Separate True Believers from Moderate Sell-Outs

No one likes to think. When a new politician comes around, even party activists can’t be bothered to research a politician’s position on the issues. Clever acronyms give party activists a mental shortcut. “Don’t support Joe, he’s a RINO, or Republican in Name Only.” RINO is an effective label because 1) it’s an acronym and 2) it plays off the animal-political party symbolism.

This could be a bit of a challenge for Democrats. DINO doesn’t really have the same symbolism. Maybe, LION? Liberal Identity Only in Name. Sure, lions have a reputation as strong and dominant creatures. Again, that’s if you think about it logically. Get creative. Lions are essentially the elite 1% of the animal kingdom. Not to mention lions are lazy and chauvinistic. Lionesses do all the hunting, while the male lion sleeps up to 20 hours per day. The only time a male lion fights is when confronted by another lion that’s trying to steal away his pride.

Does this sound totally absurd? Then, you aren’t ready for a circular firing squad, which requires a person to stop thinking. Seriously, why is it an insult to call someone a rhinoceros? Tell me logically why that makes sense. The only link to the insult: a rhino is not the same thing as an elephant.

The lion insult could take off with NOW and Planned Parenthood activists. Plus, for the environmentalists, what’s the carbon footprint on a lion’s carnivorous diet? Certainly more than an ideologically-pure vegetarian donkey.

7.       Extend the Campaign Season: Launch a Recall

Under normal circumstances, a party feud is limited to one election. One side wins, and the losing side lives to fight another day, presumably the next election. Long before Republicans succeeded in recalling Gov. Gray Davis, they perfected the recall on lower-level party turncoats. Anthony Adams, Paul Horcher, Doris Allen, the list goes on and on. With a recall, it’s open season for circular firing squads all-year.  Recalls help turn the occasional party primary feud into a permanent campaign.

It’d be tough to see Munger organize a recall of the Governor. She should consider a state legislator that is backing the Governor’s tax hike. Such a politician clearly doesn’t care for our children. Moreover, there are plenty of school board officials that could be recruited as challengers. Just look at the long list of school boards that have endorsed Proposition 38 and compare that to the number of state legislators.

6.       Get the Courts Involved (Bonus Points  for Criminal Charges)

The best circular firing squads get the courts involved. The other side isn’t just wrong on policy; they’re bad people who should be punished. In the 1990s, many of Orange County’s best Republican operatives were the subject of criminal charges for their campaign activities. Most avoided jail time because they didn’t break the law. The accusations and trial were enough to sideline them from future campaigns. And poor campaign workers usually can’t afford the expensive legal bills. When you try to send the other side to jail, it makes it impossible to forgive and forget.

The Munger-Brown tiff has already landed in the courts. Remember, Munger submitted her ballot measure before Brown, which normally would have given her a higher order on the ballot. Brown responded by pressing county registrars to verify his signatures before checking Munger’s. That led to a lawsuit filed by Munger challenging Brown’s ballot numbering shenanigans. Ultimately, Brown won the lawsuit. Not to be discouraged, circular firing quads aren’t about legal victories. It’s about cultivating ill will and setting the precedent that all disputes should involve lawyers.

Coming Soon: The Top 5 Tips for a Circular Firing Squad