But for three reasons, I don’t think the prospects for this reform are dead at all. I dealt with the first two in a U-T San Diego column today.

The first: My apologies to Jon Coupal and company, but I really think they were too clever by half with their measure last year:

” … the last time reformers brought paycheck protection before California voters — via Proposition 32 on the November 2012 ballot — they didn’t trust voters enough to just give them a straightforward up-or-down vote on whether union members should have a say on the use of their dues. Instead, the initiative included legally dubious provisions restricting corporate campaign spending that gave critics ample ammunition to depict it as a deceptive power play.

“The measure lost in a landslide. But state voters came fairly close to passing cleaner, simpler versions of paycheck protection in 1998 and 2005.”

The second: There has never been a more egregious case of union power trumping public sentiment than in this year’s Legislature:

“The appalling story of former Los Angeles Unified elementary schoolteacher Mark Berndt would make a simple version of paycheck protection much easier to pass in 2014 or 2016. After evidence turned up indicating Berndt had been feeding sperm to his students, district officials had no choice but to pay Berndt $35,000 to get him to quit because of job protections demanded and won by United Teachers Los Angeles.

“When the Berndt case triggered a public backlash, the state Legislature earlier this year passed a teacher-discipline measure that was billed as a smart way to keep perverts away from students. Instead, it actually gave teachers even more job protections.

“Nothing better illustrates the unions’ chokehold on Sacramento than this. If the CTA and the CFT had less money for political fights, maybe, just maybe, the public would have gotten its way — and parents wouldn’t have cause to think that state lawmakers worry more about protecting predatory teachers than the students of such teachers.”

The third reason is that quite a few veteran state journalists no longer have illusions about how unions have turned governance, especially at the local level, into something akin to looting. It’s no longer just Dan Walters and his occasional contrarian refusal to accept the surface motives claimed by Jerry Brown, Darrell Steinberg and John Perez. Instead, it’s the Bay Area News Group’s increasingly radicalized columnist and editorial writer Daniel Borenstein and a wave of younger reporters at the San Jose Mercury-News, the Sacramento Bee and many online sites.

Even L.A. Times knows which way the wind blows

And even though their concern is always muted, there’s plenty of evidence that the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times is worried, too.

Consider this editorial from last week, headlined “Spend money on the students it’s meant to help.” It makes the same basic point as my CalWatchdog story from three weeks ago about Gov. Jerry Brown’s bid to direct more funds to struggling students being hijacked to put more money in operating budgets for teacher compensation:

“Under the draft rules, if administrators spent all the extra funding on teacher raises, middle-class students would be receiving more of the benefit than needy ones. If those students’ scores rose even slightly, the district could claim it had fulfilled the requirements of the third option.”

If anything puts the spotlight on the gap between union Democrats and real, honest-to-God social-justice Democrats, it is this.

If unions follow up on their Mark Berndt scandal power play by hijacking what’s billed as the most socially progressive education reform in California history, I think opposition to a clean “paycheck protection” bill fades in the newsrooms around the Golden State.

If it doesn’t, God help California. There will be nothing unions can’t get away with.

One of the groups accused of the “campaign money laundering,” the Center to Protect Patient Rights, plans to announce today it has resolved its portion of its legal dispute with the FPPC.

The issue was $11 million in Super PAC money contributed to fight the Gov. Jerry Brown's ballot initiative to increase sales and income taxes through Proposition 30, and the ballot initiative which would have weakened the political power of labor unions, Proposition 32.

There was relatively little media interest in the $66 million raised by organized labor to fight passage of Prop. 32, including $20 million from the California Teachers Association.

The $11 million donation made headlines and generated a controversy because of its source — an unknown Phoenix group called Americans for Responsible Leadership.

The Center to Protect Patient Rights, was the other Arizona organization involved in the donation.

FPPC Chairwoman Ann Ravel ordered agency attorneys to demand that Americans for Responsible Leadership disclose the contribution’s original donors,  after California Common Cause filed a complaint. When the groups would not, Ravel and Attorney General Kamala Harris opened a formal inquiry into the group’s donation to the Small Business Action Committee.

Settlement

“The California Fair Political Practices Commission has announced that the legal dispute over the filing of CPPR’s reports last year has been completely and finally settled,” said Sean Noble, President of the CPPR in an email.

“CPPR is pleased the Commission determined that the organization never intended to violate campaign reporting rules nor did it intend to conceal information from the public. CPPR ‘inadvertently’ erred largely because it had never previously made any contributions in the State of California,” said Noble.

“CPPR will remain vigilant in its work to encourage and support likeminded groups and individuals, and educate the public on issues related to limited government, free enterprise, and the protection of patient rights.”

The settlement seem large given the group was absolved of intentional wrongdoing.

Center to Protect Patient Rights

The first part of this civil dispute was settled last November when disclosure letters were filed prior to the 2012 election.

CPPR’s filing with the FPPC in 2012 was the organization’s first and only in the State of California, according to a source close to the case. Yet, the filing attracted more than its fair share of scrutiny from those on the left who disagree with CPPR’s mission of working to keep the United States financially and fiscally sound.

Many charged the controversial $11 million contribution came from the despised Koch brothers, who give to conservative causes. The recipient of the  donation was Sacramento-based Small Business Action Committee PAC and its No on Proposition 30/Yes on Proposition 32 efforts.

The FPPC made clear in the settlement that CPPR made an “inadvertent” error, but acted in “good faith” and never intended to violate campaign reporting rules.

However, another source who asked for anonymity because the details of the settlement have not been formally announced by the FPPC anticipates closure of this matter will not be enough to satisfy some on the left, and said these individuals and organizations will take every opportunity to try to silence those they disagree with.

The total FPPC settlement is $1 million, to be broken out among the accused groups.

The source said the unprecedented size of the financial settlement over an issue that amounts to an inadvertent filing error is a glaring example of the Commission’s power over non-profit organizations that pursue a constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech in elections.

Government overreach – think IRS scandal

According to my source, the FPPC overreach is similar to the IRS’s disturbing overreach with “conservative” non-profit organizations and Tea Party groups. “Americans should be rightly concerned about any misuse of power by government political ‘watchdogs’ against legitimate non-profit organizations,” the source said.

By Katy Grimes

With the 2012 election in full swing, everyone’s focus seems to be on the candidates and ballot initiatives.

We are inundated with ludicrous, often irrelevant political advertising. But what happens after the election? What happens if President Obama gets reelected and California passes all of the tax increase ballot measures, along with the 35 local sales tax increase measures?

The presidential race

Should Obama win reelection, he will still be stuck with a Republican U.S. Congress, and possibly even a Republican Senate. Either way, expect to see more of the last four years of gridlock and executive orders.

Obama will continue to “look at how we can work around Congress.” And for that

work-around, expect to see many more executive orders. Obama signed 140 Executive Orders during his first term.

Because of the country’s $16 trillion debt, and the reckless spending habits of the Obama administration, some in the finance world expect that the entire U.S. economy will crash if President Obama is reelected.

If Mitt wins…

If Mitt Romney wins, he has promised to repeal Obamacare on day two, and begin immediately to undo some of the business killing policies put in place by the Obama administration.

But perhaps even more importantly, Romney would eliminate and replace the entire cabinet of far-left extremists that Obama appointed.

Gone will be some of the more notorious statists with unchecked power:  Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

What happens to California?

California already levies a 7.25 percent general sales and use tax on consumers, which is the highest statewide rate in the nation, according to the California Taxpayers Association.

California’s statewide gasoline taxes and fees total 48.6 cents per gallon, the second highest in the nation. Many counties add local sales taxes on top of that.

California’s personal income tax has the second-highest top tax rate, at 10.3 percent,  and one of the most highly progressive structures in the nation.

Only eight states have a higher corporate tax rate than California’s 8.84 percent flat rate, which CalTax reports is the highest corporate tax rate in the Western states.

Even with Proposition 13, California’s property tax rate is 14th highest in the country. While each tax may or may not be the highest, put them all together, and Californians are living in a very high tax state.

According to the California Taxpayers Association, “California’s business tax climate will worsen and the state will have a tougher time attracting and retaining jobs,” if Propositions 30 and/or 38 are passed by voters.

In the 2013 State Business Tax Climate Index, a new study by the Tax Foundation, “a survey of all 50 states, ranks California’s tax structure 48th — worse than all the other states except New Jersey and New York.”

The study  found that, if both Propositions 30 and 38 are approved, the results will “reduce California’s score in individual tax and overall.”

“The evidence shows that states with the best tax systems will be the most competitive in attracting new businesses and most effective at generating economic and employment growth,” according to the report.

Perhaps one of the most important issues to remember is, “States do not enact tax changes (increases or cuts) in a vacuum,” according to the Tax Foundation. “Every tax law will, in some way, change a state’s competitive position rela­tive to its immediate neighbors, its geographic region, and even globally. Ultimately, it will affect the state’s national standing as a place to live and to do business. Entrepreneurial states can take advantage of the tax increases of their neighbors to lure businesses out of high-tax states.”

This will impact business even more, including business decisions, job creation and retention, business location, competitiveness, the transparency of the tax system, and the long-term health of a state’s economy.

“Most importantly, taxes diminish profits,” the Tax Foundation reports. Taxes cut into a business and often prevent the business from reinvesting back into the community.

The Tax Foundation explains, “If taxes take a larger portion of profits, that cost is passed along to either consumers, em­ployees, through lower wages or fewer jobs, or shareholders. Thus, a state with lower tax costs will be more attractive to business investment, and more likely to experience economic growth.”

It’s that simple, and that ugly.

Ending union dominance in CA

Proposition 32 would prohibit corporations and public employee unions from making direct contributions to political campaigns. And, it would ban automatic payroll deductions by corporations and unions of employees’ wages to be used for politics.

Should Prop. 32 pass, it would level the political playing field and give grassroots organizations and voters a political voice in California once again.

Labor union leaders call Prop. 32 a fraud, and claim that its backers have exempted themselves from the new rules. But with most of the Democratic state legislators handily assisted into office by the state’s  public employee unions, it is no wonder labor leaders are in a frenzy.

This should make every working man and woman in California ecstatic. If Prop. 32 passes, union employees will get to keep more of their pay, and unions will no longer have such a huge financial influence in elections.

Real reforms?

Proposition 31 is packaged with some real reform measures in it, but there are too many flaws in the measure for the reforms to really matter. However, if it passes, expect another layer of government bureaucrats added to California’s already top-heavy system. Prop. 31 would also prohibit future legislation on reducing taxes.

According to CalTax, Prop. 31 would “effectively prohibit legislation (including the state budget) from reducing taxes by $25 million or more unless the same legislation included a tax increase or spending cut.”

Prop. 39: Another corporate tax

Proposition 39 would require businesses headquartered out of the state to use the “single sales factor method,” in which their tax liability is based solely on their amount of sales in the state.

Prop. 39 is backed by wealthy hedge fund manager Tom Steyer, who stands to benefit from the passage of the measure. While the state stands to collect about $1 billion in added revenues each year, half of that money must be used on the Clean Energy Job Creation Fund for the first five years. After five years, all of the additional tax revenue would go to the state’s General Fund.

Steyer, who is pushing hard for passage of Prop. 39, is the co-chairman of the Clean Energy Job Creation Fund, and is heavily invested in green, clean-tech businesses, which many have said potentially stand to benefit somewhat from the $1 billion of additional tax money.

The measure is written to sound as if big business has a sweetheart deal with the state. But anything designed to squeeze more taxes out of any business right now could devastate California’s economy even worse.

Should Prop. 39 pass, expect to see more business shrinkage, jobs lost, and multi-state businesses pulling operations out of California.

Local tax increase measures

Thirty-five California cities have tax increase measures on the ballot, totaling a whopping  241 tax and bond measures. Of the 2012 local tax elections, the majority are school bonds.

There are nine local ballot measures proposing a 1 percentage-point increase in the sales tax, which would increase the tax on gasoline significantly. That would be on top of the 7.25 percent state sales tax levy, plus any local sales taxes already on the books. Cha-ching.

Final blow to California economy

Some cynics suggest that we should just allow everything to pass in order to speed up California’s demise. The more optimistic folks believe that California could be turned around, but only if unions are no longer running the state’s Democrats.

If these ballot measures pass, there will be much higher unemployment, and businesses large and small will not reinvest. Some businesses will shrink even more, some will close and even more will move, if possible. Taxpayers will be squeezed even more, shrinking everyone’s take home pay.

However, on a lighter note, Californians have rejected the last eight tax increases on the ballot. While another rejection of tax increases sends a loud message to Gov. Jerry Brown, he and the Democrat-controlled Legislature have demonstrated that they are not beholden to voters; their constituency is the unions.

However, if Prop. 32 passes, California voters and taxpayers just might get the ear of the Democrats.

By Katy Grimes

SACRAMENTO — Apparently fearing the outcome of the political reform measure Proposition 32, some California lawmakers have added “storyteller” to their resumes.

In one of the most nostalgic fairy tales ever told at a Capitol hearing, it was revealed that all labor unions have voluntary membership,and employee payroll deductions come willingly.

But Prop. 32 is also bringing out the ire in labor union proponents. The idea of political reform doesn’t appear to be agreeing with everyone in the state, and is even making some rather testy.

A mandatory hearing on Wednesday about Prop. 32 found Republicans glaringly absent from the proceedings. While this allowed legislative Democrats unfettered access to the initiative’s proponents, John Kabateck of the National Federation of Independent Business and David Wolfe of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association held their own rather well.

Kabatek and Wolfe easily answered the questions hurled at them, and countered the disinformation in the many pro-union mini-speeches by legislators.

A union fairy tale

Probably the biggest fairy tale at the hearing came from Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, D-Concord. “It’s very important to understand that union membership is voluntary–no one is forced,” Bonilla said. “It’s a well-established voluntary practice.”

“If a union member objects to dues being used for political spending, the law allows them to opt out,” she said. “These are well-established practices, and clearly laid out, and very transparent to the employees.”

“Then why not just make it an opt-in?” Kabateck asked.

“There is no involuntary collection of money spent on political purposes,” Bonilla retorted. “They have the right to not become members.”

It is worth noting that Bonilla has accepted $108,905 in total political contributions from general trade unions, and $76,675 from public sector unions, according to Maplight.org, which tracks and publishes political contributions and voting trends following contributions.

However, Bonilla was not alone in her grilling.

Prop. 32

If approved by voters in November, Prop. 32 would end the questionable practice of automatic payroll-deducted funds from employee paychecks for political purposes.  The prohibition applies to both labor unions and corporations, as well as government contractors.

Prop. 32 also would end union and corporate contributions to political candidates, and would end government contractor contributions to elected officials.

Dems fight back

In a Capitol hearing room of mostly labor union lobbyists, Kabateck explained that, after years of special interest-dominated politics, small businesses and individuals want their voices heard again in politics. “Voters are tired of government gridlock and placing special interests above the individual. Voters are awakening, taking power back, and holding elected officials accountable,” Kabateck said.

In a NFIB member survey, Kabateck reported that 93 percent of respondents supported political reform through Prop. 32. “It will stop ‘money-in, favors out.’ You, not your boss or board, should decide where your vote belongs,” Kabateck said.

The current pay-to-play political system means voters and small businesses are frozen out, Kabateck said. “Convicted teachers can’t even be fired. This is a huge step in political reform to make sure that politicians earn our vote.”

“What public purpose is served by this initiative?” asked Assemblyman Sandre Swanson, D-Oakland. Swanson demanded that Kabateck name the top five largest corporate contributors to the Prop. 32 campaign. When Kabateck answered “Charles Munger,” then hesitated, Swanson said, “You are not embarrassed by the supporters? I’ve seen the advertisements — are they correct?”

Before Kabateck could answer, Swanson continued, “This process needs to be transparent. The process should be transparent.” Swanson then mocked Kabateck and said, “I don’t want to tell you who is funding it.”

Only the day before at a legislative hearing about Proposition 30,  Swanson said, ”We are not running the state incompetently. We don’t have enough revenue.”

“The reason he can’t tell you who is funding this is it’s a corporation attached to the Koch brothers,” said Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance.

“Let’s just be honest with the people,” Swanson added.

Swanson’s campaign contributions from labor unions total more than $381,000.

A little honesty

It was unclear why Swanson kept pushing Kabateck to name the top contributors to the “Yes on 32” campaign, as “No on 32” contributors already have thrown more than $41 million into the campaign to defeat Prop. 32, with nearly all contributions coming from labor unions.

Proponents have raised $9 million, of which $4 million comes from the American Future Fund, and $900,000 from Munger.

“Taxpayers are tired of getting the short end of the stick, and they elect all of you,” said David Wolfe. “If they truly believe what unions and corporations are doing, they can give freely.”

“Massive super PACs have taken over the entire political system. This is just flat out wrong,” Lieu said. “Unions are Democratic.”

Lieu’s campaign contributions from unions totals more than $435,000, and perhaps explains his vehement dislike for Prop. 32.

Opponents

“This is not what it seems to be, dressed up as political finance reform,”  said Trudy Schaefer of the League of Women Voters. “There are two sets of rules, but this is targeting one set of money. Super PACs will become the way of elections. Californians don’t want to see this.”

“Prop. 32 does not apply to LLC’s or super PACs,” said Derek Cressman of California Common Cause. “One in particular — American Future Fund — gave $4 million. Nobody knows them. But they are tied to the Koch brothers, and the thousands of consumer products they make. This will increase corporate influence and will not increase the democracy of labor unions.”

Armando Guerrero of the Sheet Metal Workers Local 104 said workers rely on unions to fight for them. “Like for FMLA and the prevailing wage they were cheated out of.” FMLA is the Family and Medical Leave Act.

“Can you imagine what this Legislature would look like with unrestricted contributions?” asked Willie Pelote with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. “No matter what they do, we’ll never go away.”

After opponents spoke, Assemblyman Paul Fong, D-Cupertino, asked committee members if they had any questions. Silence. Not one of the remaining legislators asked the Prop. 32 opponents a question.

After the grilling Kabateck and Wolfe received from Bonilla, Swanson and Lieu, the legislators’ silence showed the lack of intellectual honesty at this hearing. They know where their bread is buttered.

Swanson said, “Voters can see through all this.”

By Chris Reed

Nexis and the L.A. Times’ website show the editorial page of California’s biggest newspaper has yet to come out for or against Proposition 32, the measure whose primary goal is preventing automatic deduction of union dues from public employee paychecks for political purposes. Michael Hiltzik, the loud lefty whom the Times pretends is a business columnist, has trashed 32. But not the Times’ editorial page.

What’s up with that? The Sacramento media-political establishment says the prop is the devil. Why would the Times not get on board?

Maybe because in 2005, in a baffling, uncharacteristic spasm of honesty about how California politics work, the Times endorsed (!!!!) Prop. 75, Prop. 32’s clear historical predecessor. Highlights:

“We support this more narrowly tailored initiative primarily as a means of lessening the power of public employee unions in Sacramento, but also as a way of reinforcing the right of union members to insist that their hard-earned income not be diverted to political causes they don’t endorse.

By John Seiler

BEAUTIFUL DOWNTOWN BURBANK — My drive up from Huntington Beach to Burbank to attend the California Republican Convention displayed much of what is wrong with the state. A 51-mile trip took two hours.

Beach Boulevard, HB’s main thoroughfare, is crumbling, even though median home values are around $500,000. Either the lights aren’t coordinated, as they ought to be, or the coordination doesn’t work. So it was stop-and-go traffic on Saturday morning.

The 405 freeway was clogged, but the traffic flowed at about 40 mph. The road was mildly crumbling. North on the 605 was a breeze. Then I took the 5 “freeway,” and it was bumper-to-bumper until a few miles from Burbank. The 5, the main freeway running North to South in California, is falling apart. In some places, it’s only two lanes.

The Burbank Marriott is only a few miles from the freeway. The drive was easy across decaying roads.

The whole trip reminded me of visiting Tijuana back around 1990, the last time I was there. California has become a Third World country, regardless of Gov. Jerry Brown’s claims that it’s “silly” to compare us to Greece, which used to be a First World country but also has collapsed into Third World status due to excessive power by government-worker unions, wild government spending and ruinous debt.

Despite the rough roads, traffic snarls and shredding 104-degree humid weather, the trip was comfortable inside my air-conditioned 2010 Camry, which is designed in Japan and built in Kentucky. Toyota used to make cars here, most recently the Matrix, but pulled out in 2010 due to the state’s anti-business climate.

The roads are crumbling because, back in the 1970s during his first stint as governor, Brown proclaimed that as an “era of limits.” It wasn’t. California boomed as it always had. But he sharply cut back on road construction for a population he thought never would be here.

Today we really do live in an “era of limits.” Yet Brown still can’t get it right, attacking as “declinists” those who criticize his empire-building boondoggles, such as the high-speed choo-choo and the tunnel under the Delta. Meanwhile, the state keeps falling apart.

Republicans dismayed

Twenty years ago, Republican state conventions were tumultuous, sometimes involving shoving matches and expulsions. Conservatives had a lot of beefs with “moderates” like then-Gov. Pete Wilson, especially on such “social issues” as abortion.

Those wars seem to be over with, perhaps because the party’s last two nominees for governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Meg Whitman, were pro-abortion. That battle is long over with. But also gone, perhaps, is the passion that makes parties live.

At the convention, Republicans generally were dismayed at the condition of their party in California, where they have had a lot of problems. The pall of the Schwarzenegger disaster still hangs over the party. I talked with numerous convention delegates. There’s a split within the party between the party bigshots who want to keep courting rich candidates, such as Meg Whitman and Schwarzenegger; and the party regulars who either are Tea Party members, or look to grassroots organizing as the way to bring the GOP back into competition statewide.

History is on the side of the grassroots. In America, political movements begin from the bottom up, not the other way. The Goldwater Movement in the 1960s was led by grassroots Republicans and conservatives across the country. It nominated Barry Goldwater for president in 1964. Even though he lost, the Goldwater Movement kept growing, and became the Reagan Movement of the 1970s and 1980s.

In 1980, the party bigshots favored the patrician George H.W. Bush for president. The Republican grassroots favored Reagan, who won and remains the touchstone for the party. I heard his name mentioned often at the convention. But contrast, both Bushes, George H.W. and his son, George W.,  were non-persons. I never heard their names mentioned, even though just four years ago W. still was president.

GOP enthused about Paul Ryan

The bright note for the GOPers was Paul Ryan, who earlier that Saturday morning had been named Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential running mate. People liked his enthusiasm, and his insistence on budget cuts.

Actually, Ryan’s plan doesn’t go near far enough. But at least Republicans are talking about making cuts, and about the immense burden the $16 trillion debt imposes on the country. Democrats hardly talk about this at all. And when they do, it’s in the context of raising taxes on “the rich” — that is, those making more than $250,000 a year, which in expensive, high-tax California makes you well off, but not “rich.”

And President John F. Kennedy 50 years ago seems to be the last Democrat who understood that the way to “get the economy moving again,” as he put it, is to cut taxes, not raise them. Here’s JFK:

It took another year, until 1964, to pass the tax cuts under President Johnson. But when it was enacted, it boomed the economy throughout the 1960s. Unfortunately, Johnson then started spending wildly on his Great Society giveaway programs and the Vietnam War, far exceeding even the massive extra revenues from the growing economy, and the country quickly went bankrupt.

Anyway, Republicans at least have a little understanding on what’s going on.

The delegates at the convention also were handily against Proposition 30, Gov. Jerry Brown’s $8.5 billion tax increase to fund his high-speed choo-choo and the gigantic pensions for retired government workers.

John Fund on strategy

John Fund, a FoxNews commentator and senior editor at The American Spectator, talked about California Republican strategy. In the picture above, he’s speaking at the party’s evening dinner.

A California native, he said two things are imperative to get the party rolling again. First, pass Proposition 32, which would prevent unions from automatically deducting dues for political agitation from worker paychecks. If it passes, it would loosen the unions’ death-grip on the state.

Second, he said, in the future a Voter ID initiative should be passed to prevent voter fraud. Such laws are controversial around the country, sparking charges of racism against minorities. But Fund pointed out that polls show Voter ID is supported by all groups, including minorities. Almost everybody wants honest elections. Only politicians who benefit from crooked elections don’t want people checked to make sure, on election day, they are who they say they are.

Fund just published a new book, “Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk.” It details instances of massive voter fraud around the country.

By coincidence, I just finished the recent fourth volume of Robert Caro’s magisterial biography of Lyndon Johnson, “The Passage of Power: The Years of Lyndon Johnson.” It details the voter fraud LBJ used to get elected in Texas. And it has the goods on how he rigged the 1960 presidential election vote count in Texas so the Kennedy-Johnson ticket won. Caro also writes how the Kennedy machine and the Daley machine in Chicago rigged Illinois for JFK-LBJ. So the evidence is in: Republican Richard Nixon, a Californian, actually won the 1960 election.

And Caro describes the Kennedy-Johnson tax cut and the politics behind it. It’s worth reading in the context of today’s debate, almost 50 years later. Caro himself is a liberal Democrat.

CA GOP 2014

The fall convention before a general election usually is not well attended. I counted only about 160 at the Saturday evening dinner. Many Republicans are looking instead to the national convention at the end of the month.

Although dismayed and their number frayed, California Republicans could have a place in state politics for one reason: the state still is falling apart. If they’re smart, they’ll position themselves as the party that is ready to pick up the pieces when the state budget effectively goes bankrupt.

Instead of nominating a Schwarzenegger or a Whitman, rich people with no experience in elective office, they need to nominate more “nuts and bolts” candidates at the state level. Again, I don’t think  Paul Ryan wants to cut near enough to make a difference with the federal budget. But at least he’s familiar with the problem, and the numbers.

At the state level, the party needs to look to guys like Tom McClintock, the former state legislator now exiled to the U.S. House of Representatives as a congressman; or Assemblyman Chris Norby, R-Fullerton, a former history teacher who also understands budgets.

As with George Deukmejian in 1992, running for governor after Jerry Brown’s first bout of wrecking the state, a party that’s ready could win office.

By John Seiler

Politics has balance. When one party gets too strong, other parties move to take it down. That’s as true of totalitarian countries, where the factions are unseen, as it is in democracies, where the factions usually operate in public.

In California, the government-employee unions’ power has waxed higher than that of any other faction the past 20 years. It has to go do down. Already, the number of public employees has declined because budgets have had to be cut during the Great Recession. Tax increases, such as Gov. Jerry Brown’s $8.5 billion in Proposition 30, actually would make matters worse by sticking a knife further into the private sector that pays for everything.

So it was inevitable that another attempt to restrain overweening union power would come forth. This time it’s Proposition 32 on the November ballot. Also inevitable was this:

“Unions representing teachers, firefighters and state workers are airing statewide radio ads this week that cast the initiative as ‘a deceptive proposition stuffed with special exemptions for the oil companies, Wall Street and those secret campaign super PACs who want to rig the system while the middle class pays the price.’”

Prop. 32 would restrict contributions from union members and corporate employees. But it would do nothing to stop independent PACs set up by rich people, a right protected by the notorious Citizens United Supreme Court decision.

But who else is supposed to oppose the unions? As things now stand, the unions easily can pluck massive dues from the tax-paid salaries of union employees, then use the money to fund political campaigns that rig the system in favor of the unions. In addition to high salaries, this system has produced the massive pension spiking of the last decade that is bankrupting cities and put the state itself in hock $500 billion.

The unions have gone on a long spending spree with the taxpayers’ credit card, but now the plastic is maxed out and the taxpayers don’t want to refill it, and indeed don’t even have the money to refill it.

What goes around comes around, comrades.

Commentary

July 24, 2012

By John Seiler

Anyone who observes California politics knows that the government-worker unions dominate the state from top to bottom. They forced union pension spiking on the state a decade ago, leading to the spate of bankruptcies by cities here; and to the effective insolvency of the state government itself. The state simply cannot pay the $500 billion unfunded liability for state pension funds, according to a Stanford study.

Union dominance means that union bosses effectively sit on both sides of the negotiating table: as workers, and as employer — because union clout at the polls means the elections make union hacks like Gov. Jerry Brown the employer.

Proposition 32, on the ballot in November, would curb union power. According to the official ballot summary, it “Restricts union political fundraising by prohibiting use of payroll-deducted funds for political purposes.” Union members still could contribute to political causes. But they wouldn’t have their paychecks directly pilfered for union campaigns.

Not surprisingly, the major leftist organizations in the state oppose it, beginning with Common Cause and the supposedly unbiased League of Women Voters.

“It’s not at all what it seems,” said Trudy Schafer, of the state League of Women Voters, as reported in the Mercury News. “It promises political reform but it’s really designed by its special interest backers to help themselves and harm their opponents.” The backers are anti-union activists in Orange County.

But without this reform, the state really will go bankrupt — if it hasn’t already — because of union looting.

Common Cause

“I’m all for campaign finance reform,” said Derek Cressman, western regional director for Common Cause. “I’ve spent the last 15 years of my life working for campaign finance reform. I know campaign finance reform, and, friends, Prop. 32 is not campaign finance reform.”

Actually, Common Cause has worked to suppress free speech. Back in the 1970s, in the wake of the Watergate scandal, at the national level the group was instrumental in the so-called Watergate reforms that severely restricted campaign contributions. Doing so made elections so complicated that only professionals and rich people could run for office — not just for national office, but in many cases even for local offices.

It was a typical liberal “reform” that had the opposite effect of what was intended. Instead of reducing the power of the rich, it increased it. Before, a candidate for the U.S. Congress, for example, could tap a few rich people for campaign contributions. After the “reforms,” the candidate has to be rich himself to fund much of his campaign; or he has to spend most of his time fundraising small amounts. The result was that a good local candidate with ideas and character finds it almost impossible to run for office.

Political vacuum

Another result was that unions filled the political vacuum once they were given collective bargaining rights, which they were in California in 1977 with the Dills Act. It’s the same old story: The Left empowers itself and calls it “reform.”

Reported the Mercury News, “Still, labor groups view the ballot measure as a deadly threat and have far outpaced supporters in the money chase. Since the most recent finance reports on April 30, they’ve added $3.4 million to the $3.9 million cash they had on hand for a total of $7.3 million. The Yes side has $1.9 million.”

So it’s going to be tough the get this reform passed. A similar reform, Proposition 75, was on the ballot in 2005 as one of four initiatives on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s reform platform in that year’s November Special Election. The whole reform plank was badly conceived. And Schwarzenegger gave it his usual half-hearted attempt. He only ever campaigned hard for himself. After his reform plank was defeated, Schwarzenegger turned sharply to the left, passing massive new regulations, such as AB 32 and tax increases, that left the state in ruins similar to those on that island at the end of his movie “Commando.”

But the joke is on the unions, unCommon Cause, the League of Liberal Women Voters and their leftist cohorts. There’s no more money. Business and jobs are fleeing the state. California is going to have to cut union pay, perks and pensions — no matter what.

When you strangle the goose it no longer lays Golden State eggs.