But even more is being spent on Proposition 8, which would require dialysis clinics to pay rebates to health insurers as well as a penalty to the state if their revenue topped 115 percent of some but not all their costs of operation.

The measure – sponsored by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers – is depicted by the companies which run the clinics as an SEIU attempt to punish them for the union’s inability to unionize clinic workers. They point to the decision to omit certain operational costs from the revenue calculation as a cynical retribution – one that could force many of the state’s 550-plus licensed dialysis clinics to close or reduce hours, hugely inconveniencing the 70,000 state residents who need the machines to clean their blood of toxins because of problems with their kidneys.

A group of clinic operators – led by DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care, the two biggest companies – have provided $110 million to beat the measure. TV ads showing dialysis patients warning their lives would be devastated if Proposition 8 passes have been a constant presence in large California media markets for more than a month.

The SEIU, which has contributed $18.8 million to the Yes on 8 campaign, is being outspent by nearly 6-1 – so far at least. If internal polls show Proposition 8 close to passing, the dialysis companies could afford to spend that much a day until Nov. 6. That’s because they made about a $3 billion profit in California last year, according to an Associated Press report last week.

“We will spend what is necessary to protect patients from this dangerous and irresponsible ballot measure,” No on 8 spokeswoman Kathy Fairbanks told the Associated Press.

SEIU has long history of targeting health industries

In a Los Angeles Times story, SEIU-UHW leader Dave Regan depicted Proposition 8 as an attempt to help dialysis patients deal with a “predatory” industry. “[They] have a terrible business model and they’re gouging patients and insurers,” he said.

Fresenius and DaVita, which was ordered to pay $253.5 million in damages in a June court ruling after two patients’ deaths, have been accused of cutting corners to raise profits.

But dialysis companies say the SEIU’s concerns about how their industry works were nowhere to be heard when the union was trying and failing to get clinic workers to sign up for SEIU representation in contract bargaining.

The Times’ recent coverage notes that since 2012, the SEIU has taken at least initial steps toward 14 local and state ballot measures that targeted California health care industries which push back at attempts to unionize. For example, in 2016, the union pursued a measure to cap the pay of hospital executives.

The $128 million-plus spent so far on Proposition 8 is the most on a state ballot measure since 2002; official California campaign spending records from before then are unavailable, according to the Times.

Death penalty measures revive old fight

Good morning! While the 17-measure ballot might seem overwhelming to many voters, the good news is that it is not as long as it seems. Voters will choose between two competing death-penalty initiatives. 

In Proposition 62, voters are being asked whether to repeal the death penalty for those found guilty of murder and replace it with life in prison without the possibility of parole. In Proposition 66, voters are asked whether to streamline the appeals process to make it easier for the state to execute convicted murderers. 

Ironically, Prop. 62 would put an end to executions that rarely happen anyway. The last execution in California took place a decade ago – all executions have been delayed because of legal challenges to the use of lethal injections.

Those realities actually bolster the case made by the supporters of both initiatives. Backers of Prop. 62 argue that the state’s death penalty is a failed system because so few people are actually executed.

CalWatchdog has more. 

In other news:

• “(Andrew) Naylor, a systems administrator with a business degree, had bought up thousands of web addresses, many wine-related, and sold one for a five-figure sum. After watching the Prop. 8 blitz, he started buying addresses with combinations of yes and no on propositions 1 to 100. And that’s how Naylor became a virtual landlord of more than 1,000 campaign domain names — and a dominant player in California’s marketplace for political web addresses.” The San Jose Mercury News/Calmatters has more.

• “California’s two senators and House members from both parties are trying to block the Pentagon from recovering tens of millions of dollars worth of illegal retention and re-enlistment bonuses it awarded to California National Guard soldiers during the height of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars,” reports The Sacramento Bee.

• But Congress shouldn’t be too shocked, as members knew about the issue two years ago, reports the Los Angeles Times.

• “The Bay Area’s only Republican state legislator is in an expensive fight to keep her seat, with Catharine Baker, of Dublin, facing a challenge from Cheryl Cook-Kallio in a battle pitting an avowed supporter of bipartisan work against a former city councilwoman and teacher espousing traditional Democratic values,” writes The San Jose Mercury News.

Legislature:

• Gone till December.

Gov. Brown:

• No public events announced.

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New followers: @CaCities

This was put on clear view this week when executives with the OK Cupid dating site warned users of the Mozilla Firefox browser who came to their site that they were using the product of a company run by an alleged homophobe. The Mountain View-based Mozilla Foundation responded by pushing out CEO Brendan Eich, who donated $1,000 in 2008 to the campaign for Proposition 8. That’s the California ballot measure banning same-sex marriage that was narrowly approved but has since been nullified by federal courts.

James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal has more details and some very pertinent Golden State context:

“There has been no claim that Eich, an executive of Mozilla Corp. since its founding in 2005, discriminated against gay employees. …

“Eich’s support for Proposition 8 became public knowledge because of a California law requiring disclosure of personal information — name, address, occupation and employer’s name — of anybody who gives $100 or more to a campaign for or against a ballot initiative. The secretary of state’s office is required to post this information online [and does so on] an easily searchable database.

“Which brings us back to Citizens United. It is known as a 5-4 decision, and most of it was, but one part of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion–upholding a provision requiring disclosure of political contributions–was for an 8-1 majority, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting alone.”

‘We have plans for you and your friends’

“Thomas’s argument rested heavily on the facts of the Proposition 8 campaign, and it’s worth quoting at length …:

‘Some opponents of Proposition 8 compiled this information and created Web sites with maps showing the locations of homes or businesses of Proposition 8 supporters. Many supporters (or their customers) suffered property damage, or threats of physical violence or death, as a result. They cited these incidents in a complaint they filed after the 2008 election, seeking to invalidate California’s mandatory disclosure laws. Supporters recounted being told: “Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter,” or, “we have plans for you and your friends.” Proposition 8 opponents also allegedly harassed the measure’s supporters by defacing or damaging their property. Two religious organizations supporting Proposition 8 reportedly received through the mail envelopes containing a white powdery substance.

‘Those accounts are consistent with media reports describing Proposition 8-related retaliation. The director of the nonprofit California Musical Theater gave $1,000 to support the initiative; he was forced to resign after artists complained to his employer. The director of the Los Angeles Film Festival was forced to resign after giving $1,500 because opponents threatened to boycott and picket the next festival. And a woman who had managed her popular, family-owned restaurant for 26 years was forced to resign after she gave $100, because “throngs of [angry] protesters” repeatedly arrived at the restaurant and “shout[ed] ‘shame on you’ at customers.” The police even had to “arriv[e] in riot gear one night to quell the angry mob” at the restaurant. Ibid. Some supporters of Proposition 8 engaged in similar tactics; one real estate businessman in San Diego who had donated to a group opposing Proposition 8 “received a letter from the Prop. 8 Executive Committee threatening to publish his company’s name if he didn’t also donate to the ‘Yes on 8’ campaign.”

‘The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens’ exercise of their First Amendment rights. Before the 2008 Presidential election, a “newly formed nonprofit group . . . plann[ed] to confront donors to conservative groups, hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions.” Its leader, “who described his effort as ‘going for the jugular,’ ” detailed the group’s plan to send a “warning letter . . . alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives.”

‘These instances of retaliation sufficiently demonstrate why this Court should invalidate mandatory disclosure and reporting requirements.’

Orwell thought it would be government — not interest groups

My references to thoughtcrime and group-hate (or two-minute hate) come, of course, from “1984.” But unlike in the Orwell novel, the government isn’t behind these campaigns. Instead, it’s privatized.

Here’s hoping that California doesn’t again start a trend copied around the world. I voted against Prop. 8 in 2008, and Prop. 22 in 2000, for that matter. I am not a social conservative and find the Jon Fleischmann argument that social conservatives are less likely to be RINOs on economic conservatism hard to buy. During the latter days of House Speaker Newt Gingrich and the early years of Bush 43, social conservative GOP House members acted like LBJ circa 1965. Yeah, surrrrre, they were pure. If libertarians and libertarian lites could wield power without having to occasionally go along with social conservative policies, I think that would be a day to celebrate.

But I don’t want to live in a society where behavioral vigilantes hurt people and think they hold the moral high ground as they take wrecking balls to the lives of those with different views.

Good for Andrew Sullivan, the most high-profile pundit who happens to be gay in the English-language media, for making this argument as well.

“[Eich] did not understand that in order to be a CEO of a company, you have to renounce your heresy! There is only one permissible opinion at Mozilla, and all dissidents must be purged! Yep, that’s left-liberal tolerance in a nut-shell. No, he wasn’t a victim of government censorship or intimidation. He was a victim of the free market in which people can choose to express their opinions by boycotts, free speech and the like. He still has his full First Amendment rights. But what we’re talking about is the obvious and ugly intolerance of parts of the gay movement, who have reacted to years of being subjected to social obloquy by returning the favor. …

“It is also unbelievably stupid for the gay rights movement. You want to squander the real gains we have made by argument and engagement by becoming just as intolerant of others’ views as the Christianists? You’ve just found a great way to do this. It’s a bad, self-inflicted blow. And all of us will come to regret it.”

But while many millions of voters are increasingly comfortable with the equating of anti-black discrimination and anti-gay discrimination, they don’t necessarily slip into the same stance when it comes to immigration — specifically the idea that racial animus drives those who question amnesty or amnesty-lite policies that trivialize federal laws.

Consider the fallout from a court ruling last week of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. This is from the L.A. Times’ account:

“SAN FRANCISCO — An attorney is vowing to appeal a federal court ruling that a Northern California high school that asked students to remove American flag shirts on Cinco de Mayo acted reasonably to avoid igniting ethnic tensions.

“The ruling stemmed from a 2010 incident that provoked angry commentary across the country and a lawsuit by students claiming their constitutional rights had been violated.

“An attorney for three students who sued said he would ask a larger panel of the 9th Circuit to overturn the ruling.

“‘I am pretty astonished that in this country you can’t express your patriotic freedom without offending people of other national origins,’ said William Becker Jr., who represented the students on behalf of FreedomX, a nonprofit he heads to advocate free-speech cases for conservatives and Christians.

“If the school feared a disturbance, it should have canceled the Cinco de Mayo celebration, ‘not deprived students of their 1st Amendment rights to patriotic expression,’ he said.

“In siding with the Morgan Hill Unified School District, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said administrators at Live Oak School had reason to fear the flag attire might spark a potentially violent race-related disturbance during the school-sanctioned celebration of the Mexican holiday.”

Recipe for blowback

Since this ruling came down, I have seen lots of reaction that says the decision makes sense, given school administrators’ responsibility to keep students safe.

But I have not seen a single white Californian — in print, in emails, on Twitter, anywhere — who thinks the white students did something wrong or who is comfortable with how this mess played out then and now. One Dem I know said he would have filibustered school board meetings for the rest of his life before allowing his daughter to go to a school in a district that sent kids home for wearing U.S. flags in a proud way.

My point here is going to be muddled no matter what because of my ambivalence on this issue. If I lived in Mexico and wanted my family to have a better life, I wouldn’t think twice about breaking U.S. law to come here. I also think that America needs a big influx of people to pay for the Baby Boomers going on the dole.

But I also think there is massive intellectual dishonesty on the part of many of those who support illegal immigration or who report on the issue. If you add millions of unskilled laborers to the U.S. work force, of-bleeping-course the unskilled laborers who are already in the U.S. work force will suffer. That group includes mostly minorities. How come this is never mentioned?

Oh, well. Expecting rationalism or honesty in politics or political journalism is stupid, so I’ll just shut up now.

Aren’t you sick of the Marriage Wars?

In the latest development a court — who cares which one — upheld the decision of a lower court — who cares which one — that same-sex couples have a “right” to marriage.

But consider this. Governments arrogated to themselves control over marriage only about 175 years ago. Before that, marriage was under the purview of a couple, families and religions or ethical groups.

Since government took over marriage, the divorce rate has shot up to 50 percent. Would you buy a car from a company whose cars crashed half the time?

Here’s a better idea: Privatize marriage. Get government out the marriage business entirely.

If you want to get married, then do so as people used to. Talk to family. Get a preacher. Get hitched.

If you’re an agnostic or an atheist, then get someone from an ethics group to perform the ceremony. Or do it yourselves.

Which reminds me of an old Woody Allen joke, “I did not marry the first girl that I fell in love with, because there was a tremendous religious conflict, at the time. She was an atheist, and I was an agnostic.”

Religions should take the lead. The more conservative religions have led the movement against government imposing same-sex “marriage.” But religions always lose these battles.

What these religions should do is ask their members not register marriages with the government, but only to marry under religious auspices.

Imagine if nobody showed up any more with county clerks to register marriages.

I realize that this could involve some legal complications involving children, estates, etc. Well, work them out within your religion.

And here’s an even more radical idea: Don’t register your kids with the government either. Hatch them in secret. Raise them on your own. Don’t tell the tyrants.

The Jefferson Starship even wrote a song about it, “Child is Coming,” with these lyrics:

A child is coming
A child is coming
A child is coming to you

What are we gonna do when Uncle Samuel comes around
Askin’ for the young one’s name
And lookin’ for the print of his hand for the files in their numbers game
I don’t want his chances for freedom to ever be that slim
Let’s not tell ’em about him.

Instead of trying to control government for our purposes, let’s ignore it — and get rid of it.

Feb. 7, 2012

Here’s a YouTube of “Child is Coming,” from the Starship’s great “Blows Against the Empire” album:

By WAYNE LUSVARDI AND CHARLES B. WARREN

California’s Proposition 13 is working to halt a larger and faster erosion of the property tax base in Sacramento County and elsewhere around the state.  But that is not what is being reported in the mainstream newspaper media, which only tell a “poor me” story of how property taxes are declining in the Sacramento area.

It is not the superficial absolute percentage of decline in property taxes but the relative decline in relation to the overall decline in market values that is critical.

Property values go up and down in cycles and it is up to government to have rainy day fund reserves to handle the downturns.  Fortunately, with Prop. 13, these declines can be managed. While without Prop. 13, the pain would be much deeper and would likely dig deeper than budget reserves.

For example, the Sacramento Bee is reporting that the Sacramento County property tax base fell by $4 billion for the fiscal year from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011, resulting in a 1 percent, or $40 million, drop in property tax revenues.

But Zillow.com indicates that the market value of single-family homes declined by about 16.7 percent from 2010 to 2011 (as of July 7, 2011); and by about 57 percent since 2007 at the peak of the Real State Bubble.  At the market peak, the median home price in Sacramento County was about $350,000, while today it has dropped to $150,000.

Since 2010, the median price of a single family home has dropped by about 16.7 percent.  But due to Prop. 13, the latest decline in the property tax base has been held to 1 percent.

One of the unheralded benefits of Prop. 13 is that it serves as a circuit breaker to large fluctuations in market values, either upward or downward.

Prop. 8 Provides for Tax Adjustments

Proposition 8, passed in 1978, amends Prop. 13 to provide for reductions in assessed property values due to a decline in market value.  Prop. 8 re-assessments are temporary and will ratchet back upward when the market recovers.

Prop. 8 property tax re-assessments do not necessarily have to be applied for by the owner and are automatically adjusted by the tax assessor in each county.  Such re-assessments typically affect so-called “underwater” properties whose mortgages are more than the assessed value for property tax purposes. Zillow.com reports that the percentage of underwater mortgages in Sacramento County is 51 percent.

An “underwater” property is not the same as when the assessor at his discretion may reduce the property value assessment temporarily until the market recovers. If monetary inflation takes off, as predicted by many, there may be a flight of capital out of money markets and back into real estate, at which time assessed values would be readjusted upward by the Assessor, but only for those properties that had their assessment previously lowered under Prop. 8.

Prop 13 is good for government as well as for homeowners.  But don’t expect to read or hear that in the newspaper or broadcast media.