I was pretty disgusted with a recent letter to the ER from frequent contributor Mark S. Gailey. For one thing, it wasn’t even original, he’d obviously lifted most of his letter from the California League of Cities propaganda. Come on Mark, I think you got better game than that! Let’s talk about why opponents are afraid of this measure.
I have to laugh at this little stretch – “CLC “believes the purpose of the initiative would be to create major loopholes for corporations.” If you read the text of the measure and the analysis on Ballotpedia, maybe you can figure out where they got that claim. I just don’t get it, it hardly makes sense. All I see in the text of the TPA is a restoration of taxpayers’ and voters’ rights that have been slowly whittled down by the California legislature without any input or vote of the public. And now the legislature – those people who are supposed to represent the voters – is joining Gavin Newsom in a lawsuit to keep the TPA off the ballot.
Can you kids say F-AAAA-SHIST? I wrote a letter about it.
California League of Cities claims the Taxpayer Protection Act “will upend and jeopardize revenue streams” and “residents will get less.”
According to Ballotpedia, “A ‘yes‘ vote supports amending the state constitution to define all state and local levies, charges, and fees as taxes and to require new state taxes proposed by the state legislature to be enacted via a two-thirds legislative vote and voter approval and new local taxes to be enacted via a two-thirds vote of the electorate.”
Yes, they’re afraid of the 2/3’s requirement, because voters have lost confidence in their local and state leaders and are rightfully leery of tax increases. Measure H squeezed in with only 52.72% voter approval. Are we comfortable with a slim majority like that, when we all have to pay it? Are we all comfortable with how they’ve been spending it? How do you feel about being threatened with “less”?
CLC “believes the purpose of the initiative would be to create major loopholes for corporations.”
Nowhere in this measure is anything about loopholes for corporations, read it yourself – why believe hearsay?
Opponents are so worried about taxpayers exercising their rights, they’ve not only put a competing measure on the ballot, requiring voter’s rights measures to get 2/3’s approval, but the governor has mounted a lawsuit to keep the TPA off the ballot.
Why are the governor, legislators, and public employee unions afraid of us?
I was at the store the other day – did you know there’s still a tax on tea? Think about that. ‘
Juanita Sumner, Chico CA
Next time I’d like to talk about levies, charges and fees – for example, were you really comfortable with the “sewer rate change” or the Vina GSA fees and the way they were enacted? Would that change under the Taxpayer Protection Act? I’ll do some research and get back to you.
Chico Taxpayers Association 
I would like to encourage a referendum that alloweds all State tax-increasing bills to be vetoed buy a vote of 30 of the 58 California counties head supervisors. The governor can still veto too. Just one veto would kick the bill back to the legislature.
You’re asking for the same old simple majority. The Taxpayer Protection Act is already on the 2024 ballot. The TPA would require voter approval, with a 2/3’s majority, for ANY and ALL new taxes. It would define “fees” – maybe even sewer fees! – as a tax. I don’t think we can trust the governor or the county boards – crap sakes, our governor is currently suing to take the TPA off the ballot, you really think he’s concerned about taxpayer rights? He’s trying to take away taxpayer rights, he says taxpayer rights are counter to his right to raise our taxes at will. You really think our board of supervisors would overturn a tax? Right now they’re pursuing new taxes,. I hope you’ll support the TPA.