Archive | Taxpayer Protection Act RSS feed for this section

California Governor and legislature are trying to take us back 240 years – they want to tax us without our vote. That’s taxation without representation.

17 Dec

When you’re making important decisions regarding ballot measures, I hope you’ll study up on the issues, read information from both sides. You might even try to find some impartial sources. Here’s an pretty fair article from Oregon University’s Jefferson Public Radio about the California Taxpayer Protection Act. Oregon has no dog in this fight, so it’s good to hear what they have to say about it.

https://www.ijpr.org/politics-government/2023-11-20/why-newsom-and-california-lawmakers-want-the-state-supreme-court-to-remove-a-2024-ballot-proposition

League of California Cities, the California Democrats, Governor Newsom and other opponents of the TPA claim the TPA shouldn’t even be allowed on the ballot.

“In late September, Newsom, the Legislature and former California Democratic Party chair John Burton filed an emergency petition asking the California Supreme to invalidate it. Their main argument is that the measure is so sweeping that it is a constitutional revision, rather than a constitutional amendment.“

Meanwhile, Democrats in the legislature are trying to amend the state constitution to require only 50%+1 approval for tax measures (ACA 1) and only 2/3’s passage for taxpayer protection measures (ACA 13). Those are both legislative amendments with NO VOTER APPROVAL.

Excuse me – what a pile of fucking hypocrites and just plain RACKETEERS! Their claim that this measure will make it harder to raise taxes is absolutely true – but not impossible like they’re claiming. It will just require more of us to sign on the handing our money down the toilet, than just our neighbor and another guy. Read further.

The ballot proposition would require voters to sign off on any new state tax or tax increase. It would also raise the threshold for voter approval of citizen-proposed taxes in cities, towns and counties from a simple majority to a two-thirds vote.

The measure would also reclassify many regulatory fees as taxes, which would subject them to the same requirements as taxes in order to be increased. Currently, some state and local governing bodies have delegated authority to agencies – such as municipal departments – to increase certain fees.

Here’s the real threat, especially in Chico, where the city just foisted a sewer “rate change mechanism) through mailed ballot followed by a 50%+1 sales tax increase.

If approved, the proposition would apply retroactively to all state and local tax increases since January 1, 2022 with a remedy period. That could mean a reversal of new local taxes that aren’t able to meet the requirements, which has raised alarm from the League of California Cities and a handful of mayors.

So wake up, look around – our Democratic Governor and his stooges are trying to tax us without proper representation, meaning your vote, your approval. Your answer: NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.

Tags:

Are you comfortable with 50% + 1 of your neighbors hitting you up with a tax?

4 Dec

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.

Tags:

Why would Gavin Newsom sue to stop the Taxpayer Protection Act?

6 Nov

Well, Happy Anniversary Chico Taxpayers Association – today I paid the annual fee for the blog, and as of January, this blog has been running for 11 years. And there’s been a lot of people who have contributed over the years, thankyouverymuch (say it like Elvis).

I started this blog when the city of Chico floated the cell phone tax – Measure J – onto the ballot, like a big turd. With the efforts of the Chico Tea Party (now defunct), Butte County Libertarians, Chico Republican Women, and many individuals, that measure was defeated. All it took was getting out there and informing the public of the details. Ann Schwab, then mayor and lead proponent of the tax, tried to tell people that the measure would actually lower the utility tax. They will say whatever they want, it takes research and a lot of push back to get the truth out there.

We faced the same kind of misinformation campaign from Chico Area Recreation District Measure A, a parcel tax. We attended meetings and heard CARD director Ann Willman, well, dropping some little fibs. Like when she tried to tell a group at an “informative” meeting that CARD had no debt, insinuating all the parcel tax money would go to expanding services instead of shoring up poor fiscal management. Dave called her on that one, and she had to admit her error – at that time, the pension deficit for an agency of about 35 employees had reached over $1.7 million.

It’s always shocking to me how the government will lie to get the voters to pass taxes on themselves, but that’s the way it is, and we have to push back. This is what we’re facing with the Taxpayer Protection Act – opponents, led by Governor Gavin Newson, are trying to stop the TPA from being on the 2024 ballot. Newsom himself has mounted a lawsuit, claiming the TPA “represents an illegal attempt to revise the state constitution” and “Administrative agencies would lose the power to do much of the work they do today under legislatively delegated authority.”

If you believe we should have more to say about taxing ourselves, find out more about supporting the Taxpayer Protection Act at https://taxpayerprotection.com/

Tags: