Posted on 12/18/2008 9:15:43 AM PST by goldstategop
In perhaps one of the most brazen political moves in California history, Democrat leadership yesterday unveiled a budget proposal that would shred the California Constitution by raising billions of new taxes without the required two-thirds vote.
The tax hikes in the proposal would include a 2.5% surcharge on anyone paying personal income tax, an additional three quarter of one percent sales tax, an oil severance tax and replacement of current taxes on gas with even higher “fees.”
We have no idea who is providing legal advice to the Semocrats, but they should have been informed before launching this silly proposal that, not only would a lawsuit be inevitable, the challenge would also succeed in preventing the taxes from ever being imposed.
What are the Democrats thinking? The two-thirds vote requirement, one of the most important provisions of Prop 13, clearly provides that “any changes in state taxes enacted for the purpose of increasing revenues collected pursuant thereto whether by increased rates or changes in methods of computation must be imposed by an Act passed by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature.”
This is not new language. Prop 13 is 30 years old. On his face, any attempt to circumvent this requirement is going to look suspicious at best. Nor is this language narrowly crafted. It applies whenever a statute is enacted for the purpose of raising revenue.
Moreover, even if the language wasn’t clear, dozens of reported California cases support the position that this proposal is unconstitutional. Prop 13, the courts have ruled, is to be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes. In other Prop 13 cases, the courts have said that voter intent must be the guide on issues of interpretation: “The Legislature is not always enamored with initiative measures enacted by the voters. The Legislature ought not to be able to frustrate the intent of the electorate by enacting statutes that frustrate the popular will. Consequently ... we will continue to give greater significance to the will of the electorate.” Hoogasian Flowers v. State Bd. of Equalization (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1277.
To suggest that the intent of the voters was to permit this transparent end-run doesn’t even pass the laugh test.
In short, the Democrat leadership has really stepped in it. The immediate outrage from the public has been vocal and harsh – and has only just started. From the calls coming into our offices and into talk radio, the citizenry ready to grab their pitchforks and torches. Voters understand that which, inexplicably, has escaped Democrat leadership. This drill is a direct assault on the California Constitution that will not be tolerated and any legislator who votes for this is violating their oath of office.
One more point. This drill is also a direct assault on Prop 13. Any legislator who votes for a tax increase which, by its terms, purports to be a simple majority vote bill, will be labeled as an enemy of Proposition 13. That applies to the Governor as well. _____________________________________________________
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
The first course of government should be to cut their own pay.
We pay enough taxes and fees.
Watch out! Soon fines for speeding, etc., will hit the roof.
This is what we call a back-door tax. The state legislature is trying to give it to us right up the you-know-where.
“The tax hikes in the proposal would include a 2.5% surcharge on anyone paying personal income tax”
Huh?
So there is a tax on paying a tax?
If people don’t consider Prop 13, their taxes could triple on their homes. California has stated that they want a 1% tax on homes.....sounds good huh. But....they would re-evaluate your home which would mean that if you home is taxed at $300,00.00, it might be evaluated at $500,000.00 and taxed at that rate. The Dems are sneaky.....watch this one. If they want more foreclosures, they’ll get them. It’s called a land grab.
the proposal would include a 2.5% surcharge on anyone paying personal income tax,
—
Uhh
on anyone paying personal income tax,
Well That should get folk up in arms you would think..
Dems are insane, they have an insatiable appetite for OPM, consider any and all social&entitlement programs&unions Sacred Cows.
Too bad taxpayers aren’t as lucky .. but someone has to pump the swill to keep the gulags going.
They need Sarah to make a visit and teach them how to run a state!
'The tax hikes in the proposal would include a 2.5% surcharge on anyone paying personal income tax,
I knew it, I knew it. A dem would come up with a tax on a tax! Or a 'tax-tax'.
A few years back I read of a similar 'tax-tax' idea being proposed in some North Eastern state. But back then the idea was laughed-off as STOO-PID™ and it never went anywhere.
Bur I felt it wouldn't die and some Dem somewhere, sometime, would try it again. Wah-la it rises its ugly head in CA - we want to tax you on your taxes.
Gee whiz, a tax-tax in the land of fruits and nuts, who'd a thunk it.
Only about 50-60% of Californians pay a net federal OR state income tax. The rest are takers not makers. And they (the takers) all vote Lefticrat. It only takes 10% of the remaining 40-50% — the makers, those who pay net taxes — to vote Lefticrat to secure victory year after year.
So why not raise taxes more and more? Most of those who vote support such politicians, aren’t paying any taxes to begin with. It’s not their money.
If legally imposed, I would greatly favor speeding fines being greatly increased, in order to greatly reduce speeding. Perhaps this would produce the desired effect: something on the order of $100 for every mile-per-hour in excess of 5mph over the posted limit, with fines doubling to $200 for every mile-per-hour in excess of 15mph over the posted limit. I would never have to pay either, and I daresay overall fine revenue would decline as scofflaws slowed down, which is the point.
Of course, I have no idea what you meant by your "etc." You wouldn't be a speeder yourself, now, would you?
I’m more interested in the tailgaters and lane-changers. Me speed? I live in Orange County. Drive 55 here and you receive honks and fingers.
Honks and fingers are not the worst things in the world.
Exactly I called my two state reps and told them to cut their per diem down... it is 139.00 a day, plus their cars, gas and insurance paid. and their bloated salaries.. They could live four to a four bed room house.. be put up in barracks like the military., on that much a day I could house and feed 5 families in my city easy..I mentioned it was a scam to call the gas tax a fee.. what a bunch of creeps we have here in California..
The cuts start with government, not the taxpaying citizens.
KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS
If you are driving in the passing lane and obstructing traffic, in California or any major city in North America, somebody WILL eventually point a “lead throwing device” at you. Some person might even allow that device to function at what YOU might consider a most inopportune moment, though everyone behind you in the passing lane will likely applaud his action.
KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS
Are you omniscient? Do you KNOW that there is no emergent situation behind you? Are you officially deputized to patrol the left lane and impede traffic FLOW?
KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS
Get over yourself and drive in the TRAVEL lane. The left lane is called the PASSING lane for a reason. Grow up and let the rest of us be responsible for our own actions. You’re most assuredly NOT our parent! We can all thank G_d for that kind mercy.
KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS
But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore G_d is not ashamed to be called their G_d: for He hath prepared for them a city.
KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS.
I would greatly favor all fines for speeding be increased for municipal areas, but abolishing the speed limits on interstates and US highways.
I would favor MANDATORY JAIL and MANDATORY REVOCATION of licenses for life if convicted drunk and/or drugged driving, including for marijuana use.
I would also favor mandatory drug testing to get or renew a driver's license. I favor mandatory, periodic random drug testing for anyone who gets a check from any governmental body.
You wouldn't be a speeder yourself, now, would you?
You wouldn't be a CHP?
By the way, "God" is His title, not his name. His name is "I am that I am." Once one knows that about Him, one may begin to know Him better, personally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.