On Fathers' Day, Blame it on Dad

Hiram Johnson

It's a bit of an historical stretch to blame California's dysfunctions on Dad. And it may seem funny to do it after the legislature passed a budget on time as per our earlier post.  However, commentator Joe Mathews does blame Gov. Hiram Johnson's father for the dysfunctions of the state's initiative system. Hiram Johnson was the reform governor elected in 1910 who brought in "direct democracy," the initiative, referendum, and recall (along with women's suffrage and workers' compensation insurance).

From Mathews (excerpt):

Why is California so hard to govern? One reason is that we’re suffering from daddy issues, and this Father’s Day is as good a time as any to confront them. The daddy in question is Grove Johnson, father of one of our most revered governors, Hiram Johnson, who served from 1911 through 1917. Johnson is the governor who convinced Californians to adopt the ballot initiative process in 1911. Many of us revere that process, but it has its problems. And we never address those problems, because our media keep repeating a bogus story: A century ago, the noble and sainted Hiram Johnson created the initiative process to give the people of California the power to fight the railroad and other powerful interests. But over a century, we Californians—and especially our special interests and rich people—have corrupted the people’s process into something Johnson never intended. This tale is bunk, for two reasons. First, the problems of today’s initiative process (big money, interest-group domination, and public confusion) were present—and much rued—from the very beginning. Second, the biggest flaw of the initiative process—the flaw that makes California so hard to govern today—was not the fault of today’s Californians. It was introduced by Johnson himself. Yes, Johnson sabotaged the initiative process. But how—and why? The answer lies in the story of a toxic relationship between father and son...

To find out more, go to the full article at http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2013/06/13/the-bad-dad-who-cursed-california/inquiries/connecting-california/

What Hiram never sang for his father:

And for a more patriotic view of dad, we offer:

Oil Tax for Higher Ed Initiative

As we have noted many times, it is very hard to get an initiative on the ballot without hiring signature-gathering firms (which will cost $1-$2 million).  And if the initiative gets on the ballot, millions more will be needed for TV ads, etc., if there is opposition.  An oil severance tax to fund higher ed would clearly have such opposition - from the oil industry. 

All that said, there is such an effort underway (as noted in prior posts): …Conceived by UC-Berkeley students, the California Modernization and Economic Development Act places a 9.5 percent tax on oil and gas extracted from California; supporters say it would bring about $2 billion of new revenue per year. Of that, about $1.2 billion would be allocated in four equal parts towards K-12 education, California Community Colleges, California State University and the University of California. Another $400 million or so would be used to provide businesses with subsidies for switching to cleaner, cheaper forms of energy, and about $300 million would go to county governments for infrastructure repair, public works projects, and funding public services…

Full article at http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2013/04/25/oil-severance-tax-measure-to-start-circulating/

At least there is a song to go with the effort:

Up Came Oil

Powered by mp3skull.com

Tobacco Tax Initiative for UC/CSU Student Aid Advances

As prior posts have noted, an initiative was filed featuring a tobacco tax to be used mainly for student aid at UC and CSU.  Unlike many initiatives that are filed, there seems to be serious money behind it since it is being handled by a professional law firm that deals with electoral matters. The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) has now come up with an analysis of the initiative, a step towards petition circulation.

According to the LAO, about $730 million, net, would be raised by this initiative annually.

Once the initiative is approved for circulation, we will see whether someone is willing to step forward with the money to hire a commercial firm to obtain the necessary signatures.  Such an initiative - if it made it on to the 2014 ballot - would be opposed by tobacco companies and a large budget for TV ads, etc., would be needed to counter their campaign.  The last tobacco tax on the ballot - earmarked for cancer research - was defeated.

You can read the LAO's report at:
http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2012/120658.aspx

Meanwhile, be happy...

Seven

There are seven years in a sabbatical.  Snow White had seven dwarfs.  There are seven deadly sins.  And Prop 30 - the governor's now-enacted tax initiative - raised taxes for seven years.

So legislative Republicans are pushing for a seven-year freeze on public university tuitions.  Now it is true that the Republicans are in a diminished situation with Democrats holding a supermajority in the state legislature.  But the idea of a tuition freeze will have an appeal beyond Republican ranks.

The PolitiCal blog of the LA Times has the story (excerpt):

Legislative Republicans on Monday proposed a seven-year freeze on tuition and fee increases at California’s public universities and community colleges to correspond with the length of tax increases under voter-approved Proposition 30.  Two bills were introduced that would seek to freeze fees at California State University and the University of California and make sure Proposition 30 money goes to the universities so fee increases would be unnecessary. The measures were proposed just days before Gov. Jerry Brown releases his budget for next year...

Full story at http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2013/01/university-fee-hike-freeze-proposed.html

I guess there is no sin in asking for a tuition freeze:

Tobacco Tax for UC/CSU Student Aid Initiative Filed

Note: We posted this story yesterday although blogger now shows it as today for reasons unknown.

An initiative has been filed that would raise tobacco taxes to fund student aid at UC and CSU.  The usual caveats apply.  It takes $1-$2 million to pay signature gathering firms to get such a petition on the ballot (as opposed to $200 to file it).  A tobacco tax initiative brings out big money opposition from tobacco companies.  Recall the tobacco tax that failed last June.  So a sponsor - if serious - would have to have deep pockets to carry out an effective campaign to enact the initiative if it got on the ballot.

All yours truly can say about this one is that it is professionally drafted - many initiatives that are filed are not - by a law firm that specializes in election matters and has represented various unions, the Democratic Party, and even UC.  At least, that is what it says on the firm's website: http://www.rjp.com/index.cfm/clients/.

The initiative itself is at:http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i1066_12-0018_%28tax_to_fund_higher_education%29.pdf

At some point, we will find out if there is serious money behind this initiative.  In the meantime:

Proponents of Tobacco Tax for UC/CSU Scholarships May Not Just Be Blowing Smoke

Yesterday (although blogger now shows it as today and later than this posting for reasons unknown), we noted an initiative had been filed that would tax tobacco to provide scholarship aid for UC and CSU students.  We noted in particular that the initiative was professionally drafted, unlike many that are filed and, so, might have serious backers that could really fund a campaign.

The San Francisco Chronicle picks up the story today and notes the Lt. Governor Newsom seems linked to the initiative.  The initiative's spokesperson is someone named in an earlier item in the Chronicle as a key aide to California Senate president Steinberg.

Bottom line: This effort could be for real.  The Chronicle story is at:
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/California-smokers-may-get-hit-with-new-tax-4139921.php

Jason Kinney, the spokesperson, was identified in an August story as "Steinberg's chief political consultant."
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Democrats-fight-over-tax-ballot-measures-3797312.php

The earliest this initiative could be on the ballot would be Nov. 2014 unless some kind of legislative action changed the existing procedure.  But at that time, if passed, students might well say:

Lawsuit against Prop 13's 2/3 requirement reported rejected

Charles Young

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) has reported this afternoon via its email service that the lawsuit filed by former UCLA Chancellor Charles Young to overturn the 2/3 tax increase requirement in Prop 13 of 1978 has been rejected by the California Supreme Court.  So far, no other news source has so reported:

The California Supreme Court has refused to hear a challenge to significant aspects of Proposition 13, prosecuted by former UCLA Chancellor Charles Young...  Earlier this year, the 2nd District Court of Appeal agreed with attorneys representing the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association that Young’s suit challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 13 lacks merit... After the Court of Appeal affirmed HJTA's victory, Young returned to... the Supreme Court, and he has again been rejected... 

Although the email contains a link to the HJTA website, as yet the message in the email is not reprinted there. If there is a confirmation from another news source, the update will appear on this blog.

UPDATE: Here is a confirmation from another source:
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2012/conf112112.htm

Why Prop 30 Will Not Be a Windfall for UC

The chart above from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities suggests that the state's "social welfare" functions will take a growing share of the budget. [Click on the chart to enlarge and make clearer.] Those functions were very limited at the time of the Master Plan's adoption.  Since that time, they have tended to crowd out UC's share of the state budget.  Ultimately, that is why the governor cautioned UC about its wishlist budget at the most recent Regents meeting.

You can find the report from which the chart above was taken at:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3860

More Prop 30 Election Post Mortem

There has been much discussion as to whether it was the youth vote that ultimately passed Prop 30, the governor's tax initiative.  Prop 30 had done marginally in the pre-election polls and appeared to be slipping.  Yet it ultimately passed with 54% of the vote.  So did this result stem from a surge in youth voters?

It appears that the answer is yes and no.  The Field Poll now reports that it underestimated the youth vote when it made its calculation of likely voters.  Pollsters routinely adjust their samples to try and get at who will actually show up on Election Day.  Field did not anticipate a late surge of youth voters.  But in examining the impact of such voters, it appears that Prop 30 would have passed without the youth surge, albeit by a narrower margin.

An analysis appears in the Sacramento Bee's Capitol Alert blog:
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/11/california-youth-vote-did-not-decide-outcome-of-prop-30-field-poll.html

Young voters certainly disproportionately favored Prop 30.  But it was older voters who were young at heart that passed it: