The Freedom Minute

Calculate How Much Extra Taxes You’ll Be Paying

Go to the Sacramento Bee website and calculate how much you’re going to be paying when they raise your taxes.

Then call your representatives and email your local paper with your story. Until everyone begins to see how individual taxpayers are affected, this massive tax increase will continue to be viewed as some abstract idea. But real people are going to be hurt and we should let them know exactly who and how much.

Calculate Your Taxes

February 17th, 2009 Posted by freedomminute | State Government | no comments

Continue Calling Sacramento

So the latest update is that they only need one more vote in the State Senate in order to pass this crippling tax increase. Word is that Senator Abel Maldonado could turn and vote for the budget. Call Senator Maldonado’s office and demand, plead, beg, him not to vote yes. His number is (916) 651-4015

Also, check out the John & Ken Show at 640 AM KFI. They’re the only ones who are talking any sense about this disastrous situation. Listen online at http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/johnandkenshow/

February 17th, 2009 Posted by freedomminute | State Government | no comments

Stop the California Tax Hikes!

Stop the California Tax Hikes!

Unless you act right now, you will be paying higher taxes if you live in California.  I don’t mean a little higher, I mean a lot.  Senate and Assembly Republicans seem poised to renege on their promise not to vote to raise taxes.  If the plan goes through, we will see the following increases:

* Nearly doubling vehicle license fee

* Raising sales taxes 1 cent

* Raising gasoline taxes 12 cents a gallon
* Surcharge of 2.5% to 5% on personal income taxes

What does this mean for you?  Continue reading “Stop the California Tax Hikes!”

February 17th, 2009 Posted by freedomminute | State Government | no comments

California State and Local Ballot Initiative Recommendations

This is a summary. Please see the full discussion of each measure elsewhere on this site.

To download a pdf of this post Right Click here and choose “Save Link As” or “Save Target As”

STATE BALLOT MEASURES

PROP 1A – Vote NO
It is irresponsible to incur additional debt at this time.

PROP 2 – Vote NO
It’s unclear that these animals are being mistreated. Could harm the economy and drive farmers out of business. Will raise food prices.

PROP 3 – Vote NO
It is irresponsible to incur additional debt at this time.

PROP 4 – Vote NO
The motives of the proponents of this proposition are suspect and if passed, Prop 4 could harm more girls than it helps. Furthermore, there is no indication that any of the problems this proposal is meant to address, actually exist.

PROP 5 – Vote YES
Saves billions of taxpayer dollars and frees up much needed prison space for real criminals. Provides treatment instead of incarceration.

PROP 6 – Vote NO
Simply mandating a 60% increase in funding to local law enforcement and then mandating an additional annual increase is not necessarily going to make anyone safer. Would raise taxes or require cuts for other items in the budget such as schools, healthcare, and other vital programs.

PROP 7 – Vote NO
Would raise utility rates. Unfairly sets arbitrary goals for the use of renewable energy and then prohibits smaller renewable energy providers from contributing towards that goal.

PROP 8 – Vote NO
Requires the state to treat one class of citizens differently than another class of citizens. Unfair and mean-spirited.

PROP 9 – Vote NO
Duplicates many laws currently on the books and is therefore unnecessary to a large degree. Contains a number of troubling provisions which are either unconstitutional or simply wrong-headed.

PROP 10 – Vote NO
Most of the funding goes to encourage a shift from oil based energy to natural gas not to renewable energy sources. Would likely raise the cost of energy while enriching Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens.

PROP 11 – Vote YES
Anything is better than the current system in which incumbent legislators create districts where they are virtually guaranteed reelection.

PROP 12 – Vote YES
Helps veterans to purchase a home. Program has been running since 1922 and has yet to incur a cost to taxpayers.

LOS ANGELES CITY AND COUNTY MEASURES

Prop A – Vote NO
Unnecessary. Raises property taxes.

Prop B – Vote NO
Overturns previous ballot initiatives passed by voters in 1973, 1977 and 1980. Intentionally confusing and misleading.

Prop J – Vote NO
At this time of budget crisis, it is irresponsible to take on additional debt or raise taxes.

Prop R – Vote NO
Increases the sales tax. Would drive away consumers and businesses. Transportation priorities not well thought out.

Prop Q – Vote NO
It is irresponsible to take on additional debt or raise taxes.

Prop U – Vote NO
If the measure is defeated and you live in an unincorporated area of Los Angeles, you will no longer have to pay this 5% tax on your phone service.

February 17th, 2009 Posted by freedomminute | State Government | no comments

LOS ANGELES CITY AND COUNTY MEASURES

Unlike the state ballot measures, I’m not going to take the time to explain every little nuance of each proposition. I’ll give a basic explanation and then my short recommendation

Prop A – Vote NO

CITY OF LOS ANGELES SPECIAL GANG AND YOUTH VIOLENCE PREVENTION, AFTER-SCHOOL AND JOB TRAINING PROGRAMS TAX.

Permits the City of Los Angeles to levy an annual $36 gang prevention tax on each real property parcel.

Vote NO. Another tax for “safety”. The city has already raised the garbage collection fee with the promise to hire more police officers, but then used those funds for administrative and equipment costs. Also, during the last election, the city ran a deceptive campaign to trick voters into approving Prop S which allowed the city to continue to collect the illegal city utility users tax. That campaign focused on “safety” as well. Where is all that money going? It’s time the city started using the funds it has more efficiently. And if you think this tax won’t affect you if you don’t own property, remember that landlords will just pass the tax along in the form of higher rents. Vote no.

Prop B – Vote NO

UPDATE OF LOW RENT HOUSING AUTHORIZATION.

This proposition repeals propositions approved by voters in 1973, 1977 and 1980 that placed limits on the density and height of low income housing units built in the City of Los Angeles. These restrictions also impede the City’s ability to get certain funding from the state.

A “Yes” vote allows the City to build low income housing in excess of the restrictions on density and height put in place in previous years.

A “No” vote maintains the status quo.

Vote NO. This ballot initiative overturns previous ballot initiatives passed by voters in 1973, 1977 and 1980. If it is necessary to update the provisions of those measures, the City should educate the voters with the facts and put forward a clear and concise initiative rather than create a ballot measure which is intentionally confusing and misleading. When in doubt, vote no.

Prop J – Vote NO

LOCAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE CLASSROOM REPAIR, PUBLIC SAFETY, NURSING AND JOB TRAINING MEASURE.

Permits Los Angeles Community College District to issue $3.5 billion in bonds which will need to be repaid with interest.

Vote NO. The bond would be repaid by an additional property tax levied on real property within the district. At this time of budget crisis, it is irresponsible to take on additional debt or raise taxes.

Prop R – Vote NO

TRAFFIC RELIEF. RAIL EXTENSIONS. REDUCE FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCE.

Raises Los Angeles County’s sales tax one-half cent for 30 years. Most of the funds would go towards initial funding of the MTA’s “subway to the sea” project.

Vote NO. The last thing we need right now is an increase in taxes, especially an increase in the sales tax which hits the lowest income citizens the hardest. Also, raising the sales tax could decrease revenue overall as buyers look to alternative sources for goods and services outside the county or on the internet. This plan drives away consumers and businesses and would mean that Los Angeles County would have the highest sales tax rate in the State. Vote no.

Prop Q – Vote NO

SAFE, HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS MEASURE.

Permits the LAUSD to issue $7 billion in bonds which will need to be repaid with interest.

Vote NO. Four previous LAUSD bonds have been passed since 1997. These were mainly targeted to relieve overcrowding and the district now has enough money to do that by 2012. This new bond measure which is substantially larger than the others, would raise an additional $7 billion, much of it for vague and unspecified uses. The bond would be repaid by an additional property tax levied on real property within the district. As I’ve said previously, at this time of budget crisis, it is irresponsible to take on additional debt or raise taxes.

Prop U – Vote NO

THE UNINCORPORATED LOS ANGELES COUNTY UTILITY USERS’ TAX CONTINUATION MEASURE.

Permits Los Angeles County to continue to levy the utility users’ tax on citizens living in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles but reduces that tax from 5 percent to 4.5 percent.

A “NO” vote means that the utility users’ tax on phone service will be discontinued in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles.

A “Yes” vote means that you wish to allow the County to continue to levy the tax and expand it to include a tax on other utility usage not now taxed such as certain internet services.

Vote NO. The deceptive campaign that tricked voters in the City of Los Angeles into approving Prop S during the last election worked so well that now the County is trying the same tactics. Don’t be fooled. If you vote no, you will no longer have to pay this 5% tax on your phone service. If you vote yes, the tax you now pay will be reduced to 4.5% but will likely expand to include a tax on utility services not now taxed. If you live in an unincorporated area of Los Angeles and this measure appears on your ballot, Vote No.

February 17th, 2009 Posted by freedomminute | State Government | no comments

PROP 12 – Vote YES

Proposition 12, the VETERANS’ BOND ACT OF 2008, provides for a bond issue of nine hundred million dollars ($900,000,000) to provide low interest loans to California veterans to purchase farms and homes. The measure was legislatively-referred to the ballot in Senate Bill 1572 which passed unanimously in both the in both the California state senate and assembly.

Background:

California began the veterans’ home loan programs in 1922. California voters have subsequently been asked 26 times to fund the program and have voted “yes” all 26 times, for a total of $8.4 billion in the past. The 2008 effort is the 27th time voters will have been asked to support the program. Prop. 12′s request for $900 million is the largest request for a Cal-Vet bond. Throughout its history, the Cal-Vet program has been totally supported by the participating veterans, at no direct cost to the taxpayer. However, because general obligation bonds are backed by the state, if at any time in the future the payments made by those veterans participating in the program do not fully cover the amount owed on the bonds, the state’s taxpayers would pay the difference.

Arguments:

Opponents argue that the government should not be in the business of providing loans, no matter how noble the cause or at the very least, the program should be limited to veterans who have served in a combat zone.

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote YES. While I philosophically oppose the government getting involved in private lending, this program has been running since 1922 and has yet to incur a cost to taxpayers. Furthermore, helping veterans to purchase a home is probably the least objectionable use of the sale of government bonds that I can imagine and it’s the least we can do for those who have honorable served our country.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 12

February 17th, 2009 Posted by freedomminute | State Government | no comments

PROP 11 – Vote YES

This Proposal:

Proposition 11, the REDISTRICTING CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE would change the process that is undertaken once every ten years of setting (which sometimes means re-drawing) the geographic boundaries of the state’s 120 legislative districts and four Board of Equalization districts. At present, the task of setting these boundaries falls to the state legislature itself. If Proposition 11 passes, that task would instead be given to a new, 14-member commission.

Specifically:
• It would change the authority for establishing the district boundaries of the California State Assembly, California State Senate, and Board of Equalization from elected representatives to a 14-member commission.
• The commission must include five Democrats, five Republicans and four of neither party.
• Government auditors are to select 60 registered voters from an applicant pool. Legislative leaders (Republican and Democrat leaders in the state senate and state assembly) can reduce the pool; the auditors then pick eight commission members by lottery, and those commissioners pick six additional members for 14 total.
• For approval, district boundaries need votes from three Democratic commissioners, three Republican commissioners and three commissioners from neither party
• The measure forbids the commission from drawing districts for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against political incumbents, candidates, or parties.

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote YES. While this doesn’t seem like the perfect redistricting plan, anything has to be better than the current system in which incumbent legislators divide up neighborhoods and communities to create districts where they are virtually guaranteed reelection. In addition, the fact that the vast majority of incumbent politicians are opposed to this plan tells me that voting yes is the right thing to do.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 11

February 17th, 2009 Posted by freedomminute | State Government | no comments

PROP 10 – Vote NO

Background:

There are four general obligation bond measures on the November 5th ballot, totaling $16.8 billion in new authorizations. Bond financing is a type of long-term borrowing that the state uses to raise money for various purposes. The state obtains this money by selling bonds to investors. In exchange, it agrees to repay this money, with interest, according to a specified schedule. Generally, the total cost over the life of a bond issuance is about twice the authorized amount since interest must be paid in addition to the principle. Note also that for each bond measure approved, a portion of the state’s annual revenues must be set aside for debt-service payments on the bonds and therefore are not available for other state programs. This means that in order to pay for any bond measure approved, the legislature would either have to raise taxes or cut expenses elsewhere in the budget.

This Proposal:

This bond measure is called the ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES AND RENEWABLE ENERGY BOND ACT. It provides for a bond issue of $5 billion primarily to provide rebates up to $50,000 for the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles including natural gas vehicles, and to fund research into alternative fuel technology.

The total cost of approving this bond measure would be about $10 billion to pay off both principal ($5 billion) and interest ($5 billion). In addition, if the demand for natural gas increases due to this program, rates business and homeowners pay for natural gas to heat their homes could increase significantly.

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote NO. First, the State of California is currently facing a huge budget crisis and in order not to run out of money is being forced to offer for sale billions of dollars of new general obligation bonds. There has also been speculation that the State may have to borrow billions of additional dollars from the Federal Government in order to remain solvent and it would be irresponsible to incur additional debt at this time. Second, this ballot initiative was put forth by T. Boone Pickens, the Texas billionaire oilman who has been promoting natural gas as a way to wean ourselves off of foreign oil. Pickens plan is to have heavy trucks which use about 25% of our oil consumption switch to natural gas which is primarily available from US sources. Pickens has publicly said that his plan cannot work unless the public subsidizes the switch to natural gas vehicles. What’s in it for him? Pickens has invested heavily in the production and supply of natural gas and should there be any major shift to this fuel, he stands to reap billions in profits. While it may be a good idea for us to wean ourselves off foreign oil, having the public subsidize (through government bonds) one particular industry is not the way to do it. Interestingly, Pickens has been a lifelong Republican yet seems to have no problem with the government subsidizing private business, so long as he is the one to benefit.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 10

February 17th, 2009 Posted by freedomminute | State Government | no comments

PROP 9 – Vote NO

This Proposal:

This measure, the VICTIMS’ RIGHTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE amends the State Constitution and various state laws to (1) expand the legal rights of crime victims and the payment of restitution by criminal offenders, (2) restrict the early release of inmates, and (3) change the procedures for granting and revoking parole.

Background:

In June 1982, California voters approved Proposition 8, known as the “Victims’ Bill of Rights.” Among other changes, the proposition amended the Constitution and various state laws to grant crime victims the right to be notified of, to attend, and to state their views at, sentencing and parole hearings. Other separately enacted laws have created other rights for crime victims, including the opportunity for a victim to obtain a judicial order of protection from harassment by a criminal defendant.

Proposition 8 established the right of crime victims to obtain restitution from any person who committed the crime that caused them to suffer a loss. Restitution often involves replacement of stolen or damaged property or reimbursement of costs that the victim incurred as a result of the crime. A court is required under current state law to order full restitution unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons not to do so. Sometimes, however, judges do not order restitution. Proposition 8 also established a right to “safe, secure and peaceful” schools for students and staff of primary, elementary, junior high, and senior high schools.

Changes Made by This Measure:

Restitution. This measure requires that, without exception, restitution be ordered from offenders who have been convicted, in every case in which a victim suffers a loss.

Notification and Participation of Victims in Criminal Justice Proceedings. This measure expands the legal right for crime victims to be notified of, to attend, and to state their views at, all public criminal proceedings, including the release from custody of offenders after their arrest, but before trial. In addition, victims would be given the constitutional right to participate in other aspects of the criminal justice process, such as conferring with prosecutors on the charges filed.

Other Expansions of Victims’ Legal Rights. This measure expands the legal rights of crime victims in other ways, including the following:

• Crime victims and their families would have a state constitutional right to (1) prevent the release of certain of their confidential information or records to criminal defendants, (2) refuse to be interviewed or provide pretrial testimony or other evidence requested in behalf of a criminal defendant, (3) protection from harm from individuals accused of committing crimes against them, (4) the return of property no longer needed as evidence in criminal proceedings, and (5) “finality” in criminal proceedings in which they are involved. Some of these rights now exist in statute.
• The Constitution would be changed to specify that the safety of a crime victim must be taken into consideration by judges in setting bail for persons arrested for crimes.

Restrictions On Early Release Of Inmates. This measure amends the Constitution to require that criminal sentences imposed by the courts shall not be “substantially diminished” by early release policies to alleviate overcrowding in prison or jail facilities.

Changes Affecting The Granting And Revocation Of Parole. This measure changes the procedures to be followed by the board when it considers the release from prison of inmates with a life sentence.

• It would extend the time between parole hearings to between 3 and 15 years, as opposed to the current one to five years
• It would remove the limit on the number of family members (3) who could attend and testify at parole hearings, and would allow victim representatives to attend and testify at the hearing without regard to whether members of the victim’s family were present.
• Crime victims would be eligible to receive 90 days advance notice of parole consideration hearings, instead of the current 30 days.

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote NO. Again, changing the State Constitution and other criminal justice laws by ballot initiative based on emotion is generally a bad idea unless there is compelling reason to do so. This initiative duplicates many laws currently on the books and is therefore unnecessary to a large degree. In addition, there are a number of troubling provisions which are either unconstitutional or simply wrong-headed. First, crime victims and their families would be given a state constitutional right to refuse to be interviewed or provide pretrial testimony or other evidence requested in behalf of a criminal defendant. This could make it impossible for a defendant’s lawyer to mount a proper defense and would strike at the very heart of our discovery laws. Second, this measure grants crime victims the legal right to testify at bail hearings. While the safety of alleged victims should be taken into account when a judge considers a defendant for bail, allowing the alleged victim to testify prior to trial seriously changes the right of a non-convicted defendant to be treated as innocent until proven guilty as nothing in the proposed law would give the defendant the right to question or challenge that testimony. Finally, the restriction on early release does not distinguish between different classes of criminals. Therefore, someone incarcerated on a minor non-violent conviction would be just as ineligible for early release as a convicted killer. While there are certainly some provisions of this measure that warrant consideration for inclusion in our penal code, on balance I believe it would be prudent to reject this proposition.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 9

February 17th, 2009 Posted by freedomminute | State Government | no comments

PROP 8 – Vote NO

This Proposal:

This measure, ELIMINATES THE RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY by amending the California State Constitution to state that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote NO. If you read my previous post regarding this ballot initiative, then you already know my feelings regarding this mean-spirited and bigoted initiative and the people supporting it. This proposed constitutional amendment is about one thing and one thing only: requiring the state to treat one class of citizens differently than another class of citizens. As a society, we’re supposed to have grown beyond that type of narrow-mindedness. We’re supposed to have left the days of racism, gender bias, and religious intolerance behind us. In the same way that it is wrong to discriminate against people of color, of different religions, of different genders, it’s wrong to treat same sex couples differently under the law than you treat heterosexual couples. These are human beings with the same right to fall in love, marry, and live out their lives in peace and freedom.

As for the argument that same sex couples are already protected by domestic partnerships laws, you should be aware that California statutes clearly identify nine real differences between marriage and domestic partnerships. Therefore, only real marriage provides gay couples with full protection under the law.

As for the argument that same sex marriage will be taught to children in public school, my response is, SO WHAT? At the most, children might be taught that people of the same sex are allowed to marry, although it is highly unlikely that this type of discussion would occur in the younger grades and they probably already know it anyway. And if this goes against some religious doctrine that some parents might wish to impart to their children, certainly these parents should have enough confidence in their influence upon their children’s upbringing to counter any confusion their children might experience. As I said in my previous post, regardless of whether or not you like how this group has chosen to live their lives or whether their choices make you uncomfortable or don’t fit in with your sense of morality, your right to disapprove does not trump their fundamental right to be treated the same as everyone else.

Finally, I predict that should this ballot initiative pass, it will be challenged in the courts, perhaps going all the way to the US Supreme Court. Let’s not waste taxpayer dollars in an attempt to codify bigotry into our state constitution.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 8

February 17th, 2009 Posted by freedomminute | State Government | no comments