I wonder if we could entice Chris Christie to move to California and be our governor?

If you want to avoid falling victim to one of the most egregious abuses of government power, you’d best avoid the public parks under the jurisdiction of the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, otherwise known as the MRCA. This little known state agency, which administers the lands belonging to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, the Conejo Recreation and Park District, and the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District is out to get your money. And they’ll use every dirty trick possible to do it.

Their latest scheme is the installation of automated ticketing cameras at stop signs within their parks.  Anyone who fails to come to a complete stop is hit with a one hundred one hundred and seventy five dollar ticket.  Now we can all agree that blowing through a stop sign, especially in a park where pedestrians are likely to be present, is not only dangerous, but deserving of severe punishment as well as the contempt of your fellow citizens.  But that’s not what we’re talking about here.  We’re talking about what is commonly known as the California Stop, where a driver slows to a crawl but doesn’t quite stop completely before proceeding.  Most drivers who engage in the rolling stop only do so when it’s clear that there’s no one around.  You know, like in a quiet neighborhood or secluded park. And if there does happen to be another vehicle or pedestrian present, there’s plenty of opportunity to come to a full stop without putting anyone in danger.  So, this is what is known as a technical violation.  It’s a little like going 5 mph over the speed limit.  Everyone does it at some point and no harm comes of it.

But regardless of the fact that this behavior puts no one at risk, the MRCA believes that if you engage in this practice on their turf, you deserve a $100 $175 fine.  And to ensure that they can nab you, they’ve flagrantly skirted the state law that forbids the use of this type of automated enforcement.  That’s right, this type of enforcement is not permitted under the California Vehicle Code, which is intended to be the law for all vehicles on the state’s roadways.  So how can the MRCA get away with this abusive practice?  They’ve simply declared that the law doesn’t apply to them.  They’re special; they’re above the law.  The arguments they make in support of this theory are extensive and I’ll leave that for another post where I’ll rebut them all.

What I want to concentrate on in this post, is their self serving claim that this is not about revenue enhancement, but rather all about safety.  In fact, in response to the public outcry against this ticketing scheme, Joe Edmiston, executive director of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, said: “I’m more worried about a law suit from somebody whose child is killed. We’d be sued for millions for not controlling the interface between visitors and cars.”  Wow, it sure sounds like there must have been massive carnage on the roadways within these parks. Joe Edmiston just had to implement these automated fines to save the children.

So how many accidents or injuries can be attributed to drivers failing to stop at the stop signs on the roadways within the jurisdiction of the MRCA?  Exactly zero.  Not one. Not ever.  When pressed, Joe Edmiston couldn’t cite even one accident or injury.  Yet it was necessary to install these automated cameras which extract tens of thousands of dollars from unsuspecting park visitors yearly all in an effort to save the children.  Of course, any reasonable person can see that safety has nothing to do with it.  On the contrary, this is clearly about filling the coffers of the MRCA and enhancing their power within their little fiefdom.

But if you’re still not convinced that this isn’t about safety, have a look at one of these stop sign installations enforced with an automated ticketing camera.

In this picture, taken at Marvin Braude Mulholland Gateway Park at the top of Reseda Blvd in Tarzana, you can plainly see that the stop sign sits pretty much in the middle of the road. There’s no cross street, no crosswalk, no intersection; no chance that any vehicle or pedestrian will cross your path. In fact, there’s absolutely no reason at all to have a stop sign here. And since there’s no common sense reason to stop, other than if you don’t, you’ll get a $100 ticket; many motorists only slow down rather than come to a complete stop. Sure, it’s technically a violation, but only because the MRCA arbitrarily criminalized the behavior. What reason could the MRCA have for locating this sign in such a ridiculous and confusing location? Could it be purely in an attempt to collect as many $100 fines as possible? It certainly isn’t to save the children.

And just to drive the point home, the reverse view of this idiotic photo enforced stop sign installation makes it even more obvious that it was placed in such a way as to ensnare the maximum number of park visitors and reap the greatest amount of revenue.

So be forewarned, the MRCA is out to rob you blind. Don’t get caught up in their revenue enhancement scheme. Photo enforced stop signs are also located in Temescal Gateway Park, Top of Topanga Overlook, Hollywood Bowl Scenic Overlook, and Franklin Canyon Park. There might be others coming soon.

And if you want to express your outrage at how a rogue government agency is engaging in highway robbery, call your city and state representatives. They’ll probably tell you it’s perfectly legal; it’s not. One field deputy for former state senator Sheila Kuehl told me, “Well if the government is doing it, it has to be legal”. Brilliant. But you don’t have to get into any legal debates. Just tell them you abhor this type of blatant revenue enhancement scheme. Tell them you want them to look into it. At the very least, they’ll be on notice that you’re keeping an eye on the actions of our public officials.

And if you happen to have gotten one of these tickets, I want to hear about it.  If you’re still fighting it, maybe you can be a test case to get this overturned.  If your case is already finished, you should know that there’s a class action lawsuit in the works.  I’ll post more about that when I have an update.

Finally, if you suspect that I’m so outraged about this because I’ve gotten one of these bogus tickets, you’d be wrong.  I’ve successfully avoided contributing to the MRCA’s stop sign fund, mainly because I refuse to visit and drive in their parks.  It’s my own little boycott.

After this article was posted, I found that the citation has recently been increased to $175.  Now we can all be doubly outraged.

The idea originated with then junior high student McKay Hatch who started a No Cussing Club at his school two years ago. Using the infallible logic of his 14 year old mind, Hatch surmised that cussing led to drug use, pornography and violence and the world would be just peachy keen if we could only curtail foul language. So, of course, our elected officials thought that a no cussing rule would be the perfect solution to many of our real, adult problems as well. Why else would they take time out of their busy schedules to concentrate their efforts on this pressing matter? It certainly is comforting to know that these statesmen are legitimately earning their $95,000 a year salaries.

Come to think of it, perhaps this is a good idea after all. Maybe if the legislature spent more time on these types of inane resolutions, they’d have less time to raise taxes and drive business out of the state through their job killing regulations. In fact, perhaps we do need more legislation thought up by pubescent teens. How about an “I’m Rubber, You’re Glue Week” where everything unpleasant you say to someone bounces off them and sticks to you. This might curtail gang violence. Or maybe we should implement a “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire Week” during which, if you’re caught being untruthful, some official would actually douse you in gasoline and set you ablaze. Hey, it’s not any more ridiculous than many of the actual laws dreamed up in our halls of government.

Are Californians Highly Taxed?

Hiltzik claims that it’s a lie that Californians are burdened by the highest state taxes in the nation. To prove his point, he writes,

The truth, according to 2006 figures derived from the U.S. census, is that, as a percentage of all personal income, California’s tax and fee schedule ranks 18th in the country.

But that’s a misleading statistic. The reason that California comes out 18th, is that we have a few very wealthy citizens and a large percentage of our tax revenue comes from the sales tax which is a flat tax on purchases. This skews the ranking, because when you calculate taxes as a percentage of personal income (taxes divided by personal income), the incomes of our wealthy citizens increases the denominator and lowers the overall percentage. In low income, sparsely populated states, it takes a higher proportion of their incomes merely to provide a basic level of government and infrastructure. More densely populated and higher income states, like California, spread those costs over a greater tax base, allowing the appearance of a lower tax burden. So why use this one statistic to determine whether Californians pay the highest taxes in the nation? I suspect Hiltzik chose this number because it seems to prove his overall point that Californians aren’t taxed enough. However, Hiltzik ignores other, more valid statistics that prove him wrong. For example, in the same report referenced in Hiltzik’s column, California ranks 11th in per capita taxes (total taxes divided by the number of people). Again, this statistic may or may not tell us anything about our personal tax burden, for if there are a large number of people who pay little or no tax, then those that do pay taxes might pay a lot, but the per capita tax rate is lower. Furthermore, it’s unclear whether the above numbers include such things as local levies or other fees imposed on the populace. The point is, measuring the tax burden as a percentage of personal income is only one consideration of the tax environment for any jurisdiction, and not a particularly good one at that. Taking this one statistic out of many and using it as the sole evidence to prove your point is intellectually dishonest and I’m sure Michael Hiltzik knows it.

So let’s set the record straight about how heavily Californians are taxed. California has the highest state sales tax in the nation, the highest tax on motor fuels, one of the , highest corporate tax rates in the country, the second highest top income tax rate (Hawaii just jumped to #1, but not by much) and higher personal tax rates that kick in at some of the lowest income levels. For example, California imposes a 9.55% income tax on individuals earning over $47,000. No other state has such a high rate for those earning such a low salary. Finally, according to the Tax Foundation, for 2008, California ranked 6th highest in the nation in overall state tax burden. And in their 2008 report, the Pacific Research Institute ranked California 47th in overall economic freedom. Considering these numbers, Californians appear to shoulder a very high tax burden as compared to residents of other states. I leave it to the reader to decide whether we should be paying more as Hiltzik suggests.

Are Wealthy Taxpayers Paying Enough?

Elsewhere in his column Hiltzik makes another misleading assertion:

The dirty little secret, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, a left-leaning nonprofit group, is that California’s wealthiest residents shoulder the lightest burden of any income group in the state. The top 1% of California income-earners (average 2007 income: $2.3 million) paid 7.4% of their income in state taxes last year, counting the federal deduction for state taxes. The highest rate was paid by the poorest residents: Those earning $20,000 or less, with average income of $12,600, forked over 10.2% of their earnings.

Again, Hiltzik uses misleading and selective statistics from Citizens for Tax Justice to prove his point. First, the above statement is only true when you factor in the deduction taxpayers get on their federal income taxes for the state income taxes they’ve paid. But is it fair to factor this in? Wealthy taxpayers get more of a deduction on their federal taxes because they pay more state income tax than lower income taxpayers. And, since the deduction comes off their federal taxes, using this benefit as an offset to give the appearance of a lower state tax burden is intentionally misleading. Without this offset, the top 1% of California income-earners is the group that pays the second highest percentage of their income in state taxes. However, this still doesn’t tell the whole story. As we’ve seen above, these numbers incorporate flat taxes and fees such as sales and excise taxes into the calculation. Any statistical calculation that does this will, by necessity, make it appear that lower income taxpayers pay a high percentage of their income in taxes. And the larger the percentage of the tax revenue which comes from these types of taxes, the greater the overall tax burden will appear to be on the lowest income groups.

Furthermore, the author of the report from which Hiltzik draws his numbers fails to provide any reference for where he came up with his statistics. As a result, we can’t double check his facts. In addition, the author parses his numbers in such a way as to make it appear that the rich are under taxed. If you examine the report, you’ll notice that the author compares groups of taxpayer in 20% increments, until he gets to those making over $94,000. At that point he divides the last 20% into smaller divisions with the final group being the top 1% of earners. So, we’re really not comparing apples to apples. Why not divide the numbers into equal 20% increments? One suspects that the reason is clear – it would likely be more difficult to prove his point. There are possibly other problems with this report as well. Low income households rely heavily on government transfer payments such as food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, etc. Whether or not these types of income are included in the household income figures for the lower taxpayer groups is unknown. My suspicion is that they are not.

Finally, this whole attempt to vilify higher income taxpayers as deadbeats is predicated on the idea that how much an individual pays as a percentage of income is a statistic that tells us something useful about whether someone contributes their fair share to society. It doesn’t. Here’s an alternate figure to consider: For the 2004 tax year, the top 3 percent of tax returns, those reporting incomes exceeding $200,000, paid about 60 percent of all state taxes. We’ll take a more detailed look at what it means to “pay your fair share” in another post, but for now, all you really need to do is cast a skeptical eye on the numbers being bandied about in his article to see that Michael Hiltzik has an agenda. He believes we should raise taxes, especially on the wealthy, and he’ll use whatever statistics he can find in an attempt to mislead his readers into agreeing with him.

What Conclusions Should We Draw?

Hiltzik makes three suggestions on how we should solve our budget problems – and all of them are nonsense.

Once again, Hiltzik calls for the elimination of the two-thirds legislative requirement to pass a budget or raise taxes. As I pointed out in my previous post, the two-thirds rule is not the source of our problems, unless you think that our problem is that our taxes are too low. And the results of last Tuesday’s election shows that few if any real taxpayers think that’s the case. Because the Republicans in our state legislature are in the minority, and they generally favor lower taxes and less spending, the two-thirds rule does give them more power than they would otherwise have. This is a good thing, because it prevents a simple majority of politicians from overspending and overtaxing. At least it’s supposed to work that way. However, in the last decade, a handful of republicans have shirked their fiscal responsibility and joined the Democratic majority in an orgy of increased spending that has now brought us to the brink of insolvency. But let’s suppose that the Republicans were the in majority and Democrats were using the two-thirds rule to prevent them from passing a budget with massive cuts to social welfare programs. Do you think Michael Hiltzik would be calling for the elimination of the two-thirds rule? Of course not. He’d be hailing it as the saving grace of the underprivileged.

Hiltzik then calls for an end to term limits, under the assumption that highly entrenched career politicians would do a better job managing our state’s fiscal health. But Hiltzik offers absolutely no logical explanation as to how or why this idea would make any difference. He simply claims that state government hasn’t gotten any better since term limits were imposed, implying that instead, it’s gotten worse. State government may have gotten worse, but there’s no proof that term limits are the reason or that term limits haven’t prevented government from being worse than it otherwise would be.

Finally, Hiltzik calls for a revision of Proposition 13, the 1978 ballot initiative that brought an end to skyrocketing property taxes. Again, Hiltzik takes aim at this voter imposed constitutional provision because he wrongly believes that the rich just aren’t paying enough. But Prop 13 mostly protects middle income taxpayers from having their major investment, their homes, taxed so highly as to make ownership impossible. It also protects the elderly on a fixed income from being forced out of the homes they’ve lived in for decades, a regular occurrence prior to the passage of Prop 13. Hiltzik claims that Prop 13 renders property tax “useless as a revenue device”. Yet he fails to give any evidence for this outlandish claim. In 2007, California collected over $2.3 billion in property taxes. I’m not sure how Michael Hiltzik defines “useless”, but to me, something that brings in over $2 billion in taxes annually wouldn’t be it. Furthermore, because of the way Proposition 13 was written, property taxes provide a steady source of revenue rather than fluctuating with the economy. As we have seen during this economic downturn, when tax revenue is subject to the vagaries of the economy, governments can find themselves with huge unforeseen deficits. This is exactly what is happening now in California. Altering Proposition 13 so property owners are taxed on the fluctuating values or their property would only make such a situation worse. Too bad Michael Hiltzik can’t take the time to research this economic principle or he might understand the concept a little better.

So what’s the lesson we should take away from the public’s stunning repudiation of Propositions 1A-E?

It’s not, as Michael Hiltzik claims, that

California’s voters have been trained for too long to think they can have roads, schools, universities, clean air and other amenities without paying their true cost.

It’s that we can have these things. We just have to reign in our spending in other areas; we need to prioritize. We must make sure our elected officials don’t get us into long term union contracts and other financial obligations that are unsustainable, especially in an economic downturn. We need to stop passing ballot initiatives that earmark more and more of our tax revenue for pet projects. We need to eschew the idea that we can tax ourselves into prosperity.

The voters have made it plain that they want the State to cut spending, not raise taxes; that they expect the State to live within its means. This message was obviously lost on Michael Hiltzik. Hopefully, our representatives in Sacramento heard it loud and clear.

City Attorney – Vote for Carmen Trutanich. His opponent, Jack Weiss, was our council member and was pretty much the worst representative you could imagine. He’s in bed with all the political elites in City Hall and has waged a deceptive smear campaign against Trutanich. Don’t reward him. Trutanich will be an independent prosecutor and work best for the people of Los Angeles.

Council District 5 – Vote for David Vahedi. Between Vahedi and his opponent Paul Koretz, there is no doubt that Vahedi is the better choice. Koretz is a career politician and would simply be a continuation of the status quo. He moved into the district just so he could run for the open council seat being vacated by Jack Weiss. I’ve listened to both men at various candidates forums and I’m convinced that Vahedi will be a much more independent voice and bring the possibility of real change. I also believe he will be more open to input for the constituents. He’s also a real grass-roots candidate having served on his local neighborhood council for many years.

Here’s what you need to know about the Propositions

Vote NO on all

Prop 1A – This purports to impose a spending limit on the budget process. However, unlike a “real” spending limit, Prop 1A ties spending to prior revenue. That means that as long as the legislature raises taxes, they can keep adding to the budget. That’s no limit at all. California needs a spending limit imposed on the budget, but this is not it This prop would also extend the taxes already imposed during the last budget crisis. Taxes in California are already the highest in the nation by far. We don’t need higher taxes, we need to cut the budget and impose some spending restraints.

Prop 1B – This prop only takes effect if 1A also passes. It would funnel revenue back into school funding, but at an increase to the current levels. Much of the problem from school funding in California is a result of the outlandish benefits we are obligated to pay to retired teachers and other support personnel. These benefits are way above the benefits received by workers in the private sector. The reason our schools are starved for funds, is not because we don’t spend enough on education, it’s because of all the other obligations that siphon off money that would otherwise go to the classrooms.

Prop 1C – Allows the legislature to borrow against future lottery earnings. This is another smoke and mirrors move to cover up our huge deficit. The money will eventually have to be paid back with interest. We don’t need more debt.

Prop 1D – Siphons money from a dedicated account into the general fund. Another smoke and mirrors move to cover up our huge deficit. It’s just more creative bookkeeping so our politicians don’t have to make the hard choices and they can punt the problem into the future.

Prop 1E – Pretty much the same as Prop 1D but with a different dedicated account.

Prop 1F – This is a cynical attempt by one politician, Abel Maldonado, to make it appear as though he’s doing something to help the budget crisis, but it’s a sham. Abel Maldonado was the final republican vote to raise taxes during the recent budget crisis. He previously made a pledge when he was running for office that he would not vote to raise taxes. In some back-door wheeling and dealing, Maldonado switched his vote for personal gain. One of the things that he got was this proposition put on the ballot so he could have some political cover. The proposition would never actually do anything and is simply one of those “let’s pretend we’re on the side of the people” deceptions. Don’t fall for it.

First, Hiltzik gets the facts wrong about Proposition 1A’s effect on the budget. He wrongly states that 1A “limits budget growth to a formula based on population growth and inflation”. If only this were true. Unfortunately it’s not. Prop 1A limits future spending to historic revenues and economic growth. This means that there really is no spending limit, because all the legislature need do to continue their runaway spending is continue to increase revenue, i.e. increase taxes. That’s a big difference from limiting spending to population growth and inflation. One would think that a columnist for a major newspaper would be able to get this simple fact right. Granted, the actual text of the proposition is so convoluted as to be almost incomprehensible, but all Hiltzik had to do was read the analysis written by the state’s independent legislative analyst which appears here, just like I did. But perhaps that was just too much trouble.

Or perhaps Hiltzik simply likes tax increases so much that he’s intentionally misleading his readers. What other explanation could there be when he calls the largest state tax increase in the history of the United States, “modest tax increases”. Or when he suggests that California’s budget woes come not from legislative over spending but rather from the 2/3 supermajority requirement for budget bills, which is pretty much the only thing standing in the way of even greater state fiscal irresponsibility. In fact, Hiltzik goes so far as to claim that eliminating this 2/3 supermajority requirement will somehow magically solve all our budget problems. Of course that’s only true if you believe we can simply tax our way out of this mess and “a tiny cadre of legislators”, as Hiltzik calls them, are standing in the way. But anyone with even a basic knowledge of economics knows this to be a fallacy. Ever increasing spending coupled with ever increasing taxes to pay for it, drives away the tax base, reduces revenue in the long run and eventually destroys an economy. Not to mention, it’s inherently unfair. But again, Hiltzik disagrees since he believes “there’s nothing inherently wrong with tobacco taxes or surcharges on the wealthy”. With an attitude such as this, it’s no wonder Hiltzik didn’t bother to do his homework.

But, Michael Hiltzik’s most egregious error is that he fails to mention anywhere in his analysis of the propositions that if 1A passes, the massive tax increase recently passed by the legislature will be extended an additional one to two years. That translates into an additional $16 billion in taxes levied on the people of California. But apparently, Michael Hiltzik didn’t think this fact important enough to make anything more than an obscure tangential reference buried deep in his text. Nor did he, in a column about the propositions being “shams and frauds”, mention that 1A’s official title and summary, written by our illustrious elected officials, as well as the TV and radio ads promoting its passage, also fail to mention this important fact. And that’s the biggest sham and fraud of all.

I want to also give a special shout out to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association who passed out some 5000 NO on Prop 1A bumper stickers. (See related post) The HJTA is the granddaddy of the California grassroots taxpayer watchdog groups. Visit their site for lots of great information.

Oh, and here’s a couple of pictures I took.

John & Ken whip up the crowd

Thousands showed up

Some protesters were very organized

A diverse group

The guys from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

In addition, the “spending cap” isn’t even a real spending cap, because the way the law was written, the “cap” is tied to prior revenue, so as long as they keep raising taxes, the “cap” will keep increasing. This is the height of hypocrisy, especially for the republicans who almost unanimously voted to put this piece of horse s@#t on the ballot. If they were really against a tax increase, they would never have allowed this ballot measure to be worded in this way. Which just goes to show, that neither party has your best interests at heart.

Don’t be fooled again. And inform everyone you know in California that on May 19th, they should vote NO on 1A. The politicians are well funded with your tax dollars which they will use for TV ads promoting this deceptive ballot measure and certainly Arnold the Liar will be going around the State deceiving the public about it as well. The only chance we have to defeat this is to get the word out ourselves. Email is free, ignorance will cost you dearly.

Here’s a video of Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg speaking on the Senate Floor Monday night. He’s pretty pissed off that he hasn’t been able to get that one Republican vote that would raise our taxes by $14 billion. So, for the benefit of any news reporters that happen to be listening, he goes on a little tirade filled with half-truths and out-right lies. Now we’ve all come to expect a bit of “spin” when politicians open their mouths, but this particular set of distortions is particularly egregious since it’s simply scare tactics to ram the tax increase down our throats.

Ok – here’s the lies, transcribed directly from the video:

Steinberg’s lie -
“Tomorrow the Governor will issue an executive order and announce the layoff of 20,000 state workers. 20,000 hard working Californians, who will be victimized, through no fault of their own, because we have not completed our work.”

The Truth –
The Governor issued layoff “warnings” to 20,000 state workers who’s jobs are paid for from the General Fund. 20,000 warnings had to be sent out because, due to union rules, many of the jobs can’t actually be eliminated, so in order to cut 10,000 jobs, 20,000 notices have to be sent. Furthermore, many of the 10,000 jobs will be eliminated through attrition (retirement or not filling vacant positions) and many of the workers who’s jobs actually are cut, will simply be moved to other jobs funded by special revenue streams rather than through the General Fund. Few if any state workers will actually be laid off. But there’s even more to it. In order to eliminate any jobs, warnings have to be issued 6 months in advance, so even if some one does stand to lose their job, it won’t happen until July and by that time a new budget will have been passed and their jobs could again be funded. So the sending of the 20,000 warnings is pretty much just a formality and Darrell Steinberg knows it. He knows it’s not 20,000 workers and he knows that no one will be “victimized”. So when he said the Governor would announce the layoff of 20,000 state workers, that was a lie.

Steinberg’s lie -
“I will not allow anyone (Senators) to go home, to resume their lives, to have any kind of resumption of normal business as long as I know, and we all know, that on Wednesday morning 20,000 people are going to be laid off…”

The Truth –
Ok, you already know the truth, but since Steinberg repeated his bald faced lie, I figured it deserved a separate showing.

He also made some claims about thousands of workers in infrastructure jobs who would be thrown out of work on Wednesday as well, but since I can’t prove him to have lied about that yet, I’ll just wait till the end of the day and see what actually happens.

By the way, if you want to hear Republican Senator Hollingsworth’s reply which I reference in my previous post, it’s at the end of the clip, so watch the whole thing.

Darrell Steinberg Telling Lies on the Senate Floor

In related news, Dave Cogdill has been ousted as the leader of the Republican Caucus in the Senate. He helped negotiate this terrible tax plan and the majority of his Republican colleagues were not happy. He has been replaced with Senator Dennis Hollingsworth, who yesterday in response to the pressure tactics and outright distortions being used by Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg in order to pressure Republicans to go along with the tax increase, shouted out on the Senate Floor, “You’re not going to go back to the people’s pocketbooks to fuel that spending”. We’ll see what happens now that Hollingsworth is negotiating for the Republicans in the Senate.