CA's snake in the grass Democrat politicians

[sirs]

...and before we get any lectures as to how poor the conservative minority has been;
a) I already know that
b) a tipping point appears to have been reached, as far as a majority of folks that are umbilically connected to the Government's teet, and now are in a position to mandate that the rest of CA pay for it

----------------------------------------------------------

Like a snake in the grass, a bill to authorize more than 1,000 local government agencies to impose new and higher taxes on income, vehicles, sales and myriad other activities is advancing without much notice in the state Senate.

Worse yet, by a party-line committee vote last week, Senate Bill 653 was broadened to enable boards of community college districts and county boards of education, in addition to local school districts and county boards of supervisors, to create new taxes that up to now have been possible only by the state Legislature.

It gets worse. The state Senate Appropriations Committee voted 6-2 Thursday to also permit personal income tax increases retroactively to Jan. 1, 2011, the expiration date of the two-year temporary state income tax increases legislators imposed in 2009.

It may be even worse. Unlike the 2009 temporary 0.25-percent income tax increase that expired in January, the amended bill may have no limit on new, retroactive local income taxes, according to Mark McKenzie, a committee consultant. Precise wording of the amendment was not yet available.

Voting against the bill were two committee Republicans, including Sen. Mimi Walters of Laguna Hills. The committee's third Republican was absent, while all six Democratic members, including the bill's author, Senate Democratic Leader Darrell Steinberg, voted in favor.

The saving grace, if there is one, is that any local tax increases still would require voter approval ? in some cases by a simple majority. Local agencies from school districts to boards of supervisors that hunger for more tax revenue would be newly empowered to put a smorgasbord of tax increases before their voters.

A Senate floor vote on SB653 can take place as soon as Wednesday, Mr. McKenzie said.

"This is insane," Ms. Walters told us. "I don't think anything can be done. Unfortunately, we have a very liberal Legislature who grants unreasonable authority to local jurisdictions, who will abuse it."

SB653's broad new taxing authority would make it that much more difficult for taxpayers to defend against incessant demands for their money by all levels of government.

Indeed, Mr. Steinberg's bill is a two-pronged attack on taxpayers.

It is what it appears to be on the surface, a means for hundreds of government agencies to impose new taxes on sales, income, vehicles, liquor and soda, among other things that those agencies have been prohibited from taxing.

But SB653 also is a heavy-handed tactic to force legislative Republicans to support statewide tax increases Mr. Steinberg and Democrats want to close the state's $9.6 billion budget deficit. The rock-and-a-hard-place option is that legislative Republicans either can agree to support more statewide taxes, or face a thousand firefights up and down the state as local boards propose countless tax increases.

Because they fall short of the two-thirds constitutionally required majority, legislative Democrats are stymied in efforts to pass new taxes and to extend 2009's "temporary" tax increases on vehicles, income and sales.

But SB653, which would directly impose no new taxes, requires only a majority legislative approval, which Democrats easily can muster. If Mr. Steinberg's duo-purposed bill is adopted, "virtually all of the state taxation authority" would be granted local agencies, according to Californians Against Higher Taxes.

"If this bill is signed into law, our taxes will be increased substantially," Ms. Walters told us.

This devious and far-reaching bill should be killed before it opens the floodgates to the kind of abuses that can devastate an already fragile economy. Unfortunately, the only people capable of voting it down are legislative Democrats who so far unanimously support it.

Going down fast

[Plane]

Isn't it better to make the tax load more local?

[Christians4LessGvt]

more business will leave...
slowly making the burden more focused on a smaller and smaller group
eventually the socialist crap will be unsustainable

[BT]

Isn't it better to make the tax load more local?

Absolutely. It could also help fiscal conservatives take back the state legislature.

[sirs]

The problem to that notion is that its not an either - or....ITS IN ADDITION TO

[BT]

The problem to that notion is that its not an either - or....ITS IN ADDITION TO

Some people see problems where others see opportunity.

[sirs]

Yea, because MORE taxes is such a conservative "opportunity"       

[BT]

Like I said.

[sirs]

Ditto

[sirs]

Message From California: ?American Citizens Need Not Apply?

The United States is ordered by a ?government of the people, by the people, for the people??

But in modern-day California, it?s not so obvious any longer which ?people? the government is allegedly serving.

Let?s go back to September of 2010. In the midst of the Golden State?s contest for a new Governor, a woman named Nicky Diaz Santillan held a press conference in Los Angeles ? along with her famous Attorney Gloria Allred ? and announced that she was suing Republican gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman.

Santillan, we were to learn, had been a live-in housekeeper for the Whitman family between 2000 and 2009. After she was fired from that position she decided to do what Californians often do, and she sued her former employer for ?emotional and financial abuse.?

Ms. Santillan happened also to be an illegal alien -a fact she revealed at her press conference -and had stolen an American citizen?s Social Security number so as to falsify documents and to portray herself as a citizen, when she was seeking employment with Whitman.

It was quite a spectacle, that strange September day in California. Seated behind the microphones and in front of the cameras of the American media, flanked by an American Attorney who had accessed the American judicial system to sue an American citizen named Meg Whitman, sat an illegal alien named Nicky Diaz Santillan.

Nobody dared to ask questions about the fact that Ms. Santillan?s presence in California was a violation of federal law. And nobody said a word about her admission to the crime of identity theft. It was all about the alleged ?abuse? done to her by the American Meg Whitman.

In fact, California?s top law enforcement agent at that time ? Attorney General Jerry Brown ? had nothing to say about illegal immigration and identity theft either. Brown was the Democrat nominee for Governor, and he was polling behind Whitman. So rather than address the apparent crimes and confessions, Brown instead joined the chorus of critics claiming that Whitman had been ?insensitive? for ending Ms. Santillan?s employment.

Shortly after that press conference, Brown began to poll ahead of Whitman. On Election Day in November, Brown trounced Whitman by nearly fourteen percentage points.

In California, trying to uphold the law with illegal aliens can be a very costly thing. Yet the political benefits of allowing illegal aliens to live above the ?government of the people? can be enormous.

After the election, California was rocked by another bizarre event. At Fresno State University, one of California?s largest tax-payer funded schools, the campus newspaper revealed that their student body president Pedro Ramirez was an illegal alien.

Whether Ramirez was ?outed,? or he ?arranged to be outed,? is not quite clear. But after the news broke, Ramirez set out on a well orchestrated series of international media interviews (he rapidly became the ?guest of choice? at ?CNN En Espanol?) and a speaking tour to promote the federal ?Dream Act? amnesty legislation. He flew up and down the state of California, and even paid a visit to Washington, D.C. to ?lobby Congress? on behalf of illegal immigrants.

Ramirez? presence in California was a violation of federal law, yes. But once again, California government officials didn?t dare ask the obvious questions:
How does he pass through security check points at airports?
Does he have an American passport?
Does he have a California Driver?s License?
How did he obtain these documents?
Was identity theft involved?

It?s a ?government of the people,? sure. But what does this mean any longer in California?

Not only does California ignore definitions of ?crime? and ?punishment? in cases involving illegal aliens, it is now about to legislate preferential treatment for illegal aliens which, de facto, will put U.S. citizens at a disadvtange. With a budget deficit of somewhere between $10 and $15 billion ? a deficit that is expected to swell to about $25 billion by the middle of 2012 ? California is cutting back on funding for everything from highway maintenance to K-12 education.

But ? alas! ? the California legislature has nonetheless found money in the coffers to fund special college and university grants intended specifically for illegal alien students (Americans need not apply). It?s called the ?California DREAM Act,? and it?s sailing quite smoothly through the legislature right now.

In the 21st Century, it?s difficult to imagine that tax-payer funded college scholarship programs designated for ?citizens and legal residents only? would be met with favor anywhere in America. But in modern-day California ? a state that will probably be asking for an ?Obama bailout? in the near future - tax-payer funds set aside ?for illegal aliens only? is quite acceptable.

Yes, it?s true - the United States is ordered by a ?government of the people, by the people, for the people?? But in our 31st state, it?s a government that is ?for? just about anyone ? except the American Citizen.