The battle is on to make California affordable again! The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is unveiling their statewide television commercial that you will see a lot in the run-up to the election. It shows the clear link between higher taxes and lack of affordability, and urges voters to make the clear choice to make it harder to raise taxes by voting YES YES YES on 43.
You hare probably been hearing the radio commercials for the past couple of weeks–this week it is game on with the statewide TV rollout. Want to make it harder to raise taxes? YES! Yes on Prop 43.
| Sorting out fact from fiction on the candidates and ballot issues isn’t easy, particularly when the so-called legacy media runs interference for left wing causes and personalities. The President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Jon Coupal, makes a good case for Proposition 43–read it here: |
| The truth about Prop. 43: Don’t fall for the fearmongering. |
| By Jon Coupal
As voting begins in this election season, it is a good time to start considering some of the more egregious lies being foisted on voters in campaign ads, editorials and op-eds. Let’s start with what is being represented about Proposition 43, the effort to close a court-created loophole in Proposition 13. Prop. 43 protects taxpayers by restoring Prop. 13’s two-thirds vote requirement to pass local special taxes, including sales taxes and parcel taxes. Courts have allowed special interests to pass earmarked tax increases with fewer votes. Prop. 43 closes this loophole, protecting taxpayers, homeowners and renters. Note what Prop. 43 does not do. It does not cut any local taxes. It does not retroactively invalidate any existing tax. It does not limit any local governments from going to the voters for general tax increases, which pass with a simple majority vote. All that it does is restore the two-thirds vote for local special taxes – taxes imposed for a specific purpose. Despite the negligible impact Prop. 43 would have on existing local government revenues, according to critics, Prop. 43 will result in the end of civilization. In an op-ed in the San Jose Mercury News, the president of California Professional Firefighters, Darrell Roberts, claims that Prop. 43 “would place a nearly insurmountable roadblock from placing any measure on the ballot” to impose a special tax. What Mr. Roberts forgets is that the two-thirds vote for local special taxes was a provision of the California Constitution from 1978 until 2017 when the California courts began crafting an exception. During that time, rather than being an “insurmountable” barrier, special taxes were routinely enacted with the requisite two-thirds vote, including sales taxes and parcel taxes. The argument that supermajority vote requirements are somehow “undemocratic” collapses when one considers the long history of America’s constitutional framework. There are no fewer than twelve instances in the U.S. Constitution requiring a two-thirds vote. These include impeachment; expelling a Member of Congress; overriding a veto; amending the Constitution (Congressional approval of a Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires a 2/3 majority); calling a Constitutional Convention; and ratifying a treaty. Here in California, the two-thirds vote requirement on matters related to taxation dates back to 1879. That was when the higher threshold was placed in the state constitution for local general obligation bonds as a protection against excessive debt at the local level, repaid by property owners. Recently, in the November 2024 election, California voters overwhelmingly rejected an effort to lower the two-thirds vote requirement for most local bonds to 55%. Prop. 5 lost by ten points. What is revealing about the opposition to Prop. 43 is that most is coming from public sector labor organizations – the very interests who want to remove all barriers to higher taxes. Hyperbolic support for tax increases is prevalent throughout the local level of government as well. Although not a statewide measure, a proposal to raise the sales taxes in five Bay Area counties to generate billions for failed transit systems has driven proponents of the tax to near madness in describing the parade of horribles if the tax fails in November. But this “Regional Transit Measure” has weak support notwithstanding a well-funded campaign to promote it. Voters are suspicious because the transit districts in question, especially BART, have done nothing to correct their failures and inefficiencies. Not surprisingly, Bay Area residents want at least some proof that the new revenue won’t be as misspent as existing revenue. Despite the track record of waste and fraud, major Bay Area media outlets are fully in support of increasing sales taxes, which everyone admits are very regressive. The San Francisco Chronicle warns that, “without an immediate infusion of funds, Muni could be forced to cut service by at least 30%, cancel at least 20 bus routes, end regular evening service, eliminate cable car service and reduce fare discounts for vulnerable populations. BART could close 15 stations and reduce service by 70%. Caltrain could reduce service to one train per hour and stop service on weekends.” The organization Fixes Before Funding disputes these dire predictions, noting, “Transit costs and subsidies have exploded while service shrank; when ridership and fare revenue collapsed, the agencies did not restructure; spending per rider has gone off the chart; ridership never recovered, and never grew the way planners promised; and, the signature projects ran over budget and under-delivered.” A great deal of overstatement can be expected in any political contest, but when it comes to the predictions of disaster if more taxes are not forthcoming, voters would be well advised to ignore the hype.
Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association |
