VOTE ON NOVEMBER 7TH

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 1-A
Your YES vote will stop the Legislature from transferring sales tax revenues received specifically for transportation needs to other projects, and requires return of money, already borrowed, to the transportation fund.

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 90
Your YES vote will limit government's ability to seize privately owned property using provisions covered by eminent domain, whether homes or businesses, and selling or transferring them to other private enterprises in an endeavor to increase tax revenue.

VOTE NO ON SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT'S (SMUD) MEASURE L
Your NO vote will stop this hostile attempt by SMUD to take over Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) electric customers in Yolo County, by an act of eminent domain seizure. The final cost will not be known until a judge, in a case to be litigated in the future, hands down a final decision regarding PG&E's assets' value. Consequently, its possible effect on SMUD's Sacramento customers future costs are not known, notwithstanding SMUD's assertion that existing customers will see no impact.

VOTE NO ON MEASURES Q AND R
Your NO votes on Measures Q and R, will stop the illegal scheme our elected officials hatched to end-run Proposition 218. Measure Q's non-binding vote, devised to get voters advice on whether voters agree to use public money to build a sports and entertainment center somewhere in Sacramento County, coupled with Measure R, which levies a 15-year 1/4% sales tax increase to raise $1.2 billion, allegedly for general public expenses, is specifically aimed at using half the tax money to build a new Kings arena. Proposition 218 requires a two-thirds vote to dedicate general fund money for a special purpose, not the simple majority vote being advertised. We consider the attempt to be illegal.

See League's Recommendations on Nov. 2006 Propositions and Local Ballot Measures.

NOVEMBER'S ELECTION PROPOSITIONS AND MEASURES
On September 21st the League's Board of Directors discussed the Statewide Propositions and Local Measures that will be on the November 7th Election ballot. Positions taken on Propositions and Measures appear on the Insert, in numerical order, in this month's Perspective. Considering the number, scope, and cost of Propositions and Measures on the November ballot, discussion's on each was enlightening, and in some cases quite lively.

Propositions. Taking the list as a whole, the Directors agreed that Proposition 83 Sex Offenders, Sexually Violent Predators, Punishment, Residence Restrictions and Monitoring; and Proposition 85 Parental Notification on Abortion, were not the type of Initiatives that a taxpayer organization should be considering for an organizational position. They were deemed to be outside the scope of the League's charter.

The Directors voted to support Proposition 1-A Transportation Funding Protection, to end Legislative raids on taxes specifically passed for transportation needs, and to regain transportation funds siphoned off and used for completely unrelated purposes; and Proposition 90 Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property the "Protect our Homes" initiative. Proposition 90 protects Californians from the unfortunate US Supreme Court "Kelo" decision to permit eminent domain procedures to be used to seize private property and transfer ownership to other private owners for commercial development, which outraged the nation.

The Directors voted to oppose a number of Propositions, beginning with Proposition 1-C Housing and Emergency Shelters Trust Fund Act . The Proposition proposes to raise $2.85 billion in bonds over 30 years to provide shelters for battered women and their children, clean and safe housing for senior citizens; home ownership for the disabled, military veterans, and working families; and repairs and accessibility improvements to apartments for families and disabled citizens. Notwithstanding the emotional nature of Proposition 1-C, the League considers it inappropriate to use long term borrowing to support subsidization housing projects. Proposition 1-C offers no other source of obtaining funds in-lieu of dipping into the state's general fund to pay off the bonds. As repayment of bonded debt has first demand on the general fund, it deprives other existing programs of needed money. Programs of the nature proposed should be accomplished on a pay as you go basis, rather than established as a dedicated financial operation.

Proposition 84 Water Quality, Safety and Supply. Flood Control. Natural Resource Protection. Park Improvements was opposed as, created by special interests, the $5.4 billion bond issue would provide money for many projects unrelated to water supply and flood control. Since 1996 we have spent $9.6 billion on water and flood control projects, and still have $1.4 billion available. Completely, and possibly intentionally, there is no money applied for needed water storage facilities and conveyance systems, nor flood control dams, except for studies. Also, the November ballot includes Proposition 1-E, a $4.09 billion bonding measure for levees and flood control.

Proposition 86 Tax on Cigarettes is a punishment type tax. The over $2 billion tax hike, supposedly to reduce smoking, was opposed, as a special interest sponsored attempt, principally by hospitals and HMOs, that will result a new state bureaucracy, handling hundreds of millions of dollars, with little oversight. Realistically, only about 10% of the total tax goes to help stop smoking. The unfortunate side effect is that it will see an increase in crime and smuggling, as bootlegging increases. Sales of cigarettes, in tax exempt facilities in California, and purchases from outside the state, unaffected by the tax will increase. (read the Executive Director's Message).

Proposition 87 Tax on California Crude Oil Producers is another punishment type tax. It is opposed as it can easily raise the price of gasoline purchased in California, notwithstanding the claim that Proposition 87 makes it will be illegal to tack the severance tax on to the cost of gasoline and other oil products. Taxes paid by the oil producers become a pass through, and it attacks those in the most risky part of the oil business, those who find oil rather than those who refine and market petroleum products, where the final price is established. Further, a new state bureaucracy will be created and directed to spend $4 billion from a special fund, exempt from transfer for other purposes, within 10-years to attempt to reduce petroleum consumption by 25%. (read Executive Director's Message).

Proposition 88 Educational Funding. Real Property Parcel Tax will be opposed by every taxpayers organization in the state. It is a whole new kind of statewide property tax. All property taxes now are local, and go into the local general funds for local services. This new tax would go to the state first, which would parcel it out as it wishes. Regardless of purpose, this annual $50 real property tax on most parcels in the state is an end run around Proposition 13. It would be lead to the possibility of huge new property tax increases, as future such parcel taxes could be passed with a simple majority vote rather than the two-thirds vote required by Proposition 13. It must be defeated.

Proposition 89 Political Campaigns. Campaign Financing. Corporate Tax Increase. Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Limits is yet another punishment move, opposed by the League as a self serving attempt by a special interest group to restrict participation of others in election of candidates for statewide office, and for support or opposition to statewide ballot measures. Further, it obtains the money to be distributed by singling out, and increasing taxes on corporations and financial institutions. It raises hundreds of millions of dollars so politicians can run campaigns on taxpayers money, and does so in an unacceptable way. If public financing of campaigns is made component of elections, the cost should be distributed equitably over all taxpayers, not just aimed at corporations and financial institutions.

The Directors voted to be neutral, leaving it to the voters to decide, on the remaining three bond Propositions, i.e. 1-B Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security ($19.9 billion); 1-D Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities ($10.4 billion); and 1-E Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention ($4.1 billion).

Local Measures. The Directors elected to be neutral, leaving it to the voters to decide, on all three school bond Measures, i.e. Measure M Folsom Cordova Unified School District Bonds ($750 million); Measure N Folsom Cordova Unified School District Bonds for Rancho Cordova Only ($125 million); and Measure P Rio Linda School Distict Bonds ($38 million).There is no Measure O on the ballot.

The Directors in the past had voted to oppose Measure L The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) Annexation of Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) Electric Service Customers in Yolo County, and is a signatory of both the Argument Against Measure L, and the Rebuttal to the Argument in Favor of Measure L, on the November ballot. Measure L is an attempt by a publicly owned business to obtain, by an act of eminent domain, the assets and customers of a private company, in the same business.

The Directors also previously opposed Measures Q and R, The Advisory Vote Asking Whether Half of a New Sale Tax Increase Can Be Used For a Sports and Entertainment Center in the County, and for a Levy of a 15-Year One-Quarter Percent Sales Tax Increase For General Governmental Services. The combination of the two Measures is specifically designed to build the Sacramento Kings a new arena. This is a deliberate violation of Proposition 218, The Right to Vote on Taxes Act, which clearly states that a "Special Tax" means any tax imposed for specific purposes, including a tax imposed for specific purposes which is placed into a general fund, which is precisely what is being done. As a "Special Tax" requires a two-thirds majority vote, in lieu of the simple majority vote advertised for passage, the combination violates the law.

At the Board meeting on the September 20 th, the Board opposed Measures J and K, the Establishment of Seven Trustee Areas in the Sacramento City Unified School District and Election of One Member of the Governing Board In Each Trustee Area. Changing from at-large elections to elections by area was judged by the League Board to disadvantage the District as competition develops among those elected by area. Although occurring on a much lower scale, it is emblematic of the "pork-barrel" syndrom displayed by the US Congress, the classic example.

THE SACRAMENTO BEE'S STRANGE BALLOT RECOMMENDATIONS
Joe Sullivan

The Sacramento Bee has recommended "No" votes on two very critical November ballot Propositions, 88 - Education Funding. Real Property Parcel Tax. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute, and 90 - Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property. Initiative Constitution Amendment. The Proposition 88 recommendation to vote "No" is right on. Although its defeat is a victory for property owners, The Bee's "No" vote has a strange reason. On Proposition 90, like one of our national leaders, The Bee seems to have been spooked by the flutter, shot their gun, and hit private property owners right in the face!

Let's position The Bee. It hates Proposition 13, the taxpayer's revolution, and constantly prints snide remarks attacking the voters end to wild property tax increases of the past. The Taxpayers League and all Taxpayer organizations oppose Proposition 88 as it end-runs Proposition 13 by establishing a statewide $50 parcel tax to be used to fund specific K-12 education programs. All property-owners should oppose this new tax as it is the camels nose under the tent. If successful, it will be widened to cover many other such parcel taxes. Success of Proposition 88 will completely destroy the property-owners protection afforded by Proposition 13. However, did The Bee throw a block to help protect property-owners by recommending a "No" vote on Proposition 88? Nope, The Bee recommended a "No" vote because the parcel tax wasn't big enough!

On Proposition 90, let me borrow, in part, from Director Richard Mersereau, - "Property rights are at the heart of our liberties as taxpayers and Americans. The Kelo decision (US Supreme Court 2004 Decision in Connecticut, Kelo v. City of New London - allows elected officials to take personal property, by act of eminent domain, so a private business may use it to provide economic benefit to the community) rightfully outraged an entire nation. Proposition 90 will restore the 'Founders' vision of 'public use' as meaning vital public works focused exclusively on projects that serve all the people." Proposition 90 overturns Kelo, and restores the true meaning of eminent domain, defending the property through strong reform of regulatory takings law. These are fundamental rights. Along with us, Proposition 90 is supported by The People's Advocate, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, National Taxpayers Union, California Taxpayers Protection Committee, National Federation of Independent Businesses, California Black Chamber of Commerce, Orange County Register, Long-Beach Press Democrat, and Marysville Appeal-Democrat, with more taxpayer organizations across the state joining daily. Yet The Bee says no! And the bottom line is that the same three organizations that signed the ballot argument against Proposition 218 - The right to vote on Taxes Act, signed the ballot Argument Against Proposition 90. And the three organizations who formed the committee opposing Proposition 90, the League of California Cities, the CA Redevelopment Association, and the CA State Association of Counties, all filed Amicus Briefs with the US Supreme Court in favor of the Kelo Decision. So much for whom The Bee sides with. VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 90.

LETTERS TO THE LEAGUE

We seek “Letters to the League” from Members concerning projects and issues on which we are working, along with recommendations on those we should look at. Letters may be edited and republished in any format, primarily in the interest of available space. Send letters, faxes, or e-mail to the Sacramento County Taxpayers League. Our e-mail is sactaxleague@prodigy.net; our telephone number is (916) 921-5991. Our fax number is (916) 567-1279. And our address is:
Sacramento County Taxpayers League
1804 Tribute Road, Suite 207
Sacramento, CA 95815.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE

Going over the Propositions was interesting as I have direct experience with two, Proposition 86, Taxes on Cigarettes, and 87, Taxing Crude Oil Production.

From 1951 thru 1959 I did two hitches working for the Gulf Oil Company in Venezuela as a Geological Engineer looking for oil, and as a Petroleum Reservoir Engineer maximize oil production from wells. Then, I was a two-pack a day Marlboro Man. Venezuela was under the dictatorship of Perez Jimenz, who took the nation with a gun, and ran it the same way. Venezuela made cigarettes, and loving baseball, the best, (not very good) were "Hit" and "Hon Run." American cigarettes were also sold, but were unusual as every "legal" cigarette had "Venezuela" printed on the side. They were very expensive, specifically to protect the local products. And as will happen if Proposition 86 passes, bootlegging cigarettes was a sport, right along with buying them. However, the dictatorship had a neat way of fighting back. If a cop or soldier stopped you, noticing a pack of cigarettes in your shirt pocket, and asked for a cigarette, it better have "Venezuela" on the side, or it was automatically 20 days in the slammer. That was the law. No court, no lawyer, the trip was direct, and you stayed until you did your time. I had no problems as I always carried a legal pack outside the house. Smoked the illegals inside. So, if Proposition 86 passes we'll get the Legislature to pass the Venezuelan law, teach our cops to ask for cigarettes, and anyone caught with cigarettes without California on the side will get a quick trip to jail, where the desk sergeant will keep score on time spent, no courts or lawyers needed.

In 1968 I bought a 12% interest in a 42 acre oil lease deal, buying 30 abandoned wells in Harris County, Texas. All involved were oil people, and the plan was to deepen three abandoned wells, and drill two new ones into an oil reservoir that had not been tapped. Our estimate was 50 barrels a day from each well, and payout of our $100,000 investment would be three years. Crude then sold for $3.85 a barrel. We drilled a new well first, which produced 250 barrels of oil in one day, filling our 250 barrel tank and heater-treater (to knock out water). It was shut in, and never produced another drop. The investment was gone in a year. Our oil sand was unconsolidated, and we tried every stunt known to produce, and failed. Shell and City Service bought a 10% operating interest from us, thinking they could do it, and failed. In oil field terms we had a "duster." And in the oil business, there are many independent exploration oil well drillers who take all the risk. These are many of the people Proposition 87 wants to penalize because gasoline became expensive. Yet they do not set the market price of gasoline. That's done by refiners, who buy crude from wherever, and market and price their products. Proposition 87 is shooting at the wrong part of the oil industry. It hurts the risk takers, not the price setters.

Joe Sullivan

<< Back to Index

Officers