Boycott the Oscars? Why Not Boycott Everything!?

February 26, 2017 By Joel Fox 13 Comments

oscarsThe focus of the political world will be on California Sunday when several political speeches are bound to take over the Oscars. According to one account, the Oscars broadcast, which lost viewers last year, could rebound over the expectation of hearing these political speeches. Or there could be a boycott of the broadcast in anticipation of speeches blasting President Donald Trump.

That would be in line with the current political strategy that seems to be capturing activists of all political stripes in this divided country: Boycott everything!

When Under Armour CEO Kevin Plank praised Trump’s business agenda, social media exploded with a hashtag to boycott the company.

With Elon Musk agreeing to serve on Trump’s business advisory committee, customers reportedly canceled auto orders.

Boycott campaigns were aimed at retailers such as New Balance, Macy’s and L.L. Bean because company officials said kind words about Trump’s business or trade policies.

Of course, there was the blowup over Nordstrom’s dumping Ivanka Trump’s fashion line which saw counter campaigns to either support or boycott Nordstrom’s over its decision.

The boycott strategy could also find itself in state law if Senator Ricardo Lara gets his way. Lara’s Senate Bill 30 would prohibit the state government from doing business with any individual or organization that assists in construction of a federal border wall along the California-Mexico border. Consider this a state sanctioned boycott.

I’ve tackled the issue of boycott before: In the free speech universe, boycotts themselves are a form of free speech, an individual expressing an opinion by choosing not to buy (or the obverse — to buy to support a business’ decision). On the other hand, boycotts can have a chilling effect on free speech by discouraging expression by business owners and others.

Of course, California business is not unfamiliar with boycotts. The boycott against grape growers organized by the United Farm Workers is well remembered. More recently, some Southern Baptists organized a boycott against Disney.

Boycotts to make political points have been encouraged by Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi and President Jimmy Carter during the 1980 Moscow Olympics. A petition signed by supposedly 700,000 people called for a boycott against Target stores after the retailer announced transgender people are welcome to use the restrooms that they identify with the most.

What if all these boycotts were successful beyond the imaginings of their supporters? Some businesses would be shut down. Some voices would lack an audience.

But a major goal of boycotts is shut off debate and that is a dangerous thing. Our great civic divide would deepen because people are not talking to each other.

I still believe in the marketplace of ideas. Discerning good ideas from bad takes debate and discussion. Cutting off and threatening to cut off people or institutions that want to voice their opinion ill serves democracy.

 is editor of Fox & Hounds and President of the Small Business Action Committee.

This piece was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , , ,

New State Controlled Pension System – Will Taxpayers Have to Bail It Out?

October 1, 2016 By Joel Fox Leave a Comment

retirement_road_signGov. Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 1234 to establish a state supervised retirement fund called Secure Choice for private workers. One wonders if at some future time this action will be remembered much like Gov. Gray Davis’s signature on SB 400 of 1999, which put taxpayers on edge by driving public pensions into deep debt.

The bill Davis signed expanded public employee pension benefits putting in place an investment scheme that has not met the demands of pension liabilities. Many of the local taxes on November ballots will see revenue used to satisfy pension obligations, with local pensions increased along the lines of SB 400. SB 1234 by Senate Pro Tem Kevin de Leon has no provision for taxpayer involvement. However, skeptics believe, with good reason, that because of the state’s involvement, taxpayers will be backstop if the system falters.

Brown’s signature ended a four-year quest to establish a private worker retirement fund. There is no argument workers must save more for retirement. The question is should government oversee such a venture. SB 1234 would require employers to take a small percentage out of worker’s checks and deposit into a retirement fund unless the worker opts out. It is estimated than 7 million California workers would be covered by the plan.

The business community objected to the legislation until some late amendments were added to shield employers from liability and administrative burdens while making it clear that the employer is not the sponsor of the retirement plan. The California Chamber of Commerce and some local chambers pulled opposition and, in the end, stood neutral on the measure. Business will still have the obligation of enrolling workers into the system.

Still, taxpayers should be wary considering the history of promises made about the public pension system that expanded under SB 400. Supporters of that bill declared public pensions would be easily funded by investment revenue, even with employees taking retirement at earlier ages. It has not played out that way, with the state looking at billions in public employee pension debt.

As State Senator and financial expert, John Moorlach, commented after the governor signed SB 1234, “You can anticipate that this ‘secure’ investment has the potential to morph into a massive boondoggle.”

While a couple of other states are looking at a similar private worker retirement system, it should be noted that the drive for state controlled private sector pension programs might have a political connection to public pensions.

The term “pension envy” has been used to describe private workers distaste for the public employees superior benefit packages. Private workers have to save for their own retirement while funding the guaranteed public pensions through their taxes. While the creation of a system to establish a private worker fund would help those private workers in retirement, public unions hope to establish a connection between private workers and public pensions, making voters more sympathetic to the public workers if reformers attempt to reel in public pensions.

As I wrote on this site when SB 1234 first surfaced four years ago, “With the glare of the spotlight on public retirement debt, public unions want to change the focus and talk about private employees retirement.”

Thanks to the governor’s signature, Secure Choice is now in place. It will probably take a couple of years to get started. We’ll see a decade from now if echoes of the SB 400 criticism attaches to SB 1234.

This piece was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , , , ,

Are Taxes the Solution to CA’s Homeless Problem?

July 3, 2016 By Joel Fox 5 Comments

800px-Helping_the_homelessApparently, politicians up and down the state think the solution to California’s homeless problem is taxes. In San Francisco, members of the board of supervisors want to tax the tech industry. In Los Angeles, the city council wants to raise property taxes on all property owners. On the state level, legislative leaders plan to shift income taxes from the rich paid to a fund to help those with mental illness to finance housing bonds for the homeless.

Homelessness is a complex problem and the solutions are not easy. As far back as 2001 a brief by the Public Policy Institute of California identified some of the reasons for a growing homeless population including the high cost of housing, debilitating personal habits and attributes of many of the homeless—alcoholism, crack cocaine addiction, and mental disorders— and income inequality. Its safe to say that since then the homeless situation has worsened.

But is raising taxes the solution?

In some cases it makes sense. Take the Proposition 63 income tax dedicated to help with mental illness. The fund was not being well spent according to an audit. The state effort to shift some revenue from that fund to a more useful function to finance bonds allows a foundation for helping the homeless across the state.

But the local solutions have less merit and again target business in large part as the answer to a problem.

In San Francisco, supporters of the tech tax blame the tech business for the homeless problem arguing that the booming tech industry is responsible for increased housing costs in the city. The tax would raise about $120 million a year.

Given that the city by the bay has been a haven for the homeless and downtrodden well before the boom in technology, it seems tech is being made a scapegoat. An attack on one industry could be an impetus for individual companies to pull up roots and find a friendlier business environment. The precedent setting idea of taxing one industry to solve a societal problem is dangerous for all sectors of the business community. The obvious question: Who’s next?

The Los Angeles approach is different but still questionable. The city council approved putting a $1.8 billion bond on the ballot, which will probably cost twice as much to pay off with interest and will be backed by property taxes. The council is also considering a parcel tax on all properties and may move forward with both plans until a final decision is made in August on which to put on the ballot.

The property taxes will fall heavily on residents who are struggling with the high costs of housing in the region. Homeowners, businesses and apartment owners will carry the burden. Renters covered by the city’s rent-control provisions will not have the tax passed on to them.

In both San Francisco and Los Angeles a two-thirds vote is required to pass the taxes.

Opposition from the business community and some local pols, including the mayor, are lining up against the tech tax in San Francisco. However, the mayor of Los Angeles has promised to find revenue for homeless issues and will support the final plan. Business reaction could be mixed, although the parcel tax, especially if the tax is calculated on a property’s square footage, will certainly bring out strong opposition from business.

One thing that is often ignored in looking for solutions to local problems is to improve the business climate, create jobs, and allow people to earn more. Admittedly, this is not a silver bullet solution for the homeless crisis but it should be talked about constantly instead of always falling back on the T-solution. Taxes.

This piece was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , , , ,

Well-being of Fish Valued Over CA’s Economy and Quality of Life

April 25, 2016 By Jack Stewart 8 Comments

Lake Shasta Water ReservoirBefore raising our glasses to toast this winter’s abundant El Niño rainfall, here’s a sobering thought: Because of deliberate efforts to protect fish by limiting water storage, about half the rain falling on California will wash into the ocean, instead of being stored for the dry, hot summer to come. As for the water now filling the state’s reservoirs, billions of gallons will be flushed down rivers and out to sea in efforts to protect fish, rather than being used to irrigate food crops or provide water for thirsty communities when the drought resumes. Lawsuits and bad policy decisions have created a situation in which the well-being of fish is seemingly valued more than our economy or quality of life. But it doesn’t need to be this way.

Despite steady population increases and a growing need for water, California has removed about 30 dams to improve fish habitat since 1979, costing the state over a hundred billion gallons in lost storage capacity. Moreover, we’ve failed to build new water storage projects to replace that lost capacity, and are now paying a high price for our short-sightedness. Had the Sites Reservoir been built in western Colusa County when first proposed in the 1980’s, it would be filled with about 650 billion gallons of water. Other stalled projects would be capturing billions of gallons of water as well.

Meanwhile, despite declining storage capacity, trillions of gallons of water have been flushed through California rivers in recent years to protect fish. In the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta alone, more than 1.4 trillion gallons of water have been redirected out to sea since 2008 in a failing effort to save the endangered Delta Smelt — water that once flowed to Central Valley farms, the San Francisco Bay area, and Southern California. Although biologists now say the smelt will soon be extinct, federal officials have announced that water will continue being flushed through the delta, despite the devastating social and economic impact on valley farms and communities, where unemployment is now twice the statewide average largely because of forced water cutbacks. As a result, nearly a million acres of the most fertile farmland in the world have been taken out of production, orchards are being bulldozed, and fields that once grew food and provided jobs lie fallow. State officials recently announced that more water will be delivered to the valley this year, but it will still be less than half of what’s needed.

California shouldn’t have to choose between fish or families. With additional water storage and responsible reform of federal environmental laws, we can protect both.

We should move forward with a plan by the Federal Bureau of Reclamation to raise the height of Shasta Dam in Northern California, which would increase water storage by 14 percent, providing enough water for about 550,000 people a year, while boosting the number of endangered salmon in the Sacramento River by allowing the regular release of cold water needed by the fish. We should also expedite construction of the Temperance Flat Dam along the San Joaquin River, expand the San Luis Reservoir, and build the Sites Reservoir, all of which would dramatically increase California’s water storage capacity, making it possible to provide water for farms, municipalities and environmental protection, while allowing us to bank water for future droughts.

These and other water storage and delivery projects have been blocked for years by environmental groups suing under the Endangered Species Act, a well-intentioned federal law that is being increasingly misused to derail energy, housing, transportation, and other infrastructure projects. The law needs to be reformed.

“We’re at the point now where almost any species cannot have its population affected by man,” says Victor Davis Hanson of Stanford’s Hoover Institution, “and that’s an impossible mission to achieve.”

The act needs to be better balanced so human and economic benefits become part of the equation when considering the merits of a particular project that could impact an obscure newt or spider. As the act is currently written, the environment is sacrosanct, and the needs of people and the economy are not considered. They should be.

 is a Board Member, National Alliance for Environmental Reform and former President of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association

Originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , , , ,

Will Gov. Brown Sign Bill Requiring Stricter Oversight of High-Speed Rail?

April 21, 2016 By Joel Fox 3 Comments

High speed railSometimes watching Governor Jerry Brown in action you often think of Forrest Gump’s box of chocolates: “You never know what you’re going to get.” A recent example: the Jerry Brown who holds a relatively tight reign on the budget in support of economic prudence dismisses economic theory for what he termed a moralistic stand when signing the minimum wage bill.

These thoughts swirl as the Assembly Transportation Committee unanimously passed AB2847 by Assemblyman Jim Patterson requiring stricter oversight on the costs and scope of the high-speed rail project.

Brown is the bullet train’s greatest advocate. He’s also been the state’s leading preacher within the government hierarchy on fiscal responsibility. If AB2847 clears committee and floor votes and ends up on the governor’s desk will he sign it?

The measure, following recommendations out of the Legislative Analyst’s Office, requires details on costs, schedules and scope of each segment of the train’s building progress, and, importantly, demands to know how the segment will be paid for.

The cost question is paramount because voters were told private funding was part of the formula for financing the rail project. No major private funder have stepped forward. In addition, an appeals court is considering a lawsuit over the legality of the cap-and-trade money, a large chunk of which is dedicated to the high-speed rail.

As Assemblyman Patterson notes, “The Rail Authority is tasked with the largest infrastructure project in modern times and is on track to spend billions upon billions of public resources.” We ought to know more detail about the project.

The Legislature appears to be bending to pubic concerns about the seemingly flimsy promises and financial quagmire that the train project could present.

With Brown’s signature on the minimum wage bill and his pronouncement that morality trumps economy, he could position himself similarly on the high-speed rail, although it’s hard to see how the bullet train is a lesson in morality.

It’s a bit ironic, I suppose, that given technological advancements over the last four decades, that what Brown was excoriated for in his first iteration as governor — a proposed state operated satellite, which earned him the sobriquet “Moonbeam” — might seem a more acceptable project today than his down-to-earth bullet train that could go nowhere.

Originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , , ,

Tobacco Tax Compromise Stumbles in Legislature

March 13, 2016 By Joel Fox 1 Comment

cigarette smoking ashesThe California Legislature passed a package of bills intended to diminish tobacco sales. While one measure allows county governments to seek a tax on cigarettes, a state tobacco tax was not included in the package. That’s not to say many in the Legislature would like a tobacco tax and efforts were made to convince the tobacco industry to go along with a deal that would include a state tax increase. The proposed deal would result in scuttling a ballot initiative aimed for November to increase the tobacco tax and kill some of the bills in the package.

Here’s how Los Angeles Times columnist George Skelton explained the maneuvering in his Monday column:

Behind the scenes, Senate leader Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) quietly is offering to negotiate with tobacco. If the industry were to allow the Legislature to pass a state tobacco tax, perhaps some of the package could be snuffed.

Then sponsors of a November ballot initiative that would raise the state cigarette tax by $2 per pack might be persuaded to withdraw their measure. That would save the tobacco industry upward of $100 million fighting the initiative.

Why wouldn’t the tobacco industry consider a more modest increase in the tax on cigarettes if some of the restrictive measures on tobacco were pushed aside and the initiative was pulled before it qualified for the ballot?

While tempting, the tobacco industry saw a big hurdle with any deal. There was no guarantee that if the deal were made a different interest group than the one behind the current ballot initiative would come along with a new tobacco tax effort in the near future. Or a future legislature could also consider a tax increase on tobacco.

Without a solid guarantee, the tobacco industry would rather take its stand now against any state tax increase. There is no way negotiating legislators can guarantee that some outside group won’t go to the ballot via the initiative with a new tax increase even if a deal is struck.

Many supporters of more tax revenue think tobacco and cigarettes is a good target because non-smoking voters outnumber smokers and tobacco users. Thus it is tempting for those who want to raise revenue to consider a tobacco tax.

The possibility that a new effort to raise tobacco taxes in the near future could not be guaranteed held back any legislative compromise on taxes.

Joel Fox is editor of Fox & Hounds and president of the Small Business Action Committee.

This piece was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , , , ,

California and the GOP Debate

August 7, 2015 By Joel Fox 6 Comments

Republican presidential candidate businesswoman Carly Fiorina stands on stage for a pre-debate forum at the Quicken Loans Arena, Thursday, Aug. 6, 2015, in Cleveland. Seven of the candidates have not qualified for the primetime debate. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Looking for California in the GOP debate presented some challenges even with one candidate who has tentative ties to the Golden State and the state’s Democratic governor who tried to put himself into the debate via a letter to the candidates on climate change.

There was only one Californian (sort of) in the field of 17 — Carly Fiorina who made her name as CEO of Hewlett-Packard and was handily defeated by Barbara Boxer for the California U.S. Senate seat in 2010. She now lives in Virginia.

She did fairly well in the first debate, many pundits declaring her the winner. And it appeared that former Texas governor Rick Perry has Fiorina lined up for the Secretary of State job if he becomes president. In criticizing the Iran nuclear deal Perry said, “I’d rather have Carly Fiorina over there doing our negotiation rather than (Secretary of State) John Kerry.”

Major California companies Google and Apple also made it into the first debate with Fiorina saying they should cooperate with the government on investigations that might prevent terrorism.

Apparently, Jerry Brown sent his letter to the wrong recipients for the main debate. California’s Democratic governor tried to work his way into the debate when he sent a letter asking GOP candidates how they would address climate change. He should have sent his letter to the Fox News Channel debate moderators. They didn’t bother to engage the candidates on climate change in the debate featuring the 10 leading candidates.

There was a reference to climate change in the first debate held for candidates in positions 11 to 17 in the polls. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham responded that if he debated presumptive Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton on climate change she would argue cap-and-trade that would ruin the economy while he would focus on energy independence and a clean environment. Cap-and-trade is a key strategy in Brown’s camapign on climate change.

Immigration was a big issue at the debate although nothing specific to California. However, the situation on sanctuary cities was raised in both the earlier and later debates. The sanctuary cities issue gained headlines after the shooting death in San Francisco of Kate Steinle by an illegal immigrant who had been deported many times but still came back. Candidates from Jeb Bush to Ted Cruz, to Bobby Jindal said they would eliminate federal funds to sanctuary cities.

There are a number of presidential candidates working with individuals with strong California ties. To name a few: Jeff Miller is campaign manager for Rick Perry, Mike Murphy is a strategist for Jeb Bush and Todd Harris is communication director for Marco Rubio.

While California didn’t have a big role in the debates one of her favorite sons was mentioned frequently –Ronald Reagan. And that will carry over with the next Republican debate scheduled for the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley September 16.

Originally published of Fox and Hounds Daily

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

$132 Billion in New Taxes/Fees Proposed by CA Legislators … So Far

June 4, 2015 By Teresa Casazza 11 Comments

As the Legislature nears the June 15 deadline for sending a budget bill to the governor, the California Taxpayers Association released “Tax Watch,” a report detailing $132 billion in new taxes and fees that have been introduced by lawmakers so far during this legislative session.

The report includes every bill introduced so far this session that would impose or authorize higher taxes, fees or tax-like “fees” estimated by state officials to generate $5 million or more per year in net revenue.

State revenue increased more than $10 billion this year under our existing tax structure, but that hasn’t stopped some lawmakers from asking for even more. With tax revenue surpassing expectations, and the state’s rainy day fund now in place to help weather future storms, this is not the time to be proposing $132 billion in new tax and fee increases. 

The most expensive proposal for taxpayers is Senate Bill 8 (Hertzberg), which would extend the sales and use tax to cover services (including veterinary services, auto repairs, gardening and music lessons).

The State Board of Equalization, which administers the sales and use tax, estimates that this change alone would cost taxpayers $122.6 billion every year, on top of all existing taxes.

To prepare “Tax Watch,” CalTax reviewed every bill introduced or amended from December 1, 2014, to May 29, 2015. In cases where two or more bills proposed similar increases (for example, four bills proposed taxes on marijuana), the cost was counted only once for purposes of calculating the total amount of taxes and fees proposed during this session.

 is president of the California Taxpayers’ Association

Originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , , ,

Follow the Big Money as it Ripples Through L.A.

March 23, 2015 By Joel Fox Leave a Comment

Los Angeles’ major daily newspapers this weekend each had separate stories that reflected big money in Los Angeles and, in a way, the two stories are connected.

The Los Angeles Times reported than many Silicon Valley entrepreneurs were spending big bucks for Los Angeles area real estate. We’re talking on the high end about $70 million for a custom mansion in Beverly Hills. One realtor said the techies are buying second, third or fourth homes on the West Side of Los Angeles and the beach communities in the $2 to $5 million range.

The Los Angeles Daily News reported on the top salaries of employees of the Los Angeles Unified School District. The article focused on the dismissed Superintendent John Deasy and his $440,000 paycheck. Of note, number five on the list was an elementary teacher who took in $235,000, much of it in unexplained “back pay.” The top ten annual salaries were at $200,000 and above.

Infusion of high tech money into the real estate market means increased property taxes for Los Angeles County. It also makes you think of the trouble long time residents would be in with their property taxes if the pre-Prop 13 property tax system were in place. Dramatic increases in property sales prices would ripple through the community increasing property valuations and thus taxes for all.

The top dollars for educators comes with an additional price tag. Teachers’ union officials, currently in tough negotiations with the LAUSD over pay increases, will use the information about top administrators’ salaries in their quest for more money. High pay for administrators and wage increases for teachers will lead to larger pension obligations for the district.

Will the buying splurge and increased housing payments raise enough tax revenue for the schools to offset the teacher salary demands and increased pension obligations? It’s all connected. My suspicion is the school demands for money will still fall short of the new revenue so the debate over more taxes will continue.

Originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , , , ,

Senator de Leon’s Green Vision Has Valley Seeing Red

March 18, 2015 By Jim Patterson 10 Comments

Senator Kevin de Leon, the same Los Angeles State Senator who proclaimed that “no one lives out there in the tumbleweeds” when referring to the Central Valley, has proven that he still doesn’t understand the realities faced by hardworking people who live here.

His recent op-ed in the Fresno Bee pitching Senate Bill 350 was an unconvincing argument for an economy-stifling nightmare that might excite people living in San Francisco or Newport Beach but would actually be a burden to people living in the Central Valley. This irresponsible mandate includes plans to force cuts to gas and diesel use by 50 percent, as well as increase renewable energy 50 percent in the next 15 years. Many people in the Central Valley, like thousands of farm workers who Senator de León says he is trying to help, have no choice but to gas up and drive long distances to and from work. Any small improvements to the environment would be overshadowed by the strangulation of the oil and gas industry, not to mention the financial impacts on every driver in this state as the cost of filling up cars, trucks or tractors skyrockets.

Families who have chosen to make their living in the Central Valley don’t have the mass transit options like those in the Bay Area and the great majority certainly don’t have the extra cash to spend on a new hybrid or electric car. Had Senator de Leon bothered to concern himself with the differences between the Central Valley and L.A. or the Bay Area he would know that one-third of all electric vehicle owners in California live in just two counties: Los Angeles and Santa Clara. Less than one percent live in the Valley’s two most populated counties: Fresno and Kern, according to the California Air Resources Board. And almost 70 percent of these elusive, electric car owners make more than $100,000 a year – far more than Fresno County’s median annual income of $45,500.

Californians are struggling to afford the highest cost of living in the nation thanks to high taxes, regulations and a growing dependence on new fees like those collected from cap-and-trade. We must continue to be wary of plans intended to help save the environment that aren’t based in reality and don’t offer any markers for success. California’s families, farmers and business owners can’t afford to foot the bill for Senator de Leon’s extreme energy and environmental policies.

Originally published on Fox and Hounds Daily

Assemblyman Jim Patterson represents the 23rd District, which includes portions of Fresno and Tulare counties.

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , , , ,