Coupal: Sacramento’s spending addiction continues

November 26, 2025 By Jon Coupal 1 Comment

In a report released last Wednesday, California’s Legislative Analyst provides an analysis of the state’s General Fund budget condition including both revenue and expenditure estimates. For taxpayers, the news isn’t good.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

One of the more depressing conclusions from the report was the statement that, “As it stands—with larger forecasted deficits and many fewer tools available to address them—California’s budget is undeniably less prepared for downturns.” A more easily understood translation of this would be that state leaders are playing Russian Roulette with their bloated spending plan. If California, along with the rest of the nation, experiences even a mild recession, the financial condition of the state could deteriorate to a point where even higher taxes will be on the table, no doubt accelerating the exodus out of the formerly golden state.

According to the report, the state will face a nearly $18 billion budget “problem” this coming fiscal year due to higher than expected spending. (General fund spending invariably increases every year over and above inflation and population increases). During the governorship of Gavin Newsom, which began in 2019, the budget grew over 63% in five years.

Particularly galling to California taxpayers – who must balance the family budget in a state with a punishinglyhigh cost of living – is the fact that the deficits persist even with huge revenue increases. According to LAO, “Across 2024-25 to 2026-27, our revenue estimates are up $11 billion compared to the budget act.” But “these revenue improvements do not, on net, improve the budget’s bottom line, because they are mostly offset by provisions of the Constitution dictating much of state spending.”

So, while taxpayers are doing their part by dutifully paying their taxes, our elected political leadership fails to do its job of prioritizing spending. State Sen. Roger Niello of Roseville, the Republican vice chair of the Senate Budget Committee, hit the nail on the head by attributing the structural deficit to Democrats’ “unstoppable spending problems.” Speaking to CalMatters, Niello further stated that, “The state must assess the effectiveness and sustainability of the programs that were created during the surplus and make necessary corrections.”

Similarly, Republican Assemblyman David Tangipa, who serves on the Assembly Budget Committee, noted that the LAO report confirms that “California is staring down a $35 billion structural deficit. Meanwhile, states like Texas are running a $24 billion surplus. Even the LAO notes that despite higher taxes, revenue can’t keep up with the private jets, luxury hotels, and endless spending spree Democrat leaders are billing to the taxpayers. Californians are demanding leaders who will protect taxpayers, restore fiscal sanity, and stop the runaway spending that has pushed families and businesses out of our state.”

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

Jon Coupal: Is California really a ‘donor state’?

October 6, 2025 By Staff 1 Comment

A recurring political debate is whether California is a “donor” state as opposed to what some call a “receiver” state. The argument is that high-tax states, which tend to vote Democratic, pay more in federal taxes than they get back in federal government spending. Progressives argue that states like California and New York are “subsidizing” Republican states, which have lower tax burdens.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

No one whines more about how California is somehow being shortchanged relative to conservative states than our own governor, Gavin Newsom. For example, in June, his press office sent out a release claiming that “. . . California is the biggest ‘donor state’ in the country — providing around $83 billion more to the federal government than it receives from the federal government.”

As support for his thesis, Newsom quotes economist Paul Krugman who stated that California is “an economic and technological powerhouse” that “is literally subsidizing the rest of the United States, red states in particular, through the federal budget.” Krugman is obviously correct about the “economic powerhouse” bit – which California has been for decades under both Republican and Democratic governors – but he is off base on the subsidizing part. (It should be noted that National Review refers to Krugman as “Always Wrong, Never in Doubt.”)

But it now appears that Gov. Newsom’s narrative isn’t quite as solid as one would believe. According to a September 18 article by Nicole Nixon in the Sacramento Bee, California was actually a “recipient” state in 2023, the most recent year for which data is available: “In its latest analysis of the cashflow between states and the federal government, the Rockefeller Institute of Government found California received $13.4 billion more in federal funds than what residents and businesses paid in tax receipts in 2023.”

Nonetheless, it is likely true that, in most years, California sends more tax revenue to Washington than it receives in benefits, depending on how those funds are classified. But the broader question is: what difference does it make? Is the entire “donor” versus “recipient” state issue even relevant?

In an ongoing effort to determine winners and losers, The Rockefeller Institute’s “Giving or Getting?” report is published periodically and is usually cited by progressive politicians and interest groups to support their claim that progressive states are not being treated fairly. See, for example, the aforementioned Paul Krugman’s column entitled “The Moochers of Middle America.”

The problem with the Giving or Getting report is its methodology. For example, benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, are clearly a federal subsidy, but paychecks to members of the military are not. And yet the Rockefeller report treats both the same for purposes of determining the balance of payments among the states.

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , ,

Jon Coupal: The mad rush for tax hikes in California

September 29, 2025 By Staff 1 Comment

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Local governments, and the special interests which covet more public funds to sustain them, are pursuing new taxes with a vengeance. Despite California having the top tax rates in the nation, it’s never enough for politicians and bureaucrats.

While progressives’ pursuit of ever higher taxes is built into their DNA, there seems to be even heightened urgency this year. The reason for that is that a pending statewide initiative that restores a key provision of Proposition 13 slams the door on a court-created loophole.

Since 1978, all local special taxes have required a two-thirds vote of the electorate. But ignoring precedence and the plain language of Proposition 13, a 2017 decision from the California Supreme Court in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland created a massive loophole resulting in all kinds of unconstitutional taxes – backed by tax-and-spend special interests.

Since Upland, several local initiative tax increases have been declared “approved” despite falling short of Proposition 13’s two-thirds vote requirement for special taxes (taxes dedicated to a specific purpose). The Upland loophole has allowed special interest groups to write initiatives that raise taxes, direct the money to themselves, and pass them with just a simple majority.

The pending statewide initiative measure, the Local Taxpayer Protection Act (LTPA) to Save Proposition 13, restores the state constitution to its original meaning by closing the Upland loophole. Polling on the measure, on track to qualify for the November 2026 ballot, reveals substantial support, particularly among homeowners who are high-propensity voters.

The substantial likelihood that LTPA will be approved by voters explains the mad rush to impose new and higher taxes.

A prominent example of this rush involves transit systems in the Bay Area. Earlier this month, the Legislature passed California Senate Bill 63 from Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, and the bill is now sitting on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk for signature.

If approved, the measure would allow the affected counties to impose an additional sales tax of 1% in San Francisco and 0.5% in other counties to help fund public transit operations. The transit agencies that would see a share of the tax revenue include the San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Agency, BART, AC Transit, Caltrain, SF Bay Ferry and Golden Gate Transit.

The push to impose regional taxes in the Bay Area has a tortured history. Regional Measure 4, a $20 billion bond proposal by nine Bay Area counties, never got off the ground because of pressure from local taxpayer groups, including a group of activists who called their organization “20 Billion Reasons.” Their scrutiny and opposition were so intense that the regional authority proposing the bond decided at the last minute to drop the effort entirely. Transit advocates are hoping for better luck this time, but negative publicity for almost all the regional transit districts, especially BART, suggests an uphill battle for the tax increase.

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

Jon Coupal: A measure to save Prop. 13 and protect you, the taxpayer

September 8, 2025 By Staff Leave a Comment

In 1978, Proposition 13 cut property taxes to one percent of the taxable value and capped increases to the taxable value to just two percent a year, with reassessment occurring only for new construction or when there is a change of ownership. It was a significant tax cut after years of inflation-driven tax hikes built up a surplus in Sacramento, while Californians were taxed out of their homes. 

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Howard Jarvis, the author of Prop. 13 and our organization’s namesake, added provisions to Proposition to prevent the tax “spenders” from finding new ways to take the same amount of money from the tax “payers.”

Prop. 13 requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of the state Legislature to pass new state taxes, and it also says a two-thirds vote is needed to pass local special taxes.

But much like Howard Jarvis feared, the tax-and-spend interests have sought to destroy Proposition 13 ever since, most recently by persuading courts to carve loopholes in its constitutional protections and invent new ways for government agencies to raise revenue.

In 2017, the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland created an ambiguity. It suggested that if a tax increase was placed on the ballot by a citizens’ initiative instead of by a government body, the state constitution (including Proposition 13) may not apply.

That’s why we worked with the business community last year to put the Taxpayer Protection Act on the ballot. More than a million signatures were collected. But then the governor and the legislature sued to have it taken off the ballot, and the California Supreme Court declared that the TPA was a “revision” of the constitution and removed the measure before voters could pass it.

We didn’t take that lying down. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a new initiative this year called the Local Taxpayer Protection Act to Save Proposition 13. This constitutional amendment will restore Prop. 13’s requirement that all local special taxes, those that dedicate the revenue to a specific purpose, must be approved by two-thirds of voters to pass. No exceptions. No loopholes.

The Local Taxpayer Protection Act to Save Proposition 13 makes clear that:

  • Local taxes for a special purpose require approval by two-thirds of voters to pass, even if proposed by an initiative backed by special interests.
  • New real estate transfer taxes (which are like sales taxes on real estate) are prohibited, except the modest 0.11% documentary transfer tax allowed prior to Proposition 13.
  • Existing real estate transfer taxes (including Measure ULA in the City of Los Angeles) are repealed effective December 31, 2028, except the 0.11% documentary transfer tax allowed prior to Proposition 13.

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , ,

Coupal: In California’s Capitol, the ‘defenders of democracy’ oppose transparency

August 19, 2025 By Staff 1 Comment

Democrats in the Legislature are spending their first week back from summer recess frantically redrawing the state’s congressional maps in response to redistricting efforts in Texas. They claim they are doing it to “protect democracy.”

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

“We are trying to defend democracy as opposed to see it destroyed district by district,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said during a recent news conference.

As longtime capitol watchers, we have a few cynical thoughts about the lofty motives expressed. But first, it should be noted that the California Democratic Party opposed the state’s independent redistricting commission when it was on the ballot. Second, the Democratic-controlled state Legislature routinely passes bills that undermine our democracy when it benefits them.

For example, while the state Legislature is supposedly defending democracy against Texas, they are simultaneously pushing a bill that would reduce transparency for local tax and bond measures when they appear on the ballot.

An informed electorate is vital to democracy and often the ballot label is the only thing a voter reads before making their decision. That’s why the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association supported Assembly Bill 809 in 2015 and Assembly Bill 195 in 2017. They were simple measures that added one sentence to the ballot label, a required disclosure of the rate of a tax increase, its duration, and the amount of revenue to be raised.

We believe, when faced with a tax that could last decades, that it’s imperative for voters to have easy access to this critical information. But Assembly Bill 699 being pushed this year by Assemblywoman Catherine Stefani, D-San Francisco, seeks to negate that beneficial law.

Under Stefani’s AB 699, the agency seeking approval for a local tiered-tax and bond measure would only need to include these words on the ballot: “See County voter guide for detailed tax rate information.” Believe it or not, Stefani says she’s enhancing transparency by hiding these facts in the fine print of a separate publication.

“Requiring that financial measures be explained to a voter in a 75-word ballot label can be too restrictive and can lead to confusion and at times can be misleading to voters,” she wrote in her statement to a legislative committee.

This is where the ruse becomes so obvious. If the 75-word ballot label restriction is the issue, why not simply increase the word limit? A similar bill, Senate Bill 532 of 2023, was amended in the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments committee to do just that. It exempted the fiscal disclosure requirements for local tiered-tax and bond measures from the word limit. But SB 532 was later amended by the author to address a different issue because transparency isn’t really the goal here.

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,

Jon Coupal: Will Gavin Newsom ‘hoist with his own petard’?

August 6, 2025 By Jon Coupal 1 Comment

A line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet refers to a character being “hoist with his own petard.” A petard is a small explosive device, and the saying refers to someone getting injured by their own actions in a failed effort to harm others. It implies a sort of poetic justice, where the perpetrator of the plan ends up suffering the consequences of their own scheme. Not surprisingly, this is a common occurrence in politics when a maneuver to secure an advantage over one’s adversaries ends up blowing up in the face of the instigator.  

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

So, is Gov. Gavin Newsom’s big push to change California’s Congressional maps likely to backfire? If the past is prologue, it very well could. 

First, let’s examine some other political examples of exploding petards. One of our favorites is when former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada changed the rules of the Senate to achieve favorable judicial rulings in the hotly disputed Obamacare litigation. Specifically, the Obama administration was able to change the makeup of the D.C. Circuit after Reid broke the rules of the Senate to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees. As a result, Reid was able to push through three new judges for the D.C. Circuit. Up to that time, judicial appointments required a 60-vote threshold. 

As he had done previously, Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, warned Senator Reid that he would “rue the day” by jettisoning an established rule of the Senate in order to jam through judicial nominees. When those warnings were ignored, newly elected President Donald Trump was able to nominate three new justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. All were confirmed under the new “Reid Rule” with a simple majority vote of the Senate. 

Another example of “being careful what you wish for,” involves the hotly contested issue of congressional redistricting, a subject of debate in both Texas and California. Recently, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial entitled, “The Racial Gerrymander Boomerang” which reviewed how a lawsuit filed by Democrats is now being used by Republicans to increase their House majority. Specifically, “Liberal groups and the Biden Justice Department in 2021 challenged the [Texas] map under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The law says states violate the voting rights of racial minorities when they ‘have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.’” 

Reapportionment – the process by which the 435 members of Congress are allocated among the states – only occurs every 10 years based on the national census.  States then draw the congressional district maps for their allotted representatives. But the Trump Department of Justice is using that lawsuit as an excuse to rewrite the Texas map in mid-decade. Whether this is good policy is subject to debate. But absent the litigation commenced by progressives, there wouldn’t have been an opportunity for Republicans to bootstrap a legislative effort in the Texas statehouse to rewrite the map in a way to increase the Republican advantage. 

In reaction to the possible redrawing of the Texas Congressional map to benefit Republicans, Democrats are throwing a hissy fit and have promised to retaliate by doing the same in California. Gov. Gavin Newsom has been especially vocal about pursuing this strategy, notwithstanding the fact that, unlike Texas, California has a voter-approved Citizens Redistricting Commission constitutionally charged with drawing political boundaries.

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

California lags in financial transparency

July 21, 2025 By Jon Coupal and Sheila Weinberg 2 Comments

Truth in Accounting (TIA) is a think tank that analyzes government financial reports. As part of its mission, it encourages public entities to produce financial reports that are comprehensive, clear, and transparent; and which inform the public of the importance of truthful accounting.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Last year, this column reported on TIA’s fifteenth annual Financial State of the States report, which ranks all 50 states by financial health. No one was shocked by California’s less-than-stellar fiscal health rating. 

Earlier this month, TIA released a new report, The States Financial Transparency Score 2025, focusing specifically on financial transparency noting that, while “state budgets receive most of the public and media’s attention, their outcomes are detailed in each government’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR), which is audited annually by certified public accountants.”  TIA’s transparency score is based on key criteria outlining best practices, offering government officials and citizens a roadmap to enhance fiscal transparency and accountability.

For a state to achieve a top score of 100 points, its ACFR must meet the following criteria:

  • 50 points: Receive a clean opinion from an independent auditor (This criterion also applies to the annual report of the state government’s largest pension plan.)
  • 15 points: Include a net position not distorted by misleading and confusing deferred items.
  • 10 points: Report all retirement liabilities on its balance sheet (Statement of Net Position).
  • 10 points: Be published within 100 days of the government’s fiscal year-end.
  • 5 points: Be searchable with useful links from the table of contents and bookmarks.
  • 5 points: Be audited by an independent auditor who is not an employee of the government (This criterion also applies to the annual report of the state government’s largest pension plan.).
  • 5 points: Measure the net pension liability using the same date as the annual report.

For government entities, a major impediment to assessing both financial health and transparency is that the data is frequently delayed for periods much longer than that found in the private sector. For this report, TIAs data was based on information available as of August 31, 2024. For Arizona, California, Illinois, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Nevada, fiscal year 2022 data was used, as 2023 data was not yet available. For the other 44 states, 2023 data was available.

California’s inability to provide timely financial data is legendary. As TIA’s earlier report noted, as of August 31, 2024, California had not released its fiscal year 2023 annual financial report, making it the fifth year in a row California has been late submitting critical information. 

For TIA’s Transparency Report, California ranked an abysmal 44th out of 50 states. Here’s the breakdown:

  • Auditor Opinion: 35 out of 50 points.
  • Deferred Items: 14 out of 15 points.
  • Off-Balance Sheet Liabilities: 10 out of 10 points.
  • Timeliness: 0 out of 10 points.
  • Navigation: 4 out of 5 points.
  • External Auditors: 2 out of 5 points. 
  • Pension Data Timing: 0 out of 5 points.

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

Jon Coupal: Information and resources for taxpayers impacted by the LA wildfires

January 19, 2025 By Staff 1 Comment

The terrible fires that have ravaged Los Angeles County and other parts of the Southland aren’t even fully contained and our offices here at the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association are already getting calls from victims who are ready to press on and move forward to start rebuilding. It has been an important reminder that one of the great things about living in California is the people. In many ways, they still have the pioneer spirit that built this great state and country.

But everyone has questions about how the disaster will affect their property taxes, now and after they rebuild. On this, there’s good news.

Click here to SUBSCRIBE to CA Political Review 

First, a property that has been damaged or destroyed by a calamity or disaster (that includes not only fires, but also earthquakes, floods, mudslides and the like) can be reassessed to a lower “taxable value” so you aren’t hit with taxes on a house that no longer exists.

To qualify for a “misfortune or calamity” reassessment, the damage to your property must exceed $10,000 of the current market value. Obviously, if your house was destroyed, you certainly qualify. But even if your house is still standing, the decline in your property values from the neighborhood being destroyed around it likely qualifies you for a “decline in value” reassessment that will provide property tax relief.

It’s also important to note that this tax relief not only includes damage to your house or business property but also business equipment, agricultural property like an orchard, aircraft, boats, and some manufactured homes. If you pay property taxes on it, it’s likely eligible.

Los Angeles County Assessor Jeff Prang is proactively reassessing properties in the burn areas, so to get this relief, nothing is required. That said, there is a form, and it’s still good to fill it out to make sure the assessor’s office knows where to contact you. The forms to request reassessment after a disaster or decline-in-value are available on the county assessor’s website. Return the form to the assessor’s office within 12 months of the date of loss (or sometimes later, if the county allows).

Some homeowners may also be eligible for property tax postponement, an income-qualified program operated by the State Controller’s office.

Next comes the decision to rebuild or move. The good news: you can do either and keep your Proposition 13 tax base.

Here’s how.

According to the Board of Equalization, if you choose to rebuild on the same site after the property has been “substantially damaged or destroyed,” you can keep your Prop. 13 base-year assessment “if the reconstructed property’s market value is comparable to the damaged property in size, utility, and function.” 

Well, what does that mean? The BOE says that “substantially damaged or destroyed” means “that the improvement must sustain physical damage amounting to more than 50 percent of the improvement’s full cash value immediately prior to the disaster as determined by the County Assessor.” Again, if your house was destroyed, you most likely check that box.

“Comparable in size and utility” means that “the reconstructed property may not exceed 120 percent of the market value of the property prior to its damage or destruction.” So, for example, if your old house was worth $1 million, you can go up to $1.2 million without a tax increase.

If you do go over that 120 percent, don’t worry, you aren’t getting completely reassessed. The excess market value will just be added to your old value. Yes, your property taxes will go up but will still likely be well under market value.

You must rebuild within five years by law, but that has been extended in other fires to eight years and will likely be done here too, if not longer.

If you just want to move and take your Prop. 13 value with you, you can but it must be done within two to five years depending on whether the move is within your county or to another county. It also must be to a property of equal or lesser value to keep the same tax bill. You can buy a property of any value, but anything extra will be added on, just as if you were exceeding that 120 percent when you rebuild.

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , ,

Coupal: Is this tangled web of overlapping regional entities really doing the people’s business? 

January 10, 2025 By Jon Coupal 1 Comment

There is a recurring debate in California about the effectiveness of regional governments when compared to the existing local government structure. While the traditional political subdivisions of the state consisting of cities and counties are easily identifiable and have defined boundaries, not so with “regions” per se. Depending on the purpose, there may be as few as four but as many as fifty designated “regions” in California.

Some progressives have opined that cities and counties should be abolished altogether. Joe Matthews proposed just that a few years ago in a column entitled, “Save Local Government By Eliminating Local Governments.”  While recognizing that local governments are “the most democratic, participatory, and effective level of government,” Mathews believes that “local governments are too weak and small to be effective,” which is why he pines “for an ‘extinction event’ that would kill off thousands of California local governments.”

Generally, conservatives hold the opposite view: that government services should be delivered at the level closest to the people in order to enhance both transparency and political accountability. (Does anyone in Southern California really know who represents them on the South Coast Air Quality Management District? AQMD is famous for its draconian regulations including ill-fated efforts to ban fire pits on the beach).

Moreover, the notion that regional governments are more efficient than cities or counties is belied by recent examples of epic incompetence. For example, the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) was created by state statute in 2019 to run housing programs and projects in the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay Area. Last June, BAHFA proposed the Regional Measure 4 (RM4) ballot measure seeking approval of a $20 billion property tax measure set to be placed on the November 2024 election ballot.

After years of spending taxpayer dollars in preparation of the campaign, including extensive meetings with regional stakeholders and hiring teams of political consultants, they approved placing the final product on the ballot. Too bad they couldn’t do math.

An energized taxpayer organization called “20BillionReasons,” made up of an ad hoc collection of grassroots activists, accused MTC/BAHFA of issuing misleading statements and false claims in the ballot measure’s language as well as some really dumb, 5th grade-level math errors. BAHFA had time to correct the errors and misrepresentation but, by then, the damage to public perception was done and BAHFA withdrew the measure from the ballot entirely.

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , ,

Jon Coupal: Santa Jarvis’s naughty and nice list

December 27, 2024 By Jon Coupal 2 Comments

Oh, by gosh and by golly; it’s time for mistletoe and holly. It’s also time for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association naughty and nice list. We made a list. We checked it twice. Time to find out who’s naughty and nice to California taxpayers this year.

Click here to SUBSCRIBE to CA Political Review 

First, let’s start with the nice list. Well, it’s you! The voters of California. You defeated Proposition 5 by 10 points! That’s a huge win for taxpayers because Prop. 5 would have made it easier to raise property taxes by making it easier for local governments to take on new debt, by issuing bonds. Local bonds are repaid by placing extra charges on property tax bills. Prop. 5 would have lowered the vote threshold to approve nearly all local bonds from the current two-thirds requirement down to 55 percent. 

Prop. 5 was put on the ballot by the legislature, where it was titled ACA 1. The original version would have lowered the threshold for bonds and special taxes, a direct attack on Proposition 13. But when their own polling showed that ACA 1 would fail in a statewide vote (it did anyway), they desperately passed a new measure, ACA 10, attempting to make the attack more palatable to voters by making it apply only to bonds. 

That puts the legislators who voted against this monstrosity on the nice list. They were Brian Dahle, Shannon Grove, Brian Jones, Janet Nguyen, Roger Niello, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, Kelly Seyarto, Scott Wilk, Megan Dahle, Dixon, Bill Essayli, James Gallagher, Tom Lackey, Joe Patterson, Kate Sanchez and Tri Ta.

Also, many in the capital media community also made it on the nice list. For years, it felt like the powers-that-be could do no wrong in the eyes of a compliant Sacramento media, but Ashley Zavala, Eytan Wallace, Alexei Koseff, Ryan Sabalow, Sameea Kamal, Katie Grimes, Emily Hoeven and Dan Walters among others are doing a fantastic job asking tough questions and making the comfortable uncomfortable. We may not always agree, but they aren’t pulling punches.

That brings us to the naughty list. 

If legislators who voted no on ACA 10 get sugar plums in their stockings, then the legislators who voted to make it easier to raise your taxes get a big lump of coal. 

They are Ben Allen, Bob Archuleta, Angelique Ashby, Toni Atkins, Josh Becker, Catherine Blakespear, Steven Bradford, Anna Caballero, Dave Cortese, Bill Dodd, Maria Elena Durazo, Susan Eggman, Steve Glazer, Lena Gonzalez, Melissa Hurtado, John Laird, Monique Limon, Mike McGuire, Caroline Menjivar, Dave Min, Josh Newman, Steve Padilla, Anthony Portantino, Richard Roth, Susan Rubio, Nancy Skinner, Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, Henry Stern, Tom Umberg, Aisha Wahab, Scott Wiener,  Dawn Addis, Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, David Alvarez, Joaquin Arambula, Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Steve Bennett, Marc Berman, Tasha Boerner, Mia Bonta, Isaac Bryan, Lisa Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Sabrina Cervantes, Damon Connolly, Mike Fong, Laura Friedman, Jesse Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Tim Grayson, Matt Haney, Gregg Hart, Chris Holden, Jacqui Irwin, Corey Jackson, Ash Kalra, Alex Lee, Evan Low, Josh Lowenthal, Kevin McCarty, Tina McKinnor, Al Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Liz Ortega, Blanca Pacheco, Diane Papan, Gail Pellerin, Cottie Petrie-Norris, Sharon Quirk-Silva, Anthony Rendon, Eloise Reyes, Luz Rivas, Freddie Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Miguel Santiago, Phil Ting, Carlos Villapudua, Chris Ward, Akilah Weber, Buffy Wicks, Lori Wilson, Jim Wood,Rick Zbur and Robert Rivas.

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , , ,