New 2015 Laws: Hollywood Wins, In-Home Care Loses

January 5, 2015 By John Hrabe Leave a Comment

New Year’s Day sure wasn’t a holiday from new regulations: 2015 brings 931 new laws Californians must obey. Some took effect on Jan. 1; others will later in the year.

State lawmakers — with the approval of Gov. Jerry Brown — have changed how consumers shop for groceries, how Hollywood blockbusters are funded and how much time you get off work when you’re sick.

Perhaps the most talked about new law, the country’s first statewide ban on single-use plastic bags, also is the least likely to go into effect. Under Senate Bill 270, by state Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Los Angeles, grocery stores and markets would be banned from distributing plastic bags on July 1. Stores would also be forced to charge customers at least 10 cents for a recycled paper bag, the proceeds of which can go toward offsetting the cost of complying with the new regulation.

However, a manufacturing trade group, the American Progressive Bag Alliance, has channeled consumer anger over the new state regulation into a successful petition drive. Earlier this week, the group turned in more than 800,000 petition signatures to county registrars in an effort to qualify a referendum for the 2016 ballot. If the measure qualifies for the ballot, the law would be delayed until voters decided its fate in Nov. 2016.

Hooray for Hollywood handouts

While the outcome of the state’s plastic bag ban remains in doubt, there’s no doubt Hollywood will have its handout in the new year. Assembly Bill 1839, authored by Assemblymen Mike Gatto, D-Los Angeles, and Raul Bocanegra, D-Pacoima, would more than triple California’s corporate welfare program for film and television programs.

Under the state’s current subsidy program, the California Film Commission gives away $100 million in tax credits to big studios that keep production in California. The new law will increase that corporate welfare fund to $330 million per year for the next five years. It also changes how the funds are distributed, linking the size of the welfare to the number of jobs created by the project.

“In the last 15 years, film production has dropped nearly 50 percent in California,” said Senate GOP leader Bob Huff of Diamond Bar, a co-author of the corporate welfare bill. “When that happens, it’s the ‘behind the scenes’ workers who take a hit, as well the ancillary businesses that serve the production sites and teams. If California is going to get these jobs back, we must compete with other states and nations who are clamoring for that big movie business.”

Yet taxpayers often fail to see an adequate return on their investment, as CalWatchdog.com reported earlier this year, “A recent Legislative Analyst’s Office report concluded that the Golden State is actually failing to recoup its supposed investment in keeping the entertainment industry local, losing some 35 cents on the dollar.”

In-home workers excluded from new paid sick leave

As the state gives away hundred of millions of dollars to Hollywood studios, it simultaneously claims it can’t afford to extend a new perk to in-home care workers. AB1522, authored by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, requires all companies to provide their employees up to three paid sick days per year.

But the new law, which takes effect on July 1, excludes 365,000 in-home support service workers. The California Chamber of Commerce opposed the bill and included it in its list of 2014 “job-killers.”

Why did the Democratic-controlled Legislature abandon the state’s low-paid workers and exclude government from the new regulation?

“At the end of the day,” Gonzalez told the union-backed Capitol & Main blog, “we were forced to take that specific group out.  It was a condition of having the bill signed by Gov. Brown.”

Brown objected to the $82 million annual price tag to hold the state to the same regulations as private businesses. The cost of providing sick days to in-home workers was less than the current Hollywood subsidy program.

Other new laws in California

Redevelopment Revival: 

AB229, by Assemblyman John Perez, D-Los Angeles, allows local governments to create Infrastructure and Revitalization Financing Districts to revive old military bases. These districts could issue 30 years of debt with the approval of two-thirds of voters in the district.

SB628, by state Sen. Jim Beall, D-Campbell, revives redevelopment agencies under a new name, “Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts.” These districts would be allowed to “finance public capital facilities or other specified projects of community-wide significance” with the approval of 55 percent of voters in the district.

New Gun Laws: 

AB1964, by Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento, bans gun shop owners from selling single-shot handguns that can be altered into semi-automatic weapons.

AB1014, by Assemblymember Nancy Skinner, D-Oakland, creates a new restraining order that allows the confiscation of firearms when a person is determined to be “an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another.”

New Laws in the Bedroom: 

SB1255, by state Sen. Anthony Cannella, D-Modesto, expands California’s “revenge porn” ban against posting intimate images of unwilling or unaware people on the Internet, including selfies.

SB967, by state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, requires colleges to develop instruction manuals informing students that sexual activity requires affirmative consent.

This article was originally published by CalWatchdog.com

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

CARTOON: CA Politically Polarized Legislature

December 28, 2014 By CPR Editors Leave a Comment

CA Legislature

Wolverton, Cagle Cartoons

Filed Under: Cartoons Tagged With: , ,

CA Lobbyists Celebrate Successful 2014

December 21, 2014 By James Poulos 4 Comments

It’s got a bad reputation, even in some parts of Washington, D.C. But lobbying is a way of life in California, where the practice shows no signs of letting up.

In a string of news events and reports, the many faces of lobbying have resurfaced as the political year winds down.

And Silicon Valley, forging its way deeper into politics, has pushed lobbying to the fore with its efforts to advance special objectives at the state and federal levels.

According to figures tallied by the Sacramento Bee, California lobbying firms were off to a great start in the first half of the year, posting big numbers. Over that time, they pulled in $92.6 million, 7 percent better than last year’s January-to-June cycle; plus interest groups shelled out some $141.5 million on lobbying, exceeding last year’s outlay.

Responsible for the uptick were squabbles over legislation involving online poker, health warnings on soft drinks and — a big new entrant — ridesharing services like Uber and Lyft.

Alone, Uber’s employment of lobbying became a major story in the second half of the year. To spearhead lobbying operations, Uber hired former Obama campaign strategist David Plouffe, a man with an insuperable Rolodex for a company seeking favorable outcomes from Democratic-controlled states.

According to the Washington Post, over the past two years Uber “hired private lobbyists in at least 50 U.S. cities and states, employing multiple firms in some places. … The records show that the company has hired at least 161 individuals to lobby on its behalf, on top of its own rapidly expanding policy office.”

That meant major outlays between summer and winter. In Sacramento, the Post noted, Uber paid “$475,000 from July to November to lobby California lawmakers.”

Silicon Valley struggles

Although Uber and its peer tech companies are sometimes portrayed as unstoppable goliaths, their headway in political circles has come at a cost, and not always with results as transformative as their disruption-friendly CEOs would wish. Uber itself has faced a fresh wave of bad publicity in recent months, with the company facing an outright ban on some Uber services in France and other European countries.

What’s more, even broadly shared political interests among Silicon Valley’s leading firms have encountered opposition, with lobbying unable to deliver results. Companies have pushed hard, as the Peninsula Press observed, to increase the number of so-called H-1B visas, which would trigger an influx of highly-skilled immigrants well trained in tech.

The Press quoted Emily Lam, the vice president of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a public policy trade organization that counts many of tech’s biggest companies among its members:

“We’ve been lobbying for this for over 10 years, and it’s not happened, so there is a lot of frustration. The tide is turning where this isn’t going to be the place where people want to be because it’s so difficult to get a visa, and we want to have the best and brightest here.”

Through the revolving door

One group that has found success in lobbying is former California members of Congress from both parties who have taken up lobbying, a new McClatchy report has highlighted.

Some retired representatives even see their work as a continuation of their time in Congress. Former Rep. John Doolittle, R-Calif., was tapped to curry legislative favor for the Water Resources Development Act, which was sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. The act improved rivers and harbors and increased water conservation.

Flush with experience and close contacts with the representatives and senators closest to the issue, Doolittle got a bill through both houses of Congress within three years.

“In this hyperpartisan era, it was quite frankly a major accomplishment,” he told McClatchy. “It was a very satisfying continuation of my public service.”

This article was originally published by CalWatchdog.com

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

CA Senate Oversight Committee Scrapped by de Leon

December 19, 2014 By James Poulos 4 Comments

In a curious action, new state California Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, has scrapped the government oversight office created by his predecessor, former Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento. The move has swiftly earned de Leon a fresh round of criticism.

Steinberg himself was not shaken up about the news. He expressed confidence that similar work would be done in some other way, according to the Sacramento Bee. “I have every confidence that Kevin is committed to oversight, but there are many ways to do it,” he said. “This is the way I chose to do it and I’m sure he will have his way.” Steinberg’s oversight office was funded directly through the office of the president pro tem.

Personal priorities

That was an expense de Leon clearly did not wish to maintain, despite his willingness to throw a lavish party this October for his swearing in as president pro tem. Many critics, the Los Angeles Times reported, found the bash an “inappropriate extravagance at a time when the state Senate is struggling to shake off the taint of corruption scandals and regain public trust.” Earlier this year, three Democratic state senators were indicted on federal corruption charges.

The celebration’s $50,000 tab was not covered by de Leon himself. Instead, the California Latino Legislative Caucus Foundation, which recently attracted five-figure donations from AT&T and Chevron, footed the bill.

De Leon’s approach to spending was recently on display in his shakeup of the state Senate staff. “Last month, de León laid off 39 employees, including staff who wrote bill analyses, did research and performed secretarial duties,” the Bee reported. A shoeshiner, paid a yearly wage of $13,000 “to provide information to Capitol visitors,” also was let go. Staff costs for Steinberg’s oversight office ran to about $380,000 yearly.

De Leon’s choice to trim budgetary costs by reducing staff, however, has not attracted much attention or scorn. The same cannot be said for his elimination of the Senate’s government oversight office.

Blowback

Steinberg’s oversight office produced a high volume of reports that made a substantial impact. As the Bee reported:

“Investigations found that a lack of scrutiny allowed sex offenders to treat drug addicts at state rehab clinics; that California’s mortgage lender foreclosed on homeowners who were current on their loans; that redevelopment agencies spent money without adequate accountability; and that tax breaks had cost the state $6.3 billion more than anticipated. Other reports made recommendations for curbing fraud in the home health care system and found that an illogical bureaucracy made it hard for regulators to detect fraud in state child care programs. The findings were frequently used as the basis for Senate oversight hearings and also led to new legislation.”

The office’s track record has led some political observers to raise eyebrows and pen editorials calling de Leon’s judgment into question. De Leon’s handling of the issue has left Democrats vulnerable to criticism for trying to return to business as usual following this year’s spate of humiliating scandals, as recent editorial in the Los Angeles Daily News suggested:

“In a further testament to ethical tone-deafness, Senate Democrats have chosen to revive their annual Pro Tem Cup, the golf event and major party fundraiser at Torrey Pines that has charged special-interest representatives up to $65,000 to trade strokes with lawmakers. The event was canceled this year because it wouldn’t have looked so good with Senate Democrats Leland Yee, Ron Calderon and Rod Wright facing ethics charges.”

In another coincidence of timing, cops in de Leon’s district have been handed a new oversight body. In the wake of serious ethics charges of their own, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department was put under civilian oversight by the Board of Supervisors, as the Times reported.

And in a second coincidence, the de Leon controversy has unfolded at the same time as a similar one in the federal government, although this time it’s Republicans mainly involved.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, revealed he’ll take a less pugnacious approach to the House Oversight Committee than the chairman he is replacing, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

In 2012, Issa’s actions led to the House of Representatives holding Attorney Gen. Eric Holder in contempt of Congress over the Fast and Furious weapons scandal.

This article was originally published by CalWatchdog.com

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , ,

CA Senate Jumps Into UC Tuition Fracas

December 10, 2014 By James Poulos 1 Comment

Maybe kids and their parents won’t have to pay higher University of California tuition.

Last month, Gov. Jerry Brown tried to reverse UC President Janet Napolitano’s 25 percent tuition hike over five years. But she outmaneuvered him at a Board of Regents meeting.

Now the California Senate is moving to the head of the class. Senate Bill 15 is by state Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego. As his website explains:

“The proposal upgrades the State’s current financial aid system so it can support all California students more effectively and provide incentives for completing college within four years. The plan also proposes a higher tuition premium for non-resident UC students and a transition of the Middle Class Scholarship program.”

It was co-introduced by new Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles. The tuition increase for out-of-state students would top $4,000.

Although the UC and CSU systems have expressed interest in the bill, its fate will be out of their hands. The Assembly has not yet offered any enthusiasm.

The bill was a response, according to the San Jose Mercury news, of how Napolitano “put the onus on the Legislature and the governor to repair the damage: If they came up with more money, she suggested, the tuition increases would not need to be as large.”

Ending independence

A more radical bill is Senate Constitutional Amendment 1, by state Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens. The bipartisan bill was co-authored by Sens. Anthony Cannella, R-Ceres, and Joel Anderson, R-El Cajon.

SCA1 would amendment the California Constitution to take away the UC’s independence.

“The bill doesn’t list specific powers lawmakers would have over UC, where the governor-appointed regents are currently the highest authority,” the Chronicle reported. “But, under the bill, the elected officials would have the final say over any policy approved by the regents, from tuition levels to executive compensation.”

While the UC system has controlled its finances autonomously since the original California Constitution was signed in 1848, the Cal State system faces oversight from Sacramento — an arrangement seen as a model by Lara and Cannella.

As a constitutional amendment, SCA1 would need a two-thirds vote of of both houses of the Legislature to be put before voters in 2016.

Frustration

California voters have not yet weighed in on SCA1, but current polling has showcased their own frustration.

The Public Policy Institute of California found strong opposition to tuition increases and tax increases alike, with 77 percent opposing hikes that hit students, and 58 percent siding against hits to their pocketbooks.

Yet the poll also found just over half of respondents felt funding for public higher education was too low.

The desire for more spending but lower taxes and tuition will be hashed over in the Legislature, by the governor and by voters over the next several years.

This article was originally published by CalWatchdog.com

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

Legislatures Challenging Initiative Process in Federal Courts

November 14, 2014 By Joel Fox 2 Comments

Those who don’t like the initiative process may have found a powerful ally in the United States Constitution. I write “may” because precedent is not on their side. But that hasn’t stopped initiative critics from making the effort to enlist the court’s support — and the courts are at least listening.

On this page, I wrote about a challenge the United States Supreme Court is taking up from Arizona on the right of voters through the initiative process to set up a redistricting commission. The challenge came from the Arizona legislature, which argued that it was exclusively the legislature’s prerogative to set up congressional districts. As in California, voters passed an initiative in the Grand Canyon state creating a citizens redistricting commission.

An earlier challenge in federal courts from Colorado argues that the U.S. Constitution guarantees to the states a Republican form of government, which some legislators say, is undone by direct democracy. I have written about the Colorado case, Kerr vs. Hickenlooper, here before.

As set forth in that previous article, “Attempting to undercut the initiative process by arguing that direct democracy violates the U. S. Constitution is as old as direct democracy in this country. In 1912, a telephone company in Oregon used the argument to challenge a tax imposed by voters. The court determined then, as it had in previous dealings with the Guarantee Clause going back as early as 1849, that what constitutes a Republican Form of Government is a political question.”

Those challenging a Colorado initiative that allows voters to affirm any tax increases claim that core legislative powers dealing with taxing and spending have been put at risk leading to what they say is a “slow, inexorable slide into fiscal dysfunction.”

Many legal experts thought the case would be dismissed because the issue was non-justiciable—meaning an issue over which the court cannot exercise its judicial authority. However, the Tenth Circuit Court agreed to allow the case to proceed.

Pepperdine University law professor Derek Muller thinks the Tenth Circuit decision will be overturned on appeal. He called the Tenth Circuit’s decision “a novel judicial opinion written on dubious legal grounds.”

Still, one has to wonder if the courts are looking for a way to subdue the initiative process.

Look at the record. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the redistricting case. The Tenth Circuit has allowed the Colorado case to continue to the surprise of many experts. Here in California, former state Supreme Court chief justice Ronald George has been a vocal critic of the initiative process.

A key question for the courts is where to draw the line on where a legislative power is so fundamental that citizens cannot make constitutional changes through direct democracy.

Previous courts have not delved into the waters the courts labeled “political.” With increased use of initiatives by the people to legislate over the last four decades will current courts see things differently?

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

This piece was originally published on Fox and Hounds Daily.

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

Another Shakedown ADA Lawsuit Against a CA Business Shows the Need for Reform

November 12, 2014 By Tom Scott 4 Comments

Just ask small businessman Jerry Brannon in Stockton.  He recently got sued by Scott Johnson for $38,000 for non-compliance with the Americans With Disability Act. However, instead of settling, Mr. Brannon has decided to fight. He plans to spend up to $50,000 fighting this lawsuit.

According to a television news report, “Scott Johnson has made legal claims against many business owners in the Sacramento area, claiming he’s suffered because his disability won’t allow him to fully access their stores and restaurants.”

Brannon said Johnson has “taken the ADA and made a business out of it.”

According to the news report, Johnson has been linked to thousands of lawsuits. 

I applaud Mr. Brannon on multiple fronts. This is not going to stop until the federal and state governments seriously pass legislation to stop these forms of lawsuit abuse. In 2008, the California State Legislature attempted to deal with the issue with SB 1608, which did not have the desired outcome. In 2012, the California State Legislature again attempted to find a way to stop the abuse with SB 1186 and this has also failed to stem the tide of abuse. The federal government has had a couple of bills related to ADA shakedowns lawsuits, but they have never been passed.

So here we are in 2014 and the lawsuits keep rolling. From Lake Tahoe to the Central Valley, we continue to see ADA lawsuits against small businesses, and there appears to be no end in sight. Interesting fact: there are more than 3.5 million small businesses in the state of California but only 500 Certified Access Specialists. How is every small business supposed to stay up to date when there aren’t enough access specialists?

When a business has to close due to an ADA shakedown lawsuit, no one benefits. Employees lose their jobs and governments lose revenue from employment property taxes. Who benefits from that scenario? Not even the disabled will benefit as everyone will simply have to travel further for those services.

I know there will be ADA legislation in California in the coming year and I am hopeful that with the changes in the U.S. Senate reform may be easier to pass in Washington. We, as a nation, need something to happen to help curb this abuse. It would behoove our legislators to find a reasonable compromise. A 120-day corrective action period at the state and federal level would stop these predators in their tracks. Let’s do it. Enough rearranging of deck chairs – let’s find a real solution.

Tom Scott is Executive Director, California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse

This piece was originally published on Fox and Hounds Daily

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , ,

New “Report Card” exposes politicians on Prop. 13

October 15, 2014 By Jon Coupal Leave a Comment

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, an intellectual leader of the United States Senate for 24 years, often chided adversaries declaring “you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.” Nowhere is the effort to obscure facts more pronounced than in the California Capitol.

It is one thing for a legislator to say he or she likes Proposition 13 and has the best of intentions for its preservation, but it is quite another when they actually vote on various Proposition 13 related bills. For it is the actual votes cast that determine what the “facts” are – not intentions or platitudinous opinions.

As we get closer to the November election, politicians on the left side of the political spectrum are squeezed. On the one hand, they’ve promised their political funders – mostly public sector labor bosses – that they will try to dismantle Proposition 13 and other taxpayer protections. On the other hand, they tell their voters just the opposite. You see, public expressions to repeal or weaken Proposition 13 don’t sell too well back home. There is a reason that Proposition 13 is called the “third rail” of California politics.

That’s what makes the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Legislative Report Card so important.
As a tool for holding legislators accountable, there is nothing better than HJTA’s legislative scorecard for all California voters who care about Proposition 13, taxpayer rights and efficient use of taxpayer dollars. The 2014 edition includes 15 bills ranging from positive measures like increasing transparency for local property parcel taxes to more negative proposals like a paper bag tax and a new local car tax that is masquerading as a hidden fee. Because HJTA is a non-partisan organization – over 30 percent of members are registered Democrats – we ignore party affiliation entirely when handing out grades. Only the politicians’ votes matter, not their campaign promises.

The HJTA Report Card provides valuable information to voters every year, but the stakes are even higher in 2014. Tax-happy legislative leaders desiring to weaken Proposition 13 were only two FBI investigations and criminal indictments away from succeeding.

And next year taxpayers are unlikely to receive such a reprieve. That makes the November 2014 election, and these Report Card grades, critically important. If tax-and-spend legislators secure a two-thirds supermajority – and avoid FBI entanglement – property taxes could be increased by billions of dollars. We know this to be true because Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8, a bill introduced in 2013 to lower the two-thirds vote to 55 percent for a litany of expensive infrastructure projects including streets, highways, water projects and public safety buildings, actually cleared the Assembly last year.

Unless voters possess the knowledge of how their legislators actually voted, we could very well see a horde of anti-Proposition 13 proposals pass.

And, as usual, most legislators did very poorly on their grades this year. While scores overall were slightly higher than a year ago, 75 legislators still received a failing grade, meaning they agreed with our position less than 50% of the time. Five legislators received a perfect 100% average over the last two years. These were State Assemblymembers Brian Dahle, Tim Donnelly, Beth Gaines and State Senators Joel Anderson and Mark Wyland.

Taxpayers know the stakes. Now they need to know the truth. This report card clears the fog and obfuscation to reveal the truth about California legislators.

To review the HJTA Legislative Report Card please click here.

This article was originally published on HJTA.org

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , ,

What incumbent candidates conveniently leave out of campaign ads

October 1, 2014 By Jon Coupal 2 Comments

Humorist Will Rogers observed, “This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer.” If Rogers were a Californian today, he would say the same thing about the state Legislature.

Fortunately, for average citizens, the Legislature adjourned a few weeks ago so its ability to inflict more harm on taxpayers, property owners and businesses is on hold until the first of the year.

Lawmakers are no longer in Sacramento listening to high-powered lobbyists for special interests that back more taxes and spending. Most have returned to their home districts to beg for votes. They are likely to be attending local events and some will actually be walking in neighborhoods to convince voters they deserve to be returned to the Capitol. And, of course, they will be invading your mail box, television and radio with their political ads.

The majority of candidates for reelection will be bragging that they and their colleagues have achieved a balanced, on time budget and the state is on the right track. Their accomplishments, they will claim, entitle them to continue in office.

However, here are some things that most will not mention. California continues to have one of the highest unemployment rates in all 50 states. Our state ranks first in marginal income tax rates, state sales tax and gasoline tax. Businesses, and the jobs they provide, continue to flee the state. Even firms like Tesla and SpaceX that have been provided massive tax subsidies by Sacramento, have chosen to expand their facilities outside of California – Tesla to Nevada and SpaceX to Texas. And the Legislature continues to support subsidies to Governor Brown’s bullet train that may end up costing taxpayers nearly $100 billion.

Another topic that most incumbent lawmakers will not want to discuss is their efforts to pass ACA 8, an amendment to the California Constitution that would make it much easier to increase property taxes to pay for infrastructure bonds. Passage of this, and other proposals that fell just short of approval this year, could have resulted in increased property taxes totaling billions of dollars, once again putting homeownership in jeopardy as it was prior to Proposition 13, when there were no limits on annual increases in the tax bill.

It is also unlikely they will want to discuss their rejection of legislation that would have slowed the implementation of carbon fees, fees that are likely to add somewhere between 15 and 40 cents to the cost of a gallon of gas after the first of the year. This is no less than a war on the poor, who already can barely afford to put fuel in their cars due not only to high prices, but also to the highest gas tax in the nation. And California has plenty of poor. We lead all 50 states in the percentage of those living in poverty.

Voters who have the opportunity to meet candidates for office, whether they are incumbents or aspiring challengers, should be prepared to ask a few questions.

Here is a good question for all candidates, “Do you believe it is fair that Californians pay the highest tax rates in nearly every category?” An excellent follow-up question would be, “Where do you stand on an extension of the Proposition 30 income and sales tax increase, set to expire in the next several years?” And, of course it is always revealing to get answers to this question, “Do you support the governor’s bullet train that could cost taxpayers a hundreds billion dollars or more?”

Honest answers to these questions would provide a good gauge of how well a candidate understands that their actions have real consequences for average Californians. Some may show that they genuinely respect those they serve, while others, who are likely to equivocate when responding, will reveal that they are motivated by self-interest.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association — California’s largest grass-roots taxpayer organization dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights.

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

CA lawmakers kill bills on condoms, pot and whistleblower protections

August 15, 2014 By CPR Editors 1 Comment

The state Legislature has been busy, as reported by the Capitol Alert:

Pornographic performers in California can remain condom-free for the foreseeable future, with legislators nixing a proposed condom mandate on Thursday.

The measure died during an annual end-of-session winnowing of remaining bills deemed too costly or otherwise politically unpalatable. Appropriations committees in the Senate and the Assembly also shelved bills dealing with medical marijuana, legislative whistleblowers and public assistance.

For the second consecutive year, Assemblyman Isadore Hall, D-Compton, sought to shield adult film performers from sexually transmitted diseases with legislation requiring they use protection. …

Read the full story here

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: ,