IS GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER READY TO BREAK HIS PLEDGE NOT TO RAISE TAXES? At a community
forum in Los Angeles on February 28, he told the group that he would like to raise as much as $2.5 billion in new revenue
by closing “tax loopholes” and that we could give the funds “straight to education.” The tax breaks being targeted for
closing include those for both businesses and individuals. These comments were not well received by GOP legislators
and anti-tax activists such as Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, who consider this a direct breaking of the governor’s
no new taxes pledge. Tax breaks cannot be eliminated without at least eight GOP votes, and Republican leaders say those
votes will not be available.
Legislative Analyst, Elizabeth Hill, released her “Alternate Budget” in February in which she lists several “tax breaks”
to scale back such as those for seniors, parents, yacht owners and companies that have research and development expenses,
locate in blighted neighborhoods or lose money. She favors elimination of the mortgage interest deduction, which is also being
considered by Democratic leaders She doesn’t agree with the governor’s plan to cut everything across the board or to close
parks (raise fees instead). Conservatives will praise her call for TARGETED REDUCTIONS IN SCHOOL PROGRAMS THAT IN
THE LAO’S VIEW, ARE POORLY STRUCTURED, DUPLICATIVE OR TECHNICALLY OVERBUDGETED. *
BUDGET DEADLINE is July 1, and the governor is optimistic that Democrats and Republicans can sit down and work things out.
Besides elimination of the mortgage interest deduction, other considerations are an increase in the car tax, taxes on services
with doctors or lawyers (added to your bill) and the usual urgent demands for the demise of PROPOSITION 13.
So far they have been able to cut roughly $2 billion of the $16 billion deficit. The cuts they made were targeted at schools
and doctors for the poor and were protested across the state. **
**Any mention of reduction in school funding is met with vociferous protests from the California Teachers Association,
a primary contributor to Democrats. They (CTA) are resuming their complaint that our per-pupil spending is near the bottom
of the states. The April 1 Census Bureau report strongly refutes this “fact.” The national average is shown as $9,138,
California at $8,486, with New York highest at $14,884 and Utah lowest at $5,437 - one of 22 states below California.
HOWEVER,Utah test scores outrank California. California is second from the bottom in fourth-grade reading scores,
ahead only of Washington, DC. But Washington is near the top in spending of $13,446. It is clear that money, though important,
is not the only factor in determining how well our children are educated.
WATCH LIST OF BILLS:
AB 16 – Mandatory HPV vaccines for 11-year-old girls – discussed several times in the past. Still in Senate Health Committee
of which Senator Maldonado is a member. (831-657-6315 Monterey or 916-651-4015 Sacramento)
SB 60 – Cedillo’s bill is back, which allows illegals to obtain driver’s licenses. CFRW reports that the temporary license
loophole has not been removed from the bill. They project the cost of implementation if the bill passes to be $700 million.
They will keep us informed as the bill progresses as to whom to contact.
SB 777 backlash: AB 2086 - Parents’ Right to Know - by Republican Assemblyman Huff would require notice to be sent
to the parent or guardian of any pupil prior to proposed discussion on gender identity or sexual orientation in a class attended by
the pupil. The notice would be required to outline the matters to be discussed and the manner in which a parent or guardian can
request that the pupil not be present during the discussion. CFRW supports the bill and reports that the media is unfairly
portraying it as anti-lesbian , gay, bisexual, and trans-gender. CFRW says the bill supports parents’ rights to know what their
children are being taught. The bill has had one hearing in the Assembly Education Committee. The next hearing has not been
scheduled.
AB 624 is probably unconstitutional but has already passed the Assembly and has had two readings in the Senate.
This bill by Democrat Assemblyman Coto requires every private, corporate and public operating foundation with assets
over $250 million to collect and post information regarding the racial, gender and sexual orientation composition of its board of
directors and the staff. It also requires the same information on businesses to which contracts are awarded, the number
of grants and percentage of grant dollars awarded to organizations serving “specified communities,” and the number of grants
and percentage of grant dollars awarded to organizations where the grantee’s board of directors and/or staff are members
of “specified groups.” These groups are identified in the bill as African-American, Asian-American, Pacific Islander,
Caucasian, Latino, Native American, and Alaskan Native communities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender and other
underserved communities. (Section 2 –paragraph 6- of the bill). Supporters of the bill insist that this bill is not Affirmative
Action and does not require quotas. Pacific Justice Institute is allied with the opposition and says that, despite some amendments
made, the bill remains fatally flawed by equating politically powerful homosexual groups with programs serving disadvantaged
ethnic and low-income minorities and by needlessly injecting new government mandates into the private nonprofit sector with the
goal of shaming charities into supporting the homosexual agenda.
