☆ Only inutile money grabs threatened by CA’n tax law?

The SJCC votes tomorrow whether to oppose statewide Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act. The law would require both two-thirds legislature approval and majority voter approval for new/higher taxes. Local news dubiously claims the Act “threatens billions” in basic public safety funding, citing Mayor Mahan’s concerns. In this Opp Now exclusive, SJ experts Tobin Gilman and Pat Waite respond.

Tobin Gilman, former SJ Charter Review Commissioner/resident:

It’s disappointing to see the city’s top executive recommending that the council formally oppose an initiative that would make it more difficult for politicians to raise taxes or impose new taxes, and that provides more transparency regarding tax legislation. It’s equally disappointing that this agenda item quietly appeared without any effort to inform the public in advance.

Kudos to the San Jose Spotlight for reporting the story. Mayor Mahan’s quote in the Spotlight article suggests the “tax and spend” agenda is alive and well at City Hall. I hope I’m proven wrong on that, but frankly, I’ll be surprised if any of the 11 elected representatives stand up for taxpayers.

I’ll also be interested to see how closely fiscally conservative and moderate political advocacy organizations respond to the council’s action tomorrow. Will council members who go on record against the ballot initiative be publicly reprimanded?

Pat Waite, SJ-based organization Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility president:

I don’t agree with the mayor’s assertion in this article that the Act would “would further disrupt local communities’ ability to support basic functions like public safety.” I’m annoyed that, like many politicians, Mahan dangles essential services as a reason to oppose the initiative. Stop waving the police around. More importantly, stop spending money on non-essential services; then, we won’t have a money problem. For instance, there’s 100 some-odd people in our Housing Department. There’s a $6 billion budget. Find (and cut) the slop rattling around in there.

Also, voters aren’t going to turn down a measure—including those related to public safety—if proponents have made a compelling case. If it’s that essential, the voters will approve it.

I’m also bothered by the statement about the wealthy trying to shelter their income through this initiative. First, who gets to define “fair share”? And second, where does it stop? Even in the Merc today, there was a letter to the editor from someone saying to put a tax on wealthy people to fund public transit. Really? The government should fix its public transit problem, not make citizens pay more towards it.

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity

Image by Steven Depolo