The Clear and Present Danger to Prop. 30 (and all of us)

Jerry's plan is slipping in the polls

This is suddenly getting serious, very serious. A secretive super PCA out of Arizona, where all bad things seem to originate, just put $11 million into a No on 30/Yes on 32 operation, and while it's likely not enough to pass 32, which is trailing pretty far behind in the polls -- and might actually benefit from news that a group allegedly pushing for campaign transparency is living off shadowy money, the money's already hurting 30.

Let us remember: If Prop. 30 goes down, the state goes off a fiscal cliff. Schools get his with cuts so brutal that the school year my have to be cut by a couple of weeks or more. The University of California and California State University systems will cease to function in anything remotely resembling their current state, which is already a disaster. Cities and counties will get hit, social services will suffer, more parks will close -- it's almost too awful to think about.

I didn't write Prop. 30; I would have left out the sales tax and hiked the rate even more on the wealthiest. But it's a compromise deal, and it's not only good for the state it's absolutely essential. And the Big Boys out of the state of Joe Arpaio are trying to undermine it.

Add that in to Molly Munger's unconscionable efforts to take down Prop. 30 (at this point, it seems like nothing but sour grapes since her Prop. 38 is clearly going to lose) and you have a recipe for disaster.

Look, we all know Obama's going to win California, and some of us don't have a contested supervisorial election. But there's lots of stuff on the local ballot that matters -- and if Prop. 30 goes down, nothing else is going to matter because (unless by some miracle the Dems get a two-thirds majority in both houses and can pass other taxes) this state's going down the tubes.

So go vote Yes on 30. Vote yes on 38, too, if you want, although a lot of people are mad enough at Munger to vote no. But 30 is the one that matters. Vote early and often.



It's fun to see Tim squirm when his beloved public trough begins to run low on slop.

Posted by Chromefields on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 11:46 am

Do you mean PAC??

Posted by Guest on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 12:05 pm

If it loses, you can blame the sheeples who don't do their homework, and are highly susceptible to propaganda. They will get what they deserve.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 12:08 pm

If Jerry Brown had not undermined the CNA's progressive state income tax proposal, it would have passed easily. Instead, he worked to kill it and replace it with his fusion of regressive sales tax and income tax on high earners. Times are tough, and the increased sales tax may prove fatal to Prop 30. Does Brown care? No. He'd rather protect the incomes of his rich supporters than make them pay a fairer share in taxes.

Posted by Eddie on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 12:34 pm

I made the same point when he first did that, and the so-called moderates said that Brown knew better. Well now the whole thing might fail.

I said it then and I'll say it now. It's not Brown's political instincts I object to. It's his values.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 3:22 pm

Let the state go off the fiscal cliff. Seriously.
Then maybe and just maybe, Brown will reform spending, starting with adios to the public employee unions.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 1:03 pm

They want endless tx hikes to fund their ridiculous benefits system. The only solution is to starve the beast, reject 30, and slash payrolls and benefits. There is no reason to cut education - that is Brown scaremongering.

If 30 was about raising taxes to subsudise state workers, it would fail by a landslide.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 11:13 pm

Molly Munger should have had her billionaire-fun in Monaco or one of the other rich playgrounds instead of attacking Prop 30. Moreover, she got the California PTA to back her initiative (Prop 38) instead of Brown's.

Schools need cash. But only one of these two initiatives can pass. And Molly's brother - in addition to funding the attacks on Prop 32 - is trying to take down Brown.

A terrible mess. All of it.

Posted by Troll the XIV on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 2:52 pm

Ballard (Newsome's old mouthpiece) designed all of the hit-pieces on Prop 30 while disguising himself as a spokesman for Prop 38.

He's a pay-to-play shuckster who will work for anyone for cash (including Big Oil in its fight against the Bopal victims in India).

Posted by Troll the XIV on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 2:55 pm

Stick a fork in Prop 30.

A regressive tax on the poor to fund excessive goverment pensions - what a fraud.

It'll be lucky to get 40%.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 9:57 pm

If the public sector had the same pensions and healthcare benefits as the rest of us, we would not have to cut services.

So the real choice isn't more tax hikes versus service cuts. It is punblic sector unions versus service cuts. We can't keep paying ever more taxes to bail these selfish, greedy workers out, and the only way to force them to thenegotiating table is to cut off their heroin - our hard-earned tax dollars.

No on 30 and 38 - yes on 32.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 11:05 pm

If the campaign hadn't been so misleading, voters might have been more supportive.

He said the voters should decide on taxes.

Then he tried to force voters' hand by building in the "trigger cuts" saying education would be cut without prop 30. The only reason education gets cut, is because Jerry et al. built in the trigger cuts.

Then he called it a millionaire's tax. Which wasn't true. So when he got called on it, he said people making $250K are actually millionaires because they have a million after 4 years. That would only be true if those people didn't also pay taxes, rent/mortgages, have to pay for food and gas, healthcare costs, etc.

Then he manipulated the ballot process so prop 30 would show up first.

Then his ads said the money would be dedicated to education. Which isn't true, and Munger called him on it.

He should have just been more honest.

Posted by The Commish on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 8:57 am

they were actually doing labor for that money, which for the most part they aren't. Since the tax cuts-in at 250K, those marginal millionaires don't feel more than a small part of the tax. You are spreading falsehoods again.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 9:18 am

"People who make 250K per year, would be earing $125/hr -- *IF*
they were actually doing labor for that money, which for the most part they aren't."

Poor lilli - sitting in his rent-controlled garrett, consumed with envy.

Never got into medical school, I take it...

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly Persistent on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 10:51 am

The idea that the struggling masses envy the rich has been with us for the past fifty years. Also known as “the politics of envy”, the phrase exists to make the rich (and their servile trolls) feel better about themselves. It is a form of comfort. By using it, they feel that they don’t have to respond to questions about their greed or their blatant class disgust.

In this respect they have appropriated the sentiment behind the royal motto, “Dieu et mon droit”. In other words, they believe that they are born to govern and that they have divine endorsement.

Only morons and the greedy want to be rich.

Posted by Guy Debord's Cat on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 12:02 pm

And only the incompetent, lazy and stupid want to be poor.

Posted by Guest Neal Kaye on Oct. 28, 2012 @ 9:25 am

That you should imply or believe that suggests the presence of a different sort of poverty.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 28, 2012 @ 2:54 pm

illi, for the professional progressives, not being poor means not being on the progressive policy radar at best, being derided for not knowing one's place of privilege at worst.

Given the demographic trends that the professional progressives have let slip, this is an ongoing losing political algebra that roughly parallels the decline of progressive electoral power.

While they are convinced that I'm working for "the other side," I've raised this to them for the past decade and they've again, rejected it as not feasible due to their prejudices about how income allegedly correlates with politics.

More than anything, this refusal to include the entirety of the unrich in their coalition explains the progressive cooptation and demise.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 28, 2012 @ 5:21 pm

Lilli, you are pretty good at making stuff up and then accusing those who disagree with your BS of spreading falsehoods. Where is your support for the notion that anyone who makes $250K or up doesn't work? There isn't any -- much like there isn't much support for much of what you write.

Here is an article disagreeing with you.,0,966737.column

"In other words, the idea of millionaires' flight stems from a basic misunderstanding of who millionaires are. The prevailing image is of people so rich they can pack up and move anywhere with ease; the reality is that most millionaires earn their income from their work, which is typically tied to its location — they have a job that can't easily be relocated or replicated elsewhere, or a business that needs to be near its customers."

Posted by The Commish on Oct. 28, 2012 @ 10:57 am

Noted that one paragraph in a big ol story which is promoting the idea that millionaires won't leave the state if taxes go up on them suggests that most millionaires are working folks who don't have enough money and have employment that is too much tied to their locale to be able to pull up stakes and leave the state if the taxes are raised on them.

But even then, you'd be lying if you meant to suggest that the paragraph is more than a minor part of the story; was that your intent?

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 28, 2012 @ 2:51 pm

"anyone who makes $250K or up doesn't work."

What I said, is that "for the most part" people "who make 250K per year" do not labor for that money. I still believe that my statement is true, and you are welcome to provide actual date proving me wrong.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 28, 2012 @ 3:16 pm

ince You made the claim, it is on YOU to provide the support format. Waiting.

Posted by D. native on Oct. 28, 2012 @ 10:23 pm

Does anyone have the slightest idea what he is trying to say anyway?

"People who make 250K per year, would be earing $125/hr -- *IF* they were actually doing labor for that money"

Is he trying to say something to the effect that the Steve Jobs of the world would be earning less if they assembled iPads instead of designing and marketing them?

But $125/hr IS $250K a year if you work 40 hours, 50 weeks a year. So is he trying to say that the people who make $250K would be paid the same but on an hourly rate if they worked in a factory?

It is one of the more baffling lillisms of the week.

Posted by Troll on Oct. 28, 2012 @ 11:08 pm

... by which I mean lying garbage.

Commish, here's some information regarding median income in California:

As you can see, most people don't make anywhere *near* a quarter million per year. I think it's a good bet the majority of those who do augment their income from capital gains or other non-work sources. Since you still haven't admitted to having lied about what I originally said -- and offered your apology for lying -- I have absolutely no intention of honoring your supercillious demands.

Troll, you lied when you claimed Lee won by a landslide. Less than 60% is what Lee got *including* the fraudulent votes. Less than 60% is less than 1.5:1. Your red herring of mentioning "first choice votes" is just another slick way of lying. You are a repeat offender -- a damned liar -- and what you think of me doesn't affect me in the least.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 28, 2012 @ 11:47 pm

Lilli= LIES
The wannabe intellect with the reputation of a clown.
Take your meds on time and often.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 30, 2012 @ 12:12 pm

"You made the claim, it is on YOU to provide the support format. Waiting."

I claim that every person in San Francisco who makes more than $250K/yr is a Satan worshiper who drinks the blood of small children!

Prove me wrong!

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly Persistent on Oct. 28, 2012 @ 11:33 pm

Prop 30 will go down, because Gov. Brown was unwilling to give up the train to no where. No matter how you feel about the California High Speed Rail Project, we can't afford it right now, and it's not funded. Based on today's budget, we will waster multi-billions to build a useless stub in the middle of the central valley that connects to nothing. Brown should have backburnered this project until we have it funded.

The typical voter reaction will be: if he can spend billions for a pork rail project, then he doesn't need money for schools.

Posted by gary47290 on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 9:05 am

Prop 30 will go down, because Gov. Brown was unwilling to give up the train to no where. No matter how you feel about the California High Speed Rail Project, we can't afford it right now, and it's not funded. Based on today's budget, we will waster multi-billions to build a useless stub in the middle of the central valley that connects to nothing. Brown should have backburnered this project until we have it funded.

The typical voter reaction will be: if he can spend billions for a pork rail project, then he doesn't need money for schools.

Posted by gary47290 on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 9:17 am

How many typos in this article, no budget for spell check at the SFBG

Posted by Guest on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 9:25 am

Why not be positive and proactive rather than just sniping illogically? Spelt czech doesn't catch any of these sorts of errors.

"Schools get his with cuts" =
"Schools get hit with cuts"

"more parks will close" =
"and more parks will close"

"it's not only good for the state it's absolutely essential" =
"it's not only good for the state, it's absolutely essential"

"Vote yes on 38, too" =
"Vote yes on 32, too"

Posted by Guest on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 11:42 am

I like this one best, except I voted yes on 38 and NO on Prop 30.

Any politician or so-called liberal activist who supports regressive sales or payroll taxes should be voted off the island permanently. The government has been attacking working people for at least the past 50 years with their regressive payroll and sales taxes, while wealthy people accumulate ever more millions in rent, interest, dividend and capital gains income at an ever-decreasing rate of effective tax.

Both Democrats and Republicans have been party to this complete and almost total destruction of lower and middle-income working people - high regressive taxes and ever-increasing housing costs.

Anyone who supports either regresisve sales taxes or regressive payroll taxes is either part of the massive fraud on working people or are too stupid to figure out what the hell has been going on for the past couple of generations. In either case they should be exiled to oblivion. Anyone who believes another word about tax policy from Jerry Brown, or Tim Redmond, or most labor organizations is part of the destruction of lower and middle income working people.

The alternative is fairly simple. Start taxing rents and capital gains at levels as high as 90% for people earning more than $1 million from rents, interest, dividends and capitals gain income AND ELIMINATE ALL PAYROLL AND SALES TAXES, putting billions of dollars back into the pockets of working people who will spend the tax refunds and create economic growth in the process.

Stand up for working people everywhere - VOTE NO on Prop 30. And always VOTE NO for any regressive payroll and sales taxes and actively work to retire any politicians, activists, or journalists who support these regressive taxes.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 4:45 pm

I was once quite infatuated by Jerry Brown, having been impressed by the wickedness of them who regularly attacked him on his record, and also by the lefty rhetoric he delivered on the radio show he had in the early 90s. The show was called "We the People."

Since I was undergoing a period of unemployment at the time, and with a thought that I could make myself usefully part of his movement, I phoned his office/studio to offer myself for volunteer work which might be available.

At the time, he was located in an old brick warehouse near Jack London Square.

I was put on hold to be transferred, and then Jerry's secretary lifted his receiver. I won't say he took my call at that time, because he didn't speak. He was being *excoriated* by the 'beam himself -- full-throatedly, and in most disconcertingly vicious tones; something, I suppose, the Jesuits may teach.

Evidently, I was being let in on the blast out of spite. I'll admit to being a bit taken aback and not really processing what I'd heard on a real-time basis, so I went through with making the offer after the tirade ended, but not with the same enthusiasm as I had expected to emit.

I think the secretary picked up on the fact that upon further consideration I'd decide to engage my idle time elsewhere.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 6:27 pm

Meanwhile I'm voting for Brown's sales tax hike. The tax burden should be spread broadly, not narrowly. Everyone should pay something.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 28, 2012 @ 2:45 pm

No on 30. No on 38. Yes on 32. We pay enough taxes. Schools don't need more money. They need more discipline. More taxes will pay for the public sector pensions, not schools.

Posted by Guest Neal Kaye on Oct. 28, 2012 @ 9:23 am

Prop 30 is for illegal aliens, Welfare losers and union pensions.

The idiot tax!!!

Vote No on 30..........

Posted by GuestKevin O'Connor on Oct. 29, 2012 @ 7:58 am

Field poll is now dribbling out numbers bit by bit from their last polls before the election, and it's excellent news on the proposition front all around.

To all those who said that Brown's tax measure was done, looks like you'll be eating crow.

Prop 30 is ahead 48-38. Even better, the part of the sample that was interviewed later is breaking 50-37. Brown campaigning for it made a difference. I never liked everything in there -the sales tax part really sticks in my craw -but we desperately need the tax revenue.
And yes, that's enough to pass. The whole "it needs to be above 50 in the polls or it fails" narrative is a myth. Don't believe me? Watch.

Prop 38 is failing 34-49. Late-deciding voters are breaking heavily against it. I voted yes, just in case, but I'm glad that it's 30 and not 38 that's going to prevail. The legislature has more flexibility on how to spend the money with Prop 30. I like that.

Prop 32, the union-busting initiative, is going down in flames, 34-50. Looks like people are seeing through the bullshit, finally!

And wow... Prop 34 -ahead for the first time 45-38. Still too close, but moving in the right direction and fast. I think the ACLU will pull it off. It will be a historic vote if California eliminates the death penalty. Does the ACLU kick ass or what?

Now Field is so far the only pollster to show 34 actually ahead, so I know I'm cherry-picking. But I do make an exception for Field, because they have a track record of being, uh... accurate. There are a lot of pollsters in California -PPIC, LA Times, SUSA, plus right wing-sponsored newcomers like Pepperdine and Reason-Rupe. Some are better than others, but Field remains the one gold standard in California polling. When I see the Field Poll, then I believe it.

So if these numbers hold, it's very good news. Add that to the expected passage of Prop 36, 39, and 40, and expected failure of 31 and 33, and California will pretty much vote the same way I did.

The only one I'm really worried about is 37 now. I so hope it passes, but the junk food and pesticide companies have really pumped the electorate full of garbage propaganda. The campaign for it is really getting a late start. Keeping my fingers crossed.

And well... then there's 35. That one's just tragic. No hope it fails at the polls, because people are just reacting with their gut rather than using their brains. (Incidentally, folks didn't believe me when I said Sharmin Bock's dangerous. Guess what? I was right. She wrote this piece of shit). Let's just hope the courts throw it out.

Still... looking pretty good right now on the initiative front.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 01, 2012 @ 10:10 pm