Author: lpsf

Prop 30-Temporary Taxes to Fund Education-NO. California is already the sixth highest state in taxes.  By taxing everyone with a ¼ cent sales tax increase and also the wealthy with higher personal income tax rates, California will encourage consumers and companies to move to other lower-tax states.  Instead, the state should balance its budget by enacting pension reform and reducing bureaucracy.

Prop 31-State Budget/State & Local Government-NO. This measure has several good features like requiring performance reviews of all state programs and performance goals in state and local budgets.  However, Section 2 (3e) encourages “local governments to collaborate to achieve goals more effectively addressed at a regional scale.”  This will not “move government closer to the people,” as the measure says, but rather the opposite.  Elected local government officials can be voted out of office, but appointed regional bureaucrats from organizations like ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) and the MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission) are not accountable to the voters and can impose their “visions” on the people without fear of retaliation by the voters.

Prop 32-Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction-YES. As long as big government continues, vested interest groups will continue to fight for a share of favored treatment and taxpayer money.  This ballot measure won’t stop that practice, but it will be a step in the right direction by limiting the current practice of unions automatically deducting pay from employee paychecks for political purposes.  Such deductions will have to be voluntary and authorized yearly in writing by the employees—and as Libertarians we favor voluntary actions over coerced takings.

Prop 33-Auto Insurance Companies/Prices Based on Driver’s History -YES. Libertarians favor voluntary transactions between consumers and the companies that serve them.  While car insurance will continue to be heavily regulated—something we disagree with—this ballot measure is also a step in the right direction by removing regulations on discounts/surcharges based on past insurance coverage.  This will encourage more competition in the industry and ultimately lower rates for most consumers.

Prop 34-Death Penalty-YES. Few things can be worse than the state executing an innocent person for a crime he/she didn’t commit.  Especially in recent years DNA testing has exonerated a significant number of condemned prisoners for crimes they never committed.  Passage of this measure will ensure that no innocent person is ever executed again by the state in the ultimate miscarriage of justice.

Prop 35-Human Trafficking/Penalties-NO.  Harsher penalties for sex work under guise of “Human Trafficking.”  This measure purports to go after human trafficking and prostitution involving minors, but will potentially ensnare innocent friends, family, and associates of sex workers as “human traffickers”, with draconian penalties of up to twelve years in prison, $500,000 in fines (as much as $1.5 million in some cases), and registering as a “sex offender” for life, in addition to having to turn over all Internet profiles and passwords used by the person to the authorities, letting government get another toehold toward regulating and controlling Internet use. The measure further relies on previously debunked statistics such as the claim that “upwards of 300,000 American children are at risk of commercial sexual exploitation.”

Prop 36-Three Strikes Law/Repeat Felony Offenders-YES. When the voters passed the Three Strikes Law, the intention was to get violent criminals off the streets.  But as often happens with new laws, unintended consequences occur, and in this case offenders received much longer prison terms when their third offense was not violent.  This is a miscarriage of justice—the violent criminals deserve the really long sentences, not the nonviolent ones.  Under this measure, the nonviolent offenders may have their terms reduced to more reasonably match their crimes, but the violent offenders (for murder, rape, and child molestation) will not benefit from this correction of the law.

Prop 37-Genetically Engineered Foods/Labeling-NO. While Libertarians value transparency and honesty in all trading transactions between consumers and businesses, this ballot measure will only result in larger government through increased rules and regulations of food labeling laws.  The burden will be put on retailers, which is bound to increase food prices.  Passage of this measure will be great for ambulance chasers since consumers will be able “to sue without needing to demonstrate that any specific damage occurred as a result of the alleged violation.”

Prop 38-Tax to Fund Education & Early Childhood Programs-NO. Taxes are already ridiculously high in California and the educational results of its government schools are correspondingly low.  Increasing state income tax rates will not solve the problem of low performing schools.  Only competition and innovation in education can improve the results.  New Orleans, for example, switched mostly to charter schools after Katrina with remarkable improvements in scores and literacy.

Prop 39-Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses/Clean Energy & Energy Efficiency Funding-NO. This is another tax increase, except this one is directed at multistate companies, rather than the taxpayers directly.  It will create yet another bureaucracy to oversee the confiscated taxes go to favored alternative energy projects.  (Remember Solyndra?)  It will hurt consumers through increased prices for the companies that stay in California and will hurt job seekers when other companies relocate to lower tax states.

Prop 40-Redistricting/State Senate Districts-YES. This measure will not likely have an impact on freedom in California since it is only about choosing between how the State Senate districts will be divided up—either by the Citizens Redistricting Commission or “special masters” (yes, it actually says that in the Voter Information Guide on page 75) appointed by the California Supreme Court.  Since the commission appears to be more impartial than “special masters,” a slight edge goes to the Citizens Redistricting Commission, which would tend to be less politically motivated.

DECLARATION OF POLICY OPPOSING CORPORATE PERSONHOOD.

Opposes artificial corporate rights and giving corporations the same rights entitled to human beings. Maintains that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are intended to protect the rights of individual human beings(“natural persons”).  Maintains that United States Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United vs the Federal Elections Commission (January 21, 2010) presents a threat to democracy by allowing unlimited corporate spending to influence elections. NO.

Corporate reform is needed, especially as they pertain to liability laws.  Our “no” recommendation arises from our preference to err on the side of free speech; and our observation that workers’ unions excercise similar spending to influence elections but there is no declaration of policy before the voters to curtain their activities.

WATER AND ENVIRONMENT PLAN:  This voter initiative was placed on the ballot by the “Restore Hetch Hetchy” group.  It calls for development of a long-term plan for creating a “more sustainable water system,” which would include development of local, as opposed to Hetch Hetchy, water sources.  It also calls for a plan of water recycling, reclamation, conservation, improved storm water capture, replacing hydropower with wind and solar energy, increasing salmon population on the Tuolumne River.  This plan must provide for sufficient water resources to “allow for the Hetch Hetchy Valley to be returned to the National Park Service and restored as part of Yosemite National Park.”  NO

 

Water conservation is a worthwhile endeavor.  However, there is no compelling reason for tearing down the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir.

Who benefits from Proposition F:

Environmental advocates.

What would we suggest instead:

Leave well enough alone.  The main objective of this proposal which is never spelled out is to tear down the dam that catches and stores most of the water that San Francisco uses, thereby returning the Yosemite Valley to its original state – eventually.  We see no point to this endeavor.   Water conservation, recycling, and reclamation are beneficial plans, that could be implemented without tearing down the dam.

GROSS RECEIPTS TAX:  This amendment to the Business Tax Regulations Code creates a new business tax based on gross receipts, and replaces the current business payroll tax gradually over 5 years, beginning in 2014.  Businesses with gross receipts of less than $1 million annually will be exempt from the gross receipts tax.  Rates will vary depending on the type of business and its annual gross receipts.  NO.

 

Proponents argue that a payroll tax is a tax on hiring and reduces employment in San Francisco.  By the same logic, a gross receipts tax is a tax on selling goods or services, and reduces the economic activity from which wages are paid.

Who benefits from Proposition E:

The Gross Receipts Tax is expected to bring in an additional $28.5 million in tax revenues – the registration fees included in this proposal are higher than those mandated by the Payroll Tax ($75 to $35,000, instead of the current $25 to $500), and the taxes pyramid as they are applied to receipts from wholesalers to end sellers.  The increased tax revenue is needed if the Housing Trust (Proposition C) is to be adequately funded.  Therefore, those that benefit from Proposition C, will benefit from Proposition E.

Why is Proposition E not the best solution:

1.  Proposition E is 70 pages long, and describes an impossibly complex system of progressive taxes, registration fees, and penalties for non compliance.  It will not be very difficult for businesses to “game” such a convoluted system, or make honest mistakes costing them money in penalties.

2.  The complexity of this tax could render it vulnerable to a court challenge.  In 2001, the City had to give up its dual system of gross receipts/payroll in response to a successful court challenge.  Should the Housing Trust proposal be approved by voters, and should subsequently this tax be declared unconstitutional, projects under the Housing Trust programs will become inadequately funded.

3.  Businesses, big and small, need as much certainty as possible to plan and operate successfully.  This proposal is “fluid:” if the gross receipts tax revenue exceeds the revenue the City would have received under the payroll tax then the gross receipts will be kept.  If the gross receipts tax revenue never equals the revenue the City would have received under the payroll tax then the payroll tax will be reduced but not eliminated.  Difficult to plan under such uncertainty!

What do we suggest instead:

Libertarians, who believe a small and efficient government is the ideal, prefer simple sales or excise taxes that apply equally to everyone.  We consistently point out to voters that the more grandiose projects and benefits voters approve, the higher and more complex the costs imposed on everyone.  These costs come in the form of taxes, fees, and penalties, either paid directly or paid indirectly through costs passed on to consumers by those taxed directly.

 

CONSOLIDATING ODD-YEAR MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.  We have no recommendation.

HOUSING TRUST CHARTER AMENDMENT:   Creates a Housing Trust Fund by setting aside general fund revenues to create, acquire and rehabilitate affordable housing and promote affordable home ownership programs.  $20 million would be set aside in 2013.  An additional $2.8 million would be set aside each year after that, for the next 11 years.  NO.

 

With this measure City government is attempting to subsidize a much greater portion of residents.  As always, the gains of those who receive subsidies are made at the expense of those who do not.

What changed:

Most of the City’s construction projects were funded by the Redevelopment Agency, which received money from the state. The Redevelopment Agency was intended to combat urban blight.  California dissolved the Redevelopment Agency December 2011.  The Housing Trust is intended not only to continue the Redevelopment Agency’s efforts to eradicate blight, but also expands these efforts into funding middle income rental and ownership,

Who benefits from Proposition C:

1.  Households earning up to 120% of the local median income (around $86,000 per year).  The Trust will fund homeownership down payments; assistance to homeowners at risk of losing their home; help in making homes “safer, more accessible, more energy efficient, and more sustainable.”

2.  Households including a first responder, such as fire fighter or police officer, “subject to Area Median Income Limits designated by the Mayor.”

3.  Renters of low and moderate income.  The Trust will authorize “private sponsors with financial assistance from any public body to develop, construct or acquire up to 30,000 dwelling units of low rent housing” to serve “low and moderate income” households.

4.  Users of public spaces:  The Trust will design and administer a “Complete Neighborhoods Infrastructure Grant Program,” which will provide public facilities such as streets and parks in project areas.

How will the Housing Trust Fund be paid for:

1.  Transition over 5 years from the City Payroll Tax to the Gross Receipts Tax.  The Gross Receipts tax is anticipated to provide more revenue than the Payroll Tax.

2.  Recapture of the funding the Redevelopment Agency used – incremental increases in property tax.

3.  Bonds.  The Housing Trust Fund has bonding authority.  “The Board of Supervisors may authorize the issuance, without limitation, of revenue bonds, lease financing, notes, or other evidence of indebtedness or other obligations.”

Why is Proposition C not the best solution:

1.  Proposition C is a significant expansion of City government’s involvement in subsidizing housing.   The uncertain economy seems to be here to stay; taxpayers need to be aware that proposals such as the Housing Trust Fund transfers financial risk from individuals to taxpayers in general.

2.  First responders are selected to special treatment, prompting the anticipation that other public employees, such as teachers and nurses, will demand special treatment in the future, further increasing the obligations of the Trust.

3.   Again, the Housing Trust expands the role of government housing from providing dwelling to very low-income families to subsidizing middle class families.  Those funding this and other portions of the Housing Trust (property tax and gross receipt tax payers) are not necessarily “rich”, but could conceivably be home and business owners struggling to pay their taxes.

4.   Although obviously streets, parks and other public structures kept in good repair are good to have, we would like to alert voters of the magnitude of the “Complete Neighborhoods Infrastructure” program, and the accompanying price tag to be funded from yet uncertain sources.

5.  It is not clear at this time how any of the Housing Trust programs will be paid for.  Incremental tax increase depends on voters approving tax proposals and on property tax assessments increasing as a result of property value increases; neither a sure thing.  The Gross Revenue Tax proposal may or may not pass in November.  It is not clear how new projects by the Housing Trust will be impacted by the existing development projects (Bayview Hunters Point, Mid-Market, Visitation Valley, SOMA).

6.  Although revenue bonds are a tried and true method for financing projects, they are often issued to excess and used for on-going general maintenance.  Inability to keep up with excessive debt obligations such as bonds is often the reason for serious financial difficulties.

What do we suggest instead:

Let the market (undisturbed by government interference) determine the supply and demand of housing. Let individuals find their own opportunities by taking their own risks.  Focus on basic services for the “general welfare”, as mentioned in the United States Constitution, not on grandiose projects forever seeking to make more individuals dependent on government.

CLEAN AND SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD BONDS:  This proposal incurs a bonded debt of $195,000,000 for the construction, reconstruction, renovation, demolition, environmental remediation, and/or improvement of park, open space, and recreation facilities.  It authorizes landlords to pass-through 50% of resulting property tax increase to residential tenants. NO.

 

A bond issue is a tax on future taxpayers to pay for what present day voters want, and should be used more cautiously than done in this proposal.

Who benefits from Proposition B:

This project is city-wide so all residents benefit from the beautification provided by this project.

Why is Proposition B not the best solution:

1.  This is an ambitious project, and residents who are already struggling financially will find increases in property taxes (either direct taxes or those passed through by landlords) difficult.

2.  Our concern regarding the assumption of excessive debt mentioned under our discussion of Proposition C above, applies equally here.

What do we suggest instead:

Libertarians prefer manageable, private, imaginative projects to grandiose taxpayer-funded ones.  The more local the projects, the better.  We would prefer neighborhood associations that include individuals and businesses deciding what local parks, playgrounds, and other amenities they would like to have, and bearing the shared costs of those amenities.

CITY COLLEGE PARCEL TAX:  Authorizes the Community College District to levy a special property tax of $79 per parcel for eight years for the purpose of funding City College.   NO.

 

A parcel tax is always a compulsory payment which must be made without regard to the quality or value of the output.  This is especially true in the case of Proposition A.  Insisting in a full reform of serious, long-standing structural failings affecting City College would benefit students, teachers, and San Francisco more than accepting band-aid solutions.

Who benefits from Proposition A:

The funds generated from this parcel tax offers a temporary benefit to the college’s 90,000 students, 2,800 staff and teachers, Board of Trustees, and Chancellor.  The college leadership claims that California has cut funding to community colleges by over half a billion dollars in the past several years, which has resulted in the college’s revenues being inadequate to fund its costs.

Why is Proposition A not the best solution:

City College’s major troubles do not arise from cuts in funding.  The Accreditation Commission Evaluation Report of 2012 (http://www.accjc.org) has pointed to the college’s lack of planning, failure to live within its means, ignoring growing costs of retiree liabilities, clinging to “shared governance” which precludes effective decision-making, spending 92% of its budget in salaries and benefits, failure to allocate funds to technology and other infrastructure, lack of effective assessment of student learning.  These are structural failings, not funding challenges.

The college was advised of serious shortcomings during their 2006 evaluation, some of which was corrected, most was not.  California has 112 community colleges; except for two others besides City College, all have survived the difficult economic times we are all experiencing without a threat to their accreditation.  This situation calls into question the competency of the college’s leadership, and its ability to provide on-going, decisive organizational management.

What do we suggest instead:

The Libertarian Party of San Francisco has consistently maintained that if voters insist on having taxpayer-funded public education, voters need to demand efficiency  at all levels of public instruction, instead of accepting the usual claims that all problems are caused solely by a lack of funding.  If this oversight is not taken seriously, everybody suffers from hard-earned money falling into bottomless pits of dysfunctional management.  The quality of community colleges, including City College, is worth fighting for.  Community colleges have been given the thankless task of rescuing a good number of public school graduates from near illiteracy, teaching the bulk of college-age immigrants with limited English-language skills, and serving families with scarce financial resources.

Therefore, voters need to demand that structural changes to remedy the weaknesses enumerated by the Accreditation Commission be implemented in fact not just on paper before any funding is granted.  We believe that band-aid proposals will be made on paper that are good enough to satisfy the Accreditation Commission by the October deadline, but that alone should not be enough for voters.

We believe that our suggested strategy is an extremely difficult one for students, since we are certain that leadership’s first reaction if Proposition A does not pass will be to cut classes.  However, we believe that a combination of pressure from the Accreditation Commission and from voters will cause the college’s leadership to understand their role as managers of scarce resources better; as a result, City College will emerge from this dark period a stronger institution able to serve its students much better than it does now.

 

The annual San Francisco Pride Festival is probably The City’s biggest event.  Locals, tourists, kids, families, all colors and preferences have great fun watching the Parade and visiting the hundreds of Exhibitor Booths.  As has been the case for the past decade, Outright Libertarians will host an Exibitor Booth.  Outright’s mission is to “serve as a two-way bridge between the Libertarian Party and those people with differing sexual orientations.”  Through activism and outreach, Outright introduces to the LGBT community Libertarian principles of individual rights, inclusiveness, equal rights, equal responsibilities.   The Sunday Parade is along Market Street.  The booths, food and drink, and entertainment stages are at Civic Center, for both Saturday and Sunday, 10:00 am to around 5:00 pm.  For more information, please visit the SF Pride 2012 website. 

 

 

 

Elections Update: 

 

Local Measure A – Garbage Collection and Disposal:  Folks in San Francisco chose to stay with Recology, possibly because “If you love MUNI, you will love a City-owned Waste Management Center.”

Local Measure B – Coit Tower Policy:   A close call, but the Yes votes won. 

 

Candidates:

We are always proud of Gail Lightfoot’s efforts, since a third-party candidate wages an uphill battle against the established political machine.  Under the new Top-Two rules, it will be difficult for a third-party candidate to participate in the General Elections at all.

However, all is not lost, since libertarian (small “L”) John Dennins (U.S. Representative District 12/California District 8) will be on the November ballot . 

______________

Primary Elections are June 5, 2012.  Be informed, and make your voice heard.

 

• There are only two local ballot measures; here is a brief summary of each, and our recommendation.

 

Proposition A:  This ordinance makes changes to how the City contracts for and regulates rates for garbage collection, recycling, waste reduction and disposal.  Now we have one company (Recology, local employee-owned company that has been providing the services for around 70 years), who owns the processing facilities, pays no franchise fees to the City, charges residential rates set by the City’s Rate Board, charges commercial rates generally based on rates established by the Rate Board but not regulated, and charges the City for servicing City property.  Proposition A would replace this system with a competitive bidding process that would require 1) the Board of Supervisors to award five separate agreements for five separate waste management services, 2) the City own the waste management  facilities (by purchasing existing facilities or by building new ones),  and  3) the companies awarded the bids pay franchise fees to the City.  The competitive bidding part of this ordinance, although convoluted, is a good thing libertarian-wise.  The requirement that the City own the facilities and that the Board of Supervisors award the contracts not so much.  Based on the con part, the Libertarian Party of San Francisco recommends a NO vote.

 

Proposition B:  This proposal aims to provide dedicated funding for the maintenance of Coit Tower, its historic murals, and its surrounding park.  Now the Recreation and Park Department manages Coit Tower and its park, the Arts Commission maintains the murals, a private company runs a concession and manages special events at the Tower, and money generated by the private concession can be used for any City purpose but generally goes to the Recreation and Park Department.   This proposition seeks to,  1) strictly limit commercial activities and private events at Coit Tower, and 2) use money generated by the private concession solely to maintain the Tower, its murals, and its park.  Although from a Libertarian point of view he who makes the money should keep the money, it is important that the private concession make decisions without restrictions (other than common sense ones); therefore, the Libertarian Party of San Francisco recommends a NO vote.

 

• Libertarian Party candidates are scarce in this Primary race.  The major candidates are,

Presidential Candidate Nominated by the Libertarian Party:  Gary Johnson

United States Senator:  Gail K. Lightfoot

 

• There are times when non-Libertarians  earn the respect of Libertarians for their consistent fight for smaller government, fiscal responsibility, individual liberties, and a non-interventionist foreign policy.  Two such individuals whom the Libertarian Party of San Francisco salutes and supports in this Primary Election are Ron Paul and John Dennis, both Republicans.  As a 2008 and 2012 Presidential Candidate, Ron Paul has been a game changer, opening the general public’s eyes to the corrosive power of big government.  John Dennis, a local entrepreneur, is on his second campaign to defeat Nancy Pelosi in California’s 8^th Congressional District.  John Dennis’ courage in running as, to quote him, “an anti-war Republican” is legendary!