user warning: Unknown column 'type' in 'where clause' query: SELECT page_title FROM page_title WHERE type = "node" AND id = 49 in /home/sites/hjtadev.opencirclelabs.com/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 174.
user warning: Table 'hjta_dev.cache_similarterms' doesn't exist query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire FROM cache_similarterms WHERE cid = '1:49' in /home/sites/hjtadev.opencirclelabs.com/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 174.
user warning: Unknown column 'type' in 'where clause' query: SELECT page_title FROM page_title WHERE type = "node" AND id = 123 in /home/sites/hjtadev.opencirclelabs.com/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 174.
user warning: Unknown column 'type' in 'where clause' query: SELECT page_title FROM page_title WHERE type = "node" AND id = 124 in /home/sites/hjtadev.opencirclelabs.com/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 174.
user warning: Unknown column 'type' in 'where clause' query: SELECT page_title FROM page_title WHERE type = "node" AND id = 125 in /home/sites/hjtadev.opencirclelabs.com/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 174.
user warning: Table 'hjta_dev.cache_similarterms' doesn't exist query: LOCK TABLES cache_similarterms WRITE in /home/sites/hjtadev.opencirclelabs.com/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 174.
user warning: Table 'hjta_dev.cache_similarterms' doesn't exist query: UPDATE cache_similarterms SET data = 'a:3:{i:0;O:8:\"stdClass\":28:{s:3:\"nid\";s:3:\"123\";s:3:\"vid\";s:3:\"123\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"hjta_blog\";s:6:\"status\";s:1:\"1\";s:7:\"created\";s:10:\"1229916281\";s:7:\"changed\";s:10:\"1235779948\";s:7:\"comment\";s:1:\"0\";s:7:\"promote\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"sticky\";s:1:\"0\";s:18:\"revision_timestamp\";s:10:\"1235779948\";s:5:\"title\";s:34:\"Surprise Attack on Proposition 13 \";s:4:\"body\";s:4328:\"In perhaps one of the most brazen political moves in California history, Democrat leadership last week unveiled a budget proposal that would shred the California Constitution by raising billions of new taxes without the required two-thirds vote.\r\nThe tax hikes in the proposal would include a 2.5% surcharge on anyone paying personal income tax, an additional three quarters of one percent sales tax, an oil severance tax and replacement of current taxes on gas with even higher \"fees.\"\r\nWe have no idea who is providing legal advice to the Democrats, but they should have been informed before launching this silly proposal that, not only would a lawsuit be inevitable, the challenge would also succeed in preventing the taxes from ever being imposed.\r\nWhat are the Democrats thinking? The two-thirds vote requirement, one of the most important provisions of Prop. 13, clearly provides that \"any changes in state taxes enacted for the purpose of increasing revenues collected pursuant thereto whether by increased rates or changes in methods of computation must be imposed by an Act passed by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature.\"\r\nThis language in Prop. 13 is 30 years old. Did the liberal legislative leadership just discover it? On its face, any attempt to circumvent this requirement is going to look suspicious at best. Nor is this language narrowly crafted. It applies whenever a statute is enacted for the purpose of raising revenue.\r\nMoreover, even if the language wasn\'t clear, dozens of reported California cases support the position that this proposal is unconstitutional. Prop. 13, the courts have ruled, is to be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes. In other Prop. 13 cases, the courts have said that voter intent must be the guide on issues of interpretation: \"The Legislature is not always enamored with initiative measures enacted by the voters. The Legislature ought not to be able to frustrate the intent of the electorate by enacting statutes that frustrate the popular will. Consequently ... we will continue to give greater significance to the will of the electorate.\" Hoogasian Flowers v. State Bd. of Equalization (1994).\r\nTo suggest that the intent of the voters was to permit this transparent end-run doesn\'t even pass the laugh test.\r\nIn short, the Democrat leadership has really stepped in it. The immediate outrage from the public has been vocal and harsh -- and has only just started. From the calls coming into our offices and into talk radio, the citizenry is ready to grab their pitchforks and torches. Voters understand that which, inexplicably, has escaped Democrat leadership. This drill is a direct assault on the California Constitution that will not be tolerated and any legislator who votes for this is violating their oath of office.\r\nWhat is even more amazing is that this ploy might backfire on the power-grabbing majority party in two ways. First, they could lose the tax hikes in court, eliminating their intended billions of dollars in new revenue. But the linchpin of this scheme is a massive increase in a gas \"fee\" of 39 cents per gallon that consumers would pay at the pump. And, while the constitution does not permit a referendum of a \"tax,\" there is no such prohibition against a statute which imposes a \"fee.\"\r\nPolitical consultants and signature-gathering firms have quickly expressed interest in a potential referendum campaign. They rightfully see it as a slam dunk. (Signatures could easily be gathered at gas stations as angry consumers fill up their tanks). If a referendum qualifies for the ballot, it immediately suspends the operation of the statute until the issue is resolved at the ballot.\r\nThus, the crafters of this too-clever-by-half scheme may want to re-think their strategy. They could lose in court on the tax hikes and lose with the electorate on the gas \"fee.\" While they probably believe that this outcome would be tragic, the taxpaying public would probably view it as poetic justice.\r\nJon Coupal is President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association -- California\'s largest taxpayer organization -- which is dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and promoting taxpayers\' rights.\r\n\";s:6:\"teaser\";s:500:\"In perhaps one of the most brazen political moves in California history, Democrat leadership last week unveiled a budget proposal that would shred the California Constitution by raising billions of new taxes without the required two-thirds vote.\r\nThe tax hikes in the proposal would include a 2.5% surcharge on anyone paying personal income tax, an additional three quarters of one percent sales tax, an oil severance tax and replacement of current taxes on gas with even higher \"fees.\"\";s:3:\"log\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"format\";s:1:\"3\";s:3:\"uid\";s:1:\"6\";s:4:\"name\";s:8:\"gforster\";s:7:\"picture\";s:0:\"\";s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"a:1:{s:7:\"contact\";i:1;}\";s:4:\"path\";s:52:\"california-commentary/surprise-attack-proposition-13\";s:12:\"field_byline\";a:1:{i:0;a:1:{s:5:\"value\";s:13:\"by Jon Coupal\";}}s:22:\"field_featured_content\";a:1:{i:0;a:1:{s:5:\"value\";s:2:\"no\";}}s:4:\"tags\";a:1:{i:1;a:5:{i:12;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"12\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:10:\"California\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:81;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"81\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:12:\"Constitution\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:78;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"78\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:11:\"Legislature\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:48;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"48\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:14:\"Proposition 13\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:82;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"82\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:15:\"Two-Thirds Vote\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}}}s:22:\"last_comment_timestamp\";s:10:\"1234236381\";s:17:\"last_comment_name\";N;s:13:\"comment_count\";s:1:\"0\";s:8:\"taxonomy\";a:6:{i:37;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"37\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"3\";s:4:\"name\";s:21:\"California Commentary\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:12;r:31;i:81;r:37;i:78;r:43;i:48;r:49;i:82;r:55;}s:10:\"page_title\";b:0;}i:1;O:8:\"stdClass\":28:{s:3:\"nid\";s:3:\"124\";s:3:\"vid\";s:3:\"124\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"hjta_blog\";s:6:\"status\";s:1:\"1\";s:7:\"created\";s:10:\"1229311600\";s:7:\"changed\";s:10:\"1234236792\";s:7:\"comment\";s:1:\"0\";s:7:\"promote\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"sticky\";s:1:\"0\";s:18:\"revision_timestamp\";s:10:\"1234236792\";s:5:\"title\";s:41:\"The Millionaires\' Tax -- A Double Failure\";s:4:\"body\";s:5984:\"In 2004, voters narrowly approved Proposition 63, the Mental Heath \r\nServices Act (MHSA), which imposed an additional 1% tax on personal \r\nincome above $1 million. The funds generated from this \r\n\"millionaire\'s tax\" were intended to expand county mental health \r\nprograms. Taxpayer and business groups opposed the measure for a \r\ncouple of obvious reasons. First, California is already a high tax, \r\nhigh spending state that didn\'t need any more revenue. Second, as we \r\npredicted, Prop 63 would exacerbate California\'s income tax \r\nvolatility.\r\nAlthough the final vote for Proposition 63 was tallied more than \r\nfour years ago, evidence suggests that California\'s most wealthy \r\nhave continued to vote on this measure -- with their feet. A recent \r\nsurvey from TNS Research, an international business research firm, \r\nfound the California counties of Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego \r\nhad the 1st, 4th and 6th highest number of millionaires in the \r\ncountry. However, even as the national population of millionaire \r\nhouseholds grew by 5.9% in 2007, Los Angeles County lost about 7000 \r\nof these households. Orange and San Diego Counties lost millionaire \r\nhouseholds as well.\r\nMilton Friedman\'s maxim that few things are as mobile as rich people \r\nand capital is proven starkly by data showing the wealthy are \r\nleaving California in record numbers. It is probably no coincidence \r\nthat, while California has been punishing the successful for the sin \r\nof being rich, Maricopa County in neighboring Arizona gained 23,000 \r\nnew millionaire households in the same time period. Arizona\'s top \r\nmarginal personal income tax rate is 4.79%, less than half \r\nCalifornia\'s rate of 10.3%, which includes the Prop. 63 surcharge.\r\nWhen California millionaires choose to become Florida or Nevada \r\nmillionaires, the consequences to the state\'s economy is profound. \r\nIn California, the top 10% of earners pay nearly 75% of income \r\ntaxes. If the trend of millionaire households relocating out of \r\nstate continues, it will make finding the revenue to fund essential \r\nstate services even more difficult.\r\nGiven that passage of Proposition 63 is responsible, at least in \r\npart, for the accelerated out migration of California\'s wealthy, can \r\nwe at least conclude that Prop 63 has done some good? Unfortunately, \r\nno. While the California Department of Finance is reporting a net \r\ndomestic outmigration of taxpaying citizens along all income groups, \r\nDOF\'s May 2008 audit of the MHSA states: \"As of March 31, 2008, \r\napproximately $3.2 billion has been collected and $2.9 billion has \r\nbeen allocated for county use. Of the $2.9 billion allocation, $1 \r\nbillion has been approved for distribution but only $726 million has \r\nbeen distributed to the counties.\" This means that $2.174 billion is \r\njust sitting in the bank unused.\r\nSimilarly, much of the funding that has been distributed to counties \r\nstill is not being utilized and is instead being held in reserves. \r\nTotal county Proposition 63 reserve funds statewide exceed $80 \r\nmillion. However, as we face a $27.8 billion budget deficit over the \r\nnext 20 months, Proposition 63\'s inflexibility prohibits counties \r\nfrom transferring reserves to fund other priorities.\r\nThe Department of Finance\'s audit declares, \"An overall documented \r\nplan for the development and implementation of the MHSA does not \r\nexist.\" Furthermore, the audit cited ineffective communication \r\nbetween the Department of Mental Health, the Mental Health Oversight \r\nand Accountability Commission (an agency responsible for overseeing \r\nparts of the MHSA) and the counties. The audit states the Department \r\nof Mental Health\'s application of Community Services and Supports \r\n(mental health services for children and adults) guidelines has been \r\n\"strict and inflexible,\" and counties have therefore developed plans \r\nranging from 300 to 1000 pages that meet the guidelines but not the \r\nneeds of their communities.\r\nEven supporters of Proposition 63 are concerned. It has been so \r\nunsuccessful that Rose King, a member of the measure\'s drafting \r\ncommittee wrote in a Sacramento Bee op-ed, \"Almost four years after \r\npassage, however, there is little evidence that the system has \r\nimproved, and an infinitesimal number of clients are getting better \r\ntreatment.\"\r\nSo, just to be clear, in addition to driving those out of the state \r\nwhom we can least afford to lose, Proposition 63 has failed abjectly \r\nto accomplish its goals and thus reflects the worst example to date \r\nof ballot box budgeting. Congratulations, Golden State. Once again, \r\nwe have demonstrated why we rank so low in terms of effective \r\ngovernance.\r\nFour years of hindsight should compel elected leaders to take two \r\nseparate courses of action. First, the Legislature should pass all \r\nnecessary laws to allow both the state and counties to tap into the \r\nunused Prop 63 funds to help address the current crisis. Second, \r\nrecognizing that punishing the rich is a strategy akin to the old \r\nmedical practice of \"bloodletting,\" Proposition 63 should be \r\nrepealed immediately.\r\nRepublican leaders may be proposing this week to address both sides \r\nof the Proposition 63 unbalanced equation. But the chances that the \r\nmajority party will take decisive corrective action to fix this \r\ndouble error? Zero.\r\nJon Coupal is President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association \r\n-- California\'s largest taxpayer organization -- which is dedicated \r\nto the protection of Proposition 13 and promoting taxpayers\' rights.\r\n\";s:6:\"teaser\";s:591:\"In 2004, voters narrowly approved Proposition 63, the Mental Heath \r\nServices Act (MHSA), which imposed an additional 1% tax on personal \r\nincome above $1 million. The funds generated from this \r\n\"millionaire\'s tax\" were intended to expand county mental health \r\nprograms. Taxpayer and business groups opposed the measure for a \r\ncouple of obvious reasons. First, California is already a high tax, \r\nhigh spending state that didn\'t need any more revenue. Second, as we \r\npredicted, Prop 63 would exacerbate California\'s income tax \r\nvolatility.\";s:3:\"log\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"format\";s:1:\"3\";s:3:\"uid\";s:1:\"6\";s:4:\"name\";s:8:\"gforster\";s:7:\"picture\";s:0:\"\";s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"a:1:{s:7:\"contact\";i:1;}\";s:4:\"path\";s:53:\"california-commentary/millionaires-tax-double-failure\";s:12:\"field_byline\";a:1:{i:0;a:1:{s:5:\"value\";s:13:\"by Jon Coupal\";}}s:22:\"field_featured_content\";a:1:{i:0;a:1:{s:5:\"value\";s:2:\"no\";}}s:4:\"tags\";a:1:{i:1;a:5:{i:12;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"12\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:10:\"California\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:92;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"92\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:10:\"Income Tax\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:78;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"78\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:11:\"Legislature\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:91;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"91\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:19:\"Millionaire’s Tax\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:90;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"90\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:14:\"Proposition 63\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}}}s:22:\"last_comment_timestamp\";s:10:\"1234236469\";s:17:\"last_comment_name\";N;s:13:\"comment_count\";s:1:\"0\";s:8:\"taxonomy\";a:6:{i:37;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"37\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"3\";s:4:\"name\";s:21:\"California Commentary\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:12;r:106;i:92;r:112;i:78;r:118;i:91;r:124;i:90;r:130;}s:10:\"page_title\";b:0;}i:2;O:8:\"stdClass\":28:{s:3:\"nid\";s:3:\"125\";s:3:\"vid\";s:3:\"125\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"hjta_blog\";s:6:\"status\";s:1:\"1\";s:7:\"created\";s:10:\"1228102124\";s:7:\"changed\";s:10:\"1234236578\";s:7:\"comment\";s:1:\"0\";s:7:\"promote\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"sticky\";s:1:\"0\";s:18:\"revision_timestamp\";s:10:\"1234236578\";s:5:\"title\";s:30:\" Government for the Government\";s:4:\"body\";s:4085:\"If Abraham Lincoln were delivering his Gettysburg Address today, he\r\nmight feel compelled to conclude, \"... that government for the\r\ngovernment shall not perish from this earth.\" He was \"Honest Abe\"\r\nafter all.\r\n\r\nLet\'s take a look at how Sacramento really operates.\r\n\r\nThose in power in the Capitol -- as well as many local politicians\r\n-- make skillful use of those who rely on government services to\r\nadvance their spending agenda. They use children, the disabled, the\r\nelderly, and others who appear vulnerable, to justify increasing\r\ntaxes. When reasonable arguments are made that higher taxes in an\r\nalready high-tax state could lead to fiscal ruin and less for\r\neveryone, politicians and bureaucrats use these dependent classes as\r\nhuman shields.\r\n\r\nBut who really is at risk if spending is curtailed modestly or if\r\nthe rate of increase is limited? A number of years ago, David Doerr,\r\nwho is probably California\'s foremost expert on tax policy, observed\r\nthat during budget negotiations, 90 percent of those testifying in\r\nsupport of greater spending are the providers, not the recipients,\r\nof state services. If the ratio has changed at all, it is surely\r\nhigher.\r\n\r\nAccording to the US Census Bureau, California has the highest paid\r\npublic employees in the nation. Additionally, our state has the\r\nhighest paid Legislature. And it is not an exaggeration to say that,\r\nfor these folks, the number one priority of governing is taking care\r\nof state employees, lawmakers and their friends. In short, they look\r\nafter themselves.\r\n\r\nEighteen years ago, Californians, tired of the arrogance of career\r\npoliticians, approved term limits. Term limits remain popular as\r\nevidenced by the recent rejection of Prop 93 which would have\r\nsubstantially weakened the original limits. While no panacea, term\r\nlimits have resulted in several modest but important improvements.\r\nFor example, our Legislature now looks more like a cross section of\r\nthe California population and no longer can a single entrenched\r\nlawmaker exert a stranglehold over legislative affairs for years on\r\nend. But despite these improvements, politicians still find ways to\r\ntake care of their own after they are forced from office.\r\n\r\nThe November election, helped by term limits, has resulted in the\r\nflushing out of 34 Assemblymembers and Senators out of a total of\r\n120. Will the displaced representatives return to the private sector\r\nand live under the laws they have passed? When pigs fly!\r\n\r\nThe existing legislative leadership has already begun the bi-annual\r\nprocess of providing welfare to their outgoing colleagues. Assembly\r\nSpeaker Karen Bass has just appointed termed out Assemblyman John\r\nLaird to the Integrated Waste Management Board. The job pays\r\n$132,178 per year. On the Senate side, President Pro Tempore Don\r\nPerata has selected the soon-to-be-jobless Sen. Sheila Kuehl to\r\nreplace former Sen. Wes Chesbro, who was appointed to the panel\r\nafter he left office in 2006, but who no longer needs the cushy job\r\nbecause he has just been elected to the Assembly. Other members of\r\nthe Waste Management board include the wife of another former\r\nlawmaker, and a former scheduler for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger --\r\nand this is just one board out of many.\r\n\r\nFor those who may have wondered why the state spends millions each\r\nyear on scores of little-used and often worthless boards and\r\ncommissions that pay handsomely for only a few hours of work each\r\nmonth, these appointments may provide clarification.\r\n\r\nSo as our political class shrieks and bellows that without major tax\r\nincreases there will not be enough to support the needy, remember,\r\non their list of the truly needy, they rank No. 1.\r\n\r\nJon Coupal is President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association\r\n-- California\'s largest taxpayer organization -- which is dedicated\r\nto the protection of Proposition 13 and promoting taxpayers\' rights.\r\n\r\nThis column <a href=\"http://www.ocregister.com/articles/limits-state-politicians-2245281-term-board\">appeared in The Orange County Register</a> on December 3, 2008.\r\n\r\n\";s:6:\"teaser\";s:538:\"If Abraham Lincoln were delivering his Gettysburg Address today, he\r\nmight feel compelled to conclude, \"... that government for the\r\ngovernment shall not perish from this earth.\" He was \"Honest Abe\"\r\nafter all.\r\n\r\nLet\'s take a look at how Sacramento really operates.\r\n\r\nThose in power in the Capitol -- as well as many local politicians\r\n-- make skillful use of those who rely on government services to\r\nadvance their spending agenda. They use children, the disabled, the\r\nelderly, and others who appear vulnerable, to justify increasing\r\";s:3:\"log\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"format\";s:1:\"3\";s:3:\"uid\";s:1:\"6\";s:4:\"name\";s:8:\"gforster\";s:7:\"picture\";s:0:\"\";s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"a:1:{s:7:\"contact\";i:1;}\";s:4:\"path\";s:43:\"california-commentary/government-government\";s:12:\"field_byline\";a:1:{i:0;a:1:{s:5:\"value\";s:13:\"by Jon Coupal\";}}s:22:\"field_featured_content\";a:1:{i:0;a:1:{s:5:\"value\";s:2:\"no\";}}s:4:\"tags\";a:1:{i:1;a:4:{i:12;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"12\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:10:\"California\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:78;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"78\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:11:\"Legislature\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:67;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"67\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:15:\"State Employees\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:93;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"93\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:11:\"Term Limits\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}}}s:22:\"last_comment_timestamp\";s:10:\"1234236578\";s:17:\"last_comment_name\";N;s:13:\"comment_count\";s:1:\"0\";s:8:\"taxonomy\";a:5:{i:37;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"37\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"3\";s:4:\"name\";s:21:\"California Commentary\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:12;r:181;i:78;r:187;i:67;r:193;i:93;r:199;}s:10:\"page_title\";b:0;}}', created = 1268962009, expire = 1268965609, headers = '' WHERE cid = '1:49' in /home/sites/hjtadev.opencirclelabs.com/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 174.

Contact Your Representative

PRINT
A | A

Make your voice heard!

You can make a huge difference in protecting Propositions 13 and 218 by contacting your Assembly and State Senate representatives yourself.

Every year, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association battles with tax-and-spenders at the State Capitol in order to protect taxpayers' rights. But it really gets their attention when their own constituents contact them.

The most powerful tool for taxpayers when contacting representatives is still a one-page handwritten letter. However, if you do not have time to write, a call or a brief e-mail message will still have a great impact.

When contacting your legislator, remember that the best way to be heard is to be polite, stick to the point, and ask for specific action from the legislator.

Thank you for supporting HJTA's efforts to protect taxpayers!

Don't know your legislators? We can help. Click on the link below for a list of state assembly members and state senators, including their addresses.

Find your legislators online.

PRINT
A | A

Filed Under: Legislative

Tags: California, Legislature

DEDICATED TO PROTECTING PROPOSITION 13 AND PROMOTING TAXPAYERS' RIGHTS

Contact Your Representative

Frequently Asked Questions

2010 CA Initiatives

California Commentary

News

Taxpayer Action Tools

Legislative Action

Propositions

About HJTA

Studies and Reports

Important Links

Popular topics: Click on any word to explore

DEDICATED TO PROTECTING PROPOSITION 13 AND PROMOTING TAXPAYERS' RIGHTS

Related Articles:

Popular topics: Click on any word to explore