All of the bills in question would gut one of the most important provisions of Proposition 13 – the two thirds vote requirement for additional “add on” parcel taxes. These “add on” parcel and bond taxes are on top of the property tax homeowners already pay under current law.

The six bills are designated as “SCAs” standing for “Senate Constitutional Amendments.”  The Legislature itself cannot change the constitution without voter approval so the issue for each of these “SCAs” was whether they should proceed through the legislative process and appear on the ballot as partial repeals of Prop 13 which itself is part of the constitution.

The bills are as follows:

Senate Constitutional Amendment 3 (SCA 3), Mark Leno (D—San Francisco):  Lowers the threshold for school district per-parcel property taxes from two-thirds to 55%. This is a direct assault on Proposition 13 because it makes it easier to increase property taxes above Proposition 13′s one percent cap.

Senate Constitutional Amendment 4 (SCA 4), Carol Liu (D—La Canada) and Senate Constitutional Amendment 8 (SCA 8), Ellen Corbett (D—San Leandro): These two bills lower the threshold for the imposition, extension or increase of local transportation special taxes from the Proposition 13-mandated two-thirds vote to 55%.  While most transportation special tax increases consist of very regressive sales tax hikes, the language of these bills could be used to impose new parcel taxes.

Senate Constitutional Amendment 7 (SCA 7), Lois Wolk (D—Davis):  Lowers the threshold from two-thirds to 55% in order to approve a bond to fund public library facilities.  Lowering the threshold for school facilities to 55% has already resulted in billions of dollars of additional property tax payments that otherwise would not have been approved by voters and the lower threshold has done nothing to improve education in California.  Bond “add on” taxes are like parcel taxes because only property owners have to pay.

Senate Constitutional Amendment 9 (SCA 9), Ellen Corbett (D—San Leandro): Lowers the threshold from two-thirds to 55% to increase special taxes – including parcel taxes – to fund community and economic development projects.

Senate Constitutional Amendment 11 (SCA 11), Loni Hancock (D—Berkeley):  Lowers the threshold to 55% to allow for voters representing ANY local government entity to approve a special tax for ANY purpose. This is far and away the broadest application, and thus the most egregious, of these constitutional amendments.

We at HJTA have warned about the dangers of one party rule in Sacramento and our predictions are now coming true.  Despite now having the highest state income tax rate in America, the highest state sales tax rate in America and, come June, the highest gas tax in America, the majority party is launching a full scale assault on Prop 13 to grab even more tax dollars from property owners.

To stop them, we must employ all our resources.  First, the battle in the Legislature is far from over.  Last week’s hearing was before only one policy committee.  In the Senate itself, these measures will go through at least one more committee and, should they pass, go to the floor of the full Senate for a vote of the entire house. Even if they pass there, the bills must then go to the Assembly and its committee process.

During the next several months, HJTA will take every opportunity to remind all California legislators that, before they cast their votes, they must understand that these bills attack the very core of Prop 13.  Some legislators from California’s most liberal areas don’t care.  But most are fully aware of how popular Prop 13 remains and many in the majority party come from districts where Prop 13 is much more popular than in the districts of some of their left wing colleagues.

These legislators also know that the voters will have the final say and current polling strong suggests that Californians are very negative toward higher property taxes.  They must therefore ask themselves if casting a vote against homeowners might not result in a shortened political career.

Thus, while homeowners may have lost round one, this is going to be a long fight.  Victory will belong to those with the strength and resolve to prevail.

Here’s the summation of a recent study (one of several) verifying this lack of correlation.  Indeed, closer inspection often reveals an INVERSE correlation.  A second, more detailed study is included below as well.

Obviously correlation does not prove causation, but a LACK of correlation makes any causation claims highly suspect.  Most studies that DO conclude there is some causation are produced by and for the public education employees — and often even funded by such groups (primarily labor unions).

———–

http://www.educationnews.org/education-policy-and-politics/study-finds-no-relationship-between-ed-spending-and-results/

A new study from State Budget Solutions  finds that the approach that many have long considered a panacea to academic ills – more spending and increased financial resources – doesn’t actually translate to improvements in student achievement as measured by standardized test scores.

Analysis of spending by the states between the years of 2009 and 2011 showed that states that spend the most on education as a portion of their total budget didn’t graduate students at a higher rate, nor did their students score better on the ACT than their peers.

Bob Williams, President of the SBS, said that the United States spent more than $800 billion on education during 2010, which exceeds the totals spend by several European and North American countries combined. In return for that expenditure the country isn’t seeing the results demanded by both the taxpayers and parents, which is a certain indication that raising spending without a clear understanding about how to spend most effectively won’t solve America’s academic woes.

State Budget Solutions researchers analyzed the national trends in education from 2009 to 2011 by conducting a state-by-state analysis of education spending as a percentage of total state spending, and a comparison of average graduation rates and average ACT scores per state. The study focused on the percentage of total spending that each state allocates towards education. Education spending includes the funding that state and local governments generate, as well as additional federal contributions.

Although the overall spending on education as part of the total budget fell by .7% — from 30% to 29.3% — the top three educational spenders, Texas, Vermont and Arkansas, each spent 4% more than the national average on various education initiatives. The states that rounded out the bottom five were Alaska, New York, Hawaii, Tennessee and Massachusetts.

For states that spent the most, only Vermont saw significant results from 2009 to 2011.  In fact, four out of the five states spending the most on education failed to produce correspondingly high graduation rates or ACT scores. Arkansas remained in the top five states in spending for all three years, yet Arkansas’ average ACT scores consistently fell below the national average, and continue to decline annually. In 2010 and 2011, Texas ranked first in the nation in spending, 36.9 percent each year, but fell below the national average in graduation and ACT scores.

States that have spent the least didn’t show any performance degradation over the years studied. Although 45 states allocated a higher percentage of their budget for education compared to Massachusetts, the state topped the academic performance tables in almost every subject area covered and had the highest average ACT scores in the country.

=============================

RIDER NOTE:  A more detailed analysis of this lack of correlation can be found in this Heritage Foundation study:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/09/does-spending-more-on-education-improve-academic-achievement

They never compare the property tax revenue collected in 1977 (the year before the big Prop 13 drop when everything was supposedly hunky dory) with the property tax revenue being collected today.

Why? For one of two reasons. And ONLY one.

1. They don’t know the figures. Never checked. Even supposed financial gurus haven’t a clue what the numbers are. They just INTUITIVELY know that the revenues are woefully inadequate. After all, this “massive revenue shortfall” has been endlessly cited by fellow leading California “progressives” for decades, so most liberals mindlessly conclude that it MUST be true.

2. They DO know the figures. But they intentionally omit them, as such figures DESTROY their argument. For it turns out – compared to property tax revenue collected the year BEFORE Prop 13 passed – in the more populous counties (over 85% of the CA population live in such counties), such PROPERTY TAX REVENUES HAVE GROWN FASTER THAN INFLATION AND POPULATION COMBINED!
http://riderrants.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-defense-of-proposition-13-property.html

I just wish the press would report this amazing, counterintuitive fact. They never have, as far as I know.

Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown announced Tuesday morning that despite a state budget surplus, his May budget revision included projected lower budget figures for fiscal year 2013-14, which begins on July 1, than for the previous fiscal year. The reasons are one-time revenue surges because of federal tax changes that last only one year; and the retroactive part of the Proposition 30 tax increase for 2012.

The result will be less program spending, but with most of the spending increases focused on schools and Medi-Cal.

“We have climbed out of a hole with a Proposition 30 tax,” Brown said, referring to his 2012 initiative which increased taxes on those with incomes exceeding $250,000; and increased sales taxes on everyone. “This is not the time to break out the Champagne,” said Brown, who still called for caution despite an uptick in the state’s revenues.

“I am pleased that for the first time since I was elected to the Legislature we are not confronted with a multi-billion-dollar-deficit,” Sen. Mimi Walters, R-Laguna Nigel, said in a statement. “But let’s be clear, that is a result of a questionable retroactive tax that has accounted for the current projected surplus. I believe we can all agree that excessive spending and dubious budgetary gimmicks of this and previous governors have placed undue stress on California families.”

But the “surplus” is thin. Finance Director Anna Matosantos said it’s only a $2.8 billion “surplus” in the $96 billion 2013-14 budget.

Brown’s caution

Brown’s caution about the lower-than-expected revenues was an unexpected shift from media expectations leading up to the May Budget Revision. Many predicted that Brown would take full advantage of $4.5 billion in revenues that came in unexpectedly just this spring, and assign the money to many statewide programs. But Brown took a more cautious approach. He said his finance team was anticipating slower economic growth than previously thought, primarily due to federal spending cuts, Europe’s lower economic projections, and the higher payroll tax workers are now paying because the federal government allowed the payroll tax cut to expire.

“Four percent growth has now become 2 percent,” Brown said. Brown’s revised budget cut the personal income growth forecast from 4.3 percent to 2.2 percent.

Brown said passage of Prop. 30 was the reason for the revenues, but was quick to say that most of the money would be going to schools — especially to schools with high populations of non-English speaking students and children in foster care.

The revised budget for 2013-14 proposes an additional $2.9 billion in the current fiscal year for K-12 schools and community colleges.

The bottom line, though, is more money is going to schools than is coming in. Some say that much of the money will go toward teachers’ pensions.
Debt? What debt?

Brown had little explanation or discussion of the state’s massive debt problem in this $96 billion budget. Before understanding state spending and any talk of a surplus, the state’s debt must also be considered.

According to the Small Business Action Committee, because the Legislature has refused to make any sincere pension reforms moves, nearly $2.5 billion in pension debt has been run up just in the last two years.

Brown occasionally speaks of California’s “wall of debt.” However, he is usually careful in his definition of debt, and only attributes a very small segment of what the actual debt obligation is. He didn’t say much about the “wall of debt” during the Tuesday press conference, but the written May Budget Revision says the budget plan will reduce the wall of debt to less than $5 billion by the fiscal year end of 2017, from $27 billion today.

But it must be difficult to reconcile a supposed state “surplus,” with actual, total bond debt of $79.6 billion, California State Teachers’ Retirement System debt of $70.9 billion, California Public Employee Retirement System debt of $128.3 billion, and other post-employment benefit debt of $63.8 billion, according to SBAC. Where is the surplus?

Not without controversy…

Brown is sticking to big spending on the controversial Common Core education program funding, primarily because of the influx of federal funds coming in if the state adopts the program. “$1 billion for the adoption of Common Core standards puts California in the forefront,” Brown said. Most Californians know just how important it is for California politicians to be at the forefront of every issue in America.

But Common Core is merely another one-size-fits-all, expensive national education standard that purports to be a fix-all to the continually dropping literacy scores — a problem created by the original education national standard.

“We have to get more kids through school in less time,” Brown said about higher education. “We’ve got 10 million immigrants [nationally]. We’ve got to get them legalized and into our schools.”

Other big spending programs include the Affordable Care Act, which will dramatically expand California’s publicly funded Medi-Cal health care program for low-income individuals. The ACA is another federal program Brown has embraced.

“California’s economy is not recovering at its full potential, weighed down, in part, by policy decisions made in Sacramento, like tax increases, the cap-and-trade program, and other regulatory burdens on state businesses. Regrettably, we are sending the wrong message to job creators in today’s May Revise,” Assemblyman Jeff Gorell, R-Camarillo, told media after Brown’s press conference.

“The elimination of funding for the state’s enterprise zones pulls the rug out from under hundreds of businesses that have relied in good faith on this program by moving operations into enterprise zones and hiring new employees,” Gorell said in a statement. ”The decision, if carried forward, will likely result in expensive litigation for the state and less savings for state government than projected, as was the experience with the elimination of redevelopment agencies.”

“Finally, I think the Governor should lay the groundwork for a rainy day fund that would smooth out the volatile tax revenue that California receives,” Gorell said.

While Brown warned that there’s essentially no extra money in the budget after education programs, when asked about restoring cuts to mental health and welfare programs, he emphatically said, “No. No. There’s no money.”

Gesturing at the Capitol building, Brown added, “This place is a big spending machine.”

TODAY at least 7 bills that would directly undercut various provisions of Prop. 13 will be heard in committee. If approved, these bills could cost every property owner thousands of dollars.

There are seven bills pertaining to Proposition 13 that are up in the Senate Governance and Finance Committee.  Six of these bills directly undercut various provisions of Proposition 13.

The bills are: SCA 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 11.

THE FOLLOWING BILLS PLACE A BULLSEYE ON PROPOSITION 13 AND TAXPAYERS:

Senate Constitutional Amendment 3 (SCA 3), Mark Leno (D—San Francisco): Lowers the threshold for school district per-parcel property taxes from two-thirds to 55%. This is a direct assault on Proposition 13 because it makes it easier to increase property taxes above Proposition 13′s one percent cap.

Senate Constitutional Amendment 4 (SCA 4), Carol Liu (D—La Canada) and Senate Constitutional Amendment 8 (SCA 8), Ellen Corbett (D—San Leandro): Lowers the threshold for the imposition, extension or increase of local transportation special taxes from the Proposition 13-mandated two-thirds vote to 55%. Most transportation special tax increases consist of very regressive sales tax hikes. These add to the burden of California taxpayers who already pay the highest state sales tax in the nation.

Senate Constitutional Amendment 7 (SCA 7), Lois Wolk (D—Davis): Lowers the threshold from two-thirds to 55% in order to approve a bond to fund public library facilities. Lowering the threshold for school facilities to 55% has already resulted in billions of dollars of additional property tax payments that otherwise would not have been approved by voters.

Senate Constitutional Amendment 9 (SCA 9), Ellen Corbett (D—San Leandro): Lowers the threshold from two-thirds to 55% to increase special taxes to fund community and economic development projects.

Senate Constitutional Amendment 11 (SCA 11), Loni Hancock (D—Berkeley): Lowers the threshold to 55% to allow for voters representing ANY local government entity to approve a special tax for ANY purpose. This is far and away the broadest application, and thus the most egregious, of these constitutional amendments.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8 (ACA 8), Bob Blumenfield (D—Woodland Hills): Lowers the threshold to 55% for city and county voters to approve a local bond measure in order to fund emergency service facilities projects.

Tell your representatives that you oppose these bills that attack your Prop. 13 protections.

One supportive bill, Senate Constitutional Resolution 25 (sponsored by State Senator Mark Wyland, R—Escondido) is also up in the committee today and honors Proposition 13 on its upcoming 35th anniversary.

Stay tuned: Two additional bills, Assembly Constitutional Amendments 3 and 8 also diminish Proposition 13′s protections. These will head to hearing soon.

Here is a link to a graphic from the Los Angeles Times “Campaign contributions by special interest,” showing reported direct and independent expenditures on behalf of the two major candidates, Eric Garcetti and Wendy Gruel. Over $6.0 million has been spent by labor unions, more than twice as much as the next four largest categories of contributors. And that’s only partly why these unions are buying this election.

Using data from the LA Times graphic, we’ve come up with our own table, one that shows what percent of each contribution – by category – went to each candidate. This data illustrates an important fact: Union spending tends to be monolithic, favoring a particular candidate or party, whereas political spending from most other identifiable categories – usually lumped together as “business” – is split evenly. On the table below, it is evident that Wendy Gruel’s mayoral campaign has garnered 86% of the union campaign contributions. But nearly every other interest group has split their campaign spending almost equally between the candidates.

This data offers additional support to the theory that political contributions from individuals and businesses tend to be diverse, usually focused on narrow issues of particular importance to each contributor, and balanced between candidates and parties. But public sector unions have a unified agenda that never deviates: More pay and benefits for public sector workers, and more public sector workers. And the rhetoric is always compelling, even if the agenda is pure self-interest. For public safety. For the children.

Take a look at this partial list of  labor endorsements for Wendy Gruel:

Los Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL)
United Firefighters of Los Angeles City (UFLAC) Local 112
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Los Angeles Fire Chief Officers’ Association
Professional Peace Officers Association (PPOA)
Law Enforcement Association of Asian Pacifics (LEAAP)
Los Angeles County Firefighters Local 1014
Los Angeles School Police Officers Association (LASPOA)
Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 1277
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Workers (AFSCME) District Council 36
AFSCME United Nurses Associations of California/Union of Health Care Professionals (UNAC/UHCP)
AFSCME Local 1902
Los Angeles County Federation of Labor
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 721
SEIU 121RN, Southern California Nurses
SEIU 721
SEIU United Long Term Care Workers (ULTCW) 

The common thread that runs through these union endorsements, in most cases, is the fact that taxpayers are footing the bill for the pay and benefits for the government workers they represent (and, of course, the dues they pay to their unions). And the common fallacy that informs the agenda of these unions is that somehow it is economically feasible to pay over-market wages and benefits to public sector workers, and, by extension, to all workers. Witness Gruel’s latest campaign pledge, calculated to boost her support among Latino voters.

As reported in the Los Angeles Daily News, on May 13 “Eric Garcetti criticizes union mailers promising wage hike if Wendy Greuel is elected L.A. mayor:”

“Campaign mailers sent to Latino voters promising a hike in the $8 minimum wage if Wendy Greuel is elected are sparking controversy in the Los Angeles mayor’s race. Two mailers, sent by an outside committee supported by the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor that represents 600,000 union workers and supports Greuel, were sent in Spanish and English last week. The mailers suggest the minimum wage, currently $8 an hour, will be hiked under a Greuel administration. Voters go to the polls in one week. ‘On May 21, our votes will elect la Wendy and raise the minimum wage for housekeepers and cooks and dishwashers to $15 per hour,’ reads one mailer.”

Gruel is invited to explain exactly how she expects the small businesses in Los Angeles will adapt to a nearly doubling of the minimum wage. But other promises she’s made will be harder to break. When special interests split their money between candidates, as our chart above proves is the case in the 2013 Los Angeles mayoral race, it is relatively easy for a victorious candidate to do the right thing. After all, whoever’s toes are being stepped on was giving just as much money to the candidate that lost. But the public sector unions gave 86% of their money to Gruel, and if she wins, it will be because of them. They will own her.

Wendy Gruel may or may not win next Tuesday. The race is a dead heat, perhaps because voters are finally realizing that public sector union endorsements and money are not given in the public interest, but in the public sector worker’s interest. Either way, however, this campaign is a replay of a political dynamic that has, over the past 20 years, turned California into a state where most local governments and agencies are run by the government employee unions, who own the politicians who are supposedly authorized to manage them.

*   *   *

Ed Ring is the Executive Director of the California Public Policy Center, and the editor of UnionWatch.org.