Most people expect to see political ads that attack the character or decisions of political rivals, but the only word that seems to come to mind when viewing Carly Fiorina’s new ad is “shocking”.  Perhaps Carly is on to something — the ad, which has been featured on Rachel Maddow’s show already has over 300,000 hits and growing.

Despite the over-the-top method chosen by the Fiorina campaign, it might very well have the intended effect — framing Tom Campbell as a FCINO.  The term coined in the ad is an acronym that stands for Fiscal Conservative In Name Only.  Maybe Carly will receive some heat for use of excessive force against Tom, but the damage will be done — the conservative voters who are likely to vote in the primary will drop Campbell because of his poor record on taxes.

According to the moderator of the call (I was on the call Sunday, but didn’t catch the fellow’s name) there were several hundred callers who tuned in to hear Chuck talk about the issues and his upcoming campaign events.  Chuck was even able to field questions directly from listeners on the call — specifically, he spoke to a woman who asked Chuck about picking up the job market for unemployed workers over 60 years of age.  Chuck also used the opportunity to promote his 24-hour money bomb, an online fundraising drive.

Chuck’s event Friday wasn’t the first time I have seen a Tele-Town Hall, although it was the most elaborate.  I spent some time at the David Harmer campaign for California’s 10th Congressional District back in November where Harmer spent most of his GOTV time on the phone with voters in a similar fashion.  According to the campaign staff I spoke with, they had between 300 to 500 callers on per call and a long queue of people interested in asking questions of Harmer.

Tele-Townhalls might be the first of many future campaign tools that candidates like Chuck DeVore and David Harmer rely on to communicate their message directly to voters.  Will it be the key to Chuck defeating Carly Fiorina or Barbara Boxer this November?

With the new year comes another budget stalemate in Sacramento.  Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to release his proposed budget for the 2010-2011 fiscal year.  Unfortunately, the Legislative Analysts Office report predicts that the state will already be suffering from a $6.3 billion dollar deficit during the 2009-2010 budget year, before the new budget is enacted.  Additionally, the LAO made the following predictions about the upcoming budget.

Over $20 Billion of Budget Problems Need to Be Addressed in Coming Months

According to the LAO report, the 2009-2010 budget has a $6.3 billion deficit and the 2010-2011 has a $14 billion projected deficit.  This means that the Legislature will need to address $20 billion in budget solutions before anything else.

Failed Budget Solutions Responsible for Newly Identified Budget Problem

The budget produced by the Legislature and Governor last year assumed certain budget savings that were never realized.  Specifically, the prison system and Medi-Cal were unable to achieve billions of dollars in expected savings.  Basically, the Legislature made unrealistic assumptions about how much money in savings could be achieved from these programs in the short term, without making the sweeping changes necessary.

No Way That California Can Avoid Reprioritizing Its Finances

California remains on the brink of insolvency.  The state’s payments are being made using accounting tricks that are not budget reforms, but rather stop-gap measures to keep itself afloat.  Expect a long budget fight again this year.

Unfortunately, the Legislature is probably not going to take up serious talks about the budget until after the Governor’s May Revision five months from now.  Is there a brave soul in the Legislature who will have real budget discussions prior to May?  Perhaps the new Assembly Speaker Juan Perez will take the issue up.

The elephant in the room when discussing corrections funding is the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, more commonly referred to as the prison guard union.  One of the largest unions in the state, the CCPOA wields large amounts of influence over the decisions of Democrats and Republicans alike.  Rather than take on the prison guard union — which pays wages and benefits to its employees that lie far above market levels  and risk challenges at election time — lawmakers continue to take on the wedge issue of prisoner release.

According to the United States Department of Labor (May 2008) the mean average annual wage for prison guards is $41,340 before benefits.  California is the top payer among all 50 states at $63,230 per year while it’s neighbors New Mexico and Arizona pay $27,780 and $37,130 respectively.  4 of the top 5 highest paying urban centers in the nation for prison guards are in California (San Francisco, Bakersfield, Inland Empire and Stockton).

One can see that if California’s lawmakers, especially California’s Governor, were willing to take on the labor union that has a stranglehold over the California Corrections Budget, the state would easily be able to meet its budget saving needs without releasing prisoners.  It is merely a matter of legislative backbone.

In November of 2005 Governor Schwarzenegger proposed Proposition 75, which would have made public employee union membership voluntary, reducing their membership, income, partisanship and ultimately their power over the state’s elected officials.  When Prop 75 didn’t pass, rather than prepare for the next election, Governor Schwarzenegger became a born-again Democrat and proposed environmental policy changes.

Perhaps it is time for our Governor, or another one of our state’s leaders, to consider another try at reining in out-of-control unions, as Prop 75 intended to do.

Senator and Taxpayer Advocate George Runner has announced the endorsement of Senate Republican leader Dennis Hollingsworth and Senator John Benoit in his campaign for Board of Equalization. This announcement comes on the heels of a successful fundraising period and the recent endorsements of Senators Aanestad, Strickland and Dutton.

In addition to being endorsed by a growing list of Republican leaders throughout the state, Runner has secured positions on the most proven and effective Republican slate mailers likely to be mailed to voters in the 2010 primary election.

“I am honored that Senate Republican Leader Hollingsworth and Senator Benoit have endorsed my candidacy for Board of Equalization,” said Runner. “Our campaign continues to see early momentum in fundraising and endorsements. I look forward to continuing the progress in the weeks and months ahead.”

Senator George Runner currently represents a large southern portion of BOE District 2 in the State Senate. He is well known statewide for his work in implementing the successful Amber Alert system and passing Jessica’s Law in 2006. He resides in Lancaster with his wife, former Assemblywoman Sharon Runner.

By Jon Coupal, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Senator Steinberg, I realize that you are not inclined to listen to the concerns of ordinary taxpayers so you will probably ignore thismessage — hmmm, perhaps if we called ourselves a taxpayers “union” that would get your attention. Also, if you do read this, it will probably not be for several weeks as, immediately after the California Senate voted on the budget amendments, you jetted off to Hawaii.

In the political arena, citizens have come to expect a certain amount of dissembling from their elected officials. But even expecting a “normal” level of nonsense from politicians, there are certain moments when we hear something so profoundly inane from elected representatives that our jaws drop.

On Thursday, you addressed reporters in the hallway of the Capitol to discuss the schedule of taking the vote on the negotiated budget amendments. One of your observations, unprompted by any reporter’s question, was as follows:

“In California, one of the things we need to fix is the fact that we make these decisions with one hand tied behind our backs. The two-thirds requirement does not allow [for] a real discussion about revenue. And I think the people, from what I’ve been told, and what I’ve been hearing over the last several days, when it comes to the cuts side, we’re saying enough is enough. Whenever this is over, with whatever time we are able to buy here, we are going to work to fix what we know is broken about this system.”

So, Senator, you say the two-thirds vote has prevented a real discussion about state revenue. Excuse us, but taxpayers clearly remember you presiding over the State Senate back in February — if you have already forgotten, you really do need a Hawaiian vacation — when the California Legislature passed the largest tax increase ever enacted by any statehouse in the history of America and it did so with a two-thirds vote.

How is it, then, that you can say with a straight face that the two-thirds vote is a barrier to revenue increases? The two-thirds vote certainly hasn’t prevented California from being one of the highest taxed state in America. If it has provided any protection at all, it has merely prevented California’s economy from being transformed by you and your special interest government employee union backers into an American version of the North Korean lifestyle.

Fortunately, the majority of Californians do not share your views on the two-thirds vote. It remains overwhelmingly popular in poll after poll. This support for the two-thirds vote is no doubt based, at least in part, on the continued perception that Sacramento’s woes are due to overspending and not lack of revenue.

About the same time that you were holding court before reporters on Thursday, Rasmussen issued a poll of Californians showing that seventy-eight percent (78%) say a bigger problem is the unwillingness of politicians to control government spending rather than voters’ unwillingness to pay enough in taxes. Only 13% say voter reluctance to pay more taxes is a bigger problem.

Rather than focus on undermining one of the few protections that California taxpayers enjoy so that you can increase taxes, perhaps as soon as you return from Hawaii you ought to focus on the long-neglected reforms this state so desperately needs. If you are looking for instances of government waste, fraud and abuse in the use of taxpayers’ dollars, this is the one area where California already suffers an embarrassment of riches.

Jon 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. Find this column online at http://hjta.org/california-commentary/aloha-senator-steinberg

By Michael Warnken, California Commonwealth

Have you ever had a problem with Government? Have you ever tried to meet with or discuss that issue with your representative? You generally cannot and usually, unless you have loads of money, a lobbyist or a PAC supporting you, you are left to their assistants who serve at the pleasure of each representative. It probably makes you feel like a second-class citizen in your own state, or even worse, invisible. Under-representation is key to this and it is something we need to take a look at if we are to properly reform our state government.

The United States was founded on the right of representation, in particular, the idea that government derives its appropriate powers from the consent of the governed. “Taxation without representation” was a major reason the original 13 colonies chose to declare their independence from the crown.

The issue of representation is both a political and a legal issue. The courts have addressed it for over fifty years now. One of the most important decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court was ushered in by former California Governor and Chief Justice Earl Warren when he held that legislative districts should be equal in population under the 1960’s “one man, one vote” principle. This decision forced state legislatures across the nation to become attentive to the numerous mal-apportioned districts and representational imbalances that existed. The Court also noted that the “right to vote is of special importance” because it preserves “other basic civil rights.”

These decisions by the Court were not made in a vacuum. Congress soon echoed them by passing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which effectuated the right to vote to minorities, particularly blacks who through various schemes were frozen out of elected positions across the nation.

But the Voting Rights Act only went so far. The time for another major reform of our representational system is long overdue. The size of the California Assembly has been frozen for over 150 years. 1854 was the last time that California increased the size of the Assembly, from 63 members to the current 80. In the 1854s, California had 207,000 people. As of January 1, 2009, we have over 38 million people, over one hundred times as the Assembly districts went from 2,500 to about 480,000 people!

Also, in lieu of increasing Assembly-members, the legislature has continued the practice of taking on more assistants, staffers beholden to no one but their employer – the government. This should be of broad concern as the Assembly is where the common citizen was supposed to have access for redress, which they clearly do not have.

In comparison, other states are far better off than we are. Texas, the second least represented state, has districts less than one-third the size of our own. New Hampshire and Vermont have one rep for every three to four thousand people. Our Assembly seats rival the size of the US House of Representatives. Even the national legislatures of most foreign countries are more representative than our Assembly. Britain’s Commons has better than one hundred thousand to each and Austria has districts of less than fifty thousand people.

We all feel the effects of this form of electoral dilution. Proper representation is essential to good government. It is the base on which the whole system rests. Its duties include acting as guardian of the purse of public monies, sitting on and attending to all 50+ Committees and the 250+ Jurisdictions within them. Further, it’s supposed to communicate the citizen’s interests, restrain the executive, and prevent malfeasance in the judiciary. But it’s doubtful if our legislature can perform any of these duties adequately.

America’s founders noted that it was essential for the number of representatives to increase with changes in the size of the population, and that legislatures that did not increase with the size of the populace would cease to be democratic. It is now time to consider this matter dutifully and solve this problem that has been ignored for too long.

So as I asked before, do you ever feel invisible? Many people do and it’s probably because in many ways, to your representatives, you are!

Today the California Budget is all but signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.  After 9 months of negotiating, a coup d’état in the California GOP caucuses, a special election and weeks of state issued IOUs all parties have finally reached a budget plan everyone can swallow.  The taxpayers of California should be applauding the efforts of the California Republican Party, whose leadership has been effectively disseminating pro-growth messaging and whose elected officials held the line on tax increases.  Fortunately, this is only part of the victory.  The Assembly also managed to stop major borrowing from local governments that would have crippled local infrastructures.

The Taxpayers have sent a strong message to Sacramento leaders.  With the failure of Propositions 1A thru 1E on the May Special Election ballot by a 2 to 1 margin, the voters clearly communicated that they want to see government live within it’s means.  This has been evident in the tone of negotiations in Sacramento over the last 3 months.  Taxes were only briefly on the table, but after significant pushback from Republicans — some facing recall attempts for backing the last batch of taxes — the Oil Severance Tax was taken off of the table.

Borrowing From Local Governments

Unfortunately, the Democrats’ alternative to making the cuts needed to reduce the size of the Sacramento Bureaucracy was to borrow money from local governments.  By taking money normally used to maintain local infrastructure, what they proposed would force the various county and city agencies to operate very lean budgets in order to let Sacramento Bureaucrats continue to live beyond their means in the Capitol.

Rather than allowing local governments to use their tax revenues to fund local programs — transportation, public safety, fire, public health, etc — these agencies are forced to send that tax revenue to Sacramento.  While the Democratic Bureaucrats in the Capitol fight to protect their own padded budgets, these local services are forced to make cuts.  Democrats try to justify this by increasing allocations to local safety net services.  What this amounts to is the counties and cities sending their money to Sacramento and then asking for Sacramento to send it back.  The transactional expenses accumulated through this process are wasteful.  If Democrats truly cared about the safety net, they would relinquish control of these funds and allow local governments to make their own decisions about their own money.

Thomas Paine once wrote “He who governs least, governs best.”  This quote embodies the Republican ideology concerning state control of local government money.  Local elected officials are the best people to be make decisions about how local government money is spent.

Fortunately this proposal was removed from the budget in the Assembly, and the voters have Republicans to thank for the maintainence of local government budgets.

Drilling Off The Coast of Santa Barbara

The other main proposal that brought much controversy during the approval process was the proposed drilling off of the coast of Santa Barbara.  The California Coastline is one of the few natural wonders that remain in the state.  The proposal in the budget would have decimated the California coast for a measley $100 million each year.  This amount of money wouldn’t even put a dent in the $26 billion deficit that lawmakers were attempting to close — and California would have to ruin it’s natural beauty to attain it.

Again the California State Assembly made the best decision by striking this proposal from the budget.

California Taxpayers Have Reason To Be Optimistic

This budget includes no tax increases and begins to make the changes needed to reform California’s broken budget system and frail economy.  If this momentum continues — specifically with continued voter support of fiscal conservatism in the 2010 election cycle — the fiscal year 2010-2011 budget is likely to continue down the road of smart budget reform.

By Jon Coupal, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

By any measure, California’s government employee unions have been overwhelmingly successful — in advancing their own interests.

Pay for government workers ranks first out of 50 states. They have no competition. Their political clout allows them to select most of their own supervisors, otherwise known as the members of the state Legislature. And much about what they do and how they are compensated is kept from the taxpayers — their theoretical bosses — who pay their salaries and for their benefits.

For the unions, the key to success is the ability to continue to keep taxpayers in the dark, but the light is beginning to shine through and the public who must pay the bills is beginning to catch on.

Some government employees will complain that they should not be subject to question because they work hard, have a lot of financial responsibilities and live in a state that has a high cost of living.  Of course, this is true for the rest of us as well. Public employees who do not want to concede how desirable their jobs are — let’s not forget to take into consideration the rich benefits and lavish pensions — can take the following challenge: They can quit their jobs and then count the number of qualified applicants. In a declining economy with California unemployment nearing 12%, does anyone really doubt that most positions would draw long lines of applicants?

Yes, for the unions it is much better when most taxpayers remain unaware of just how well they are doing. This is why, for example, they have been resisting allowing the public to know how much some of the state’s top pension recipients are receiving at taxpayer expense.

The California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility, a public pension watchdog group has been documenting the number of former government employees receiving yearly pensions in excess of $100,000. While many government retirees receive less, so far, the Foundation has uncovered 5,115 who get $100,000 or more each year from CalPERS. However, there are a significant number of government employees whose pensions are paid from other retirement funds.

When the Foundation attempted to obtain similar pension information from Contra Costa County, a retired employee sued the county retirement board, claiming that releasing her pension amount was an invasion of privacy.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association attorney Tim Bittle argued for the Foundation saying the public interest in knowing how public money is spent, outweighs any embarrassment public employees might feel from the disclosure of their retirement benefits. Also supporting the release of the pension information were the Contra Costa Times, the Los Angeles Times and the California Newspaper Publishers Association.

The Superior Court judge ruled for the taxpaying public and ordered the records released saying “transparent government is the cornerstone of our democracy.”

This is an object lesson the government employee unions would do well to heed. As upset as the public has become upon learning that they must work longer and harder to assure that those in government can retire earlier than most in the private sector and enjoy a secure retirement with pension benefits well beyond the average non-government worker, they become truly angry when they find there has been a effort to keep this information from them.

Jon 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.  Find this column online at http://www.hjta.org/california-commentary/no-keeping-secrets-taxpayers

By Senator Bob Huff

Amidst the state’s budget turmoil and raging “cuts versus taxes” debate, Governor Schwarzenegger has sounded a voice calling for reform. Reforming state government has been strongly advocated by Republicans for years. Now, the Governor has seized upon the disarray of unsustainable expenditures and brought to the forefront of discussion reforms to various state programs, including CalPERS, the state employees’ retirement system. The CalPERs retirement system is used not just by the state, but also county and local governments.

Whether or not CalPERS reform is included in the final budget deal, there is no question that the current mechanisms determining the lavish pensions of state employees must be addressed. To be clear, even with some sort of reform, those in the system now will retain their benefits and current retirement formulas. This is a contractual agreement that can’t be broken. We need to ensure these promises are kept and the widows and children of our public safety officers are taken care of. But without some reasonable and responsible reform, the state’s general fund will collapse again under the burden of employer obligations. The current retirement system is draining scarce government resources and jeopardizing the ability of some local governments to sustain core services. The future financial requirements of some promises are simply not sustainable; we must adopt a more fiscally responsible approach.

Comprehensive reform will not come easy however, as many disagree on how best to overhaul the current system. For most categories of workers, one proposal includes a reduction in the percentage withholding for pensions, while simultaneously increasing the minimum age at which those benefits may be accessed. For instance, the current formula for many peace officers is 3% at age 50. The formula takes the amount of years that you have worked – say 25 – and multiplies by 3. “3% at age 50” equals 75% of your salary at retirement. Many of these peace officers retire at 90% of their last salary depending on how many years they served. This would change to 2.5% at age 55, effectively encouraging a longer career committal.

Another pension proposal would remove the floor for contribution levels to a worker’s pension and be accompanied by a more transparent and accountable CalPERS system, which would produce plain-language reports to be evaluated by the Treasurer and reviewed by the Legislature.

All told, reforming the CalPERS system wouldn’t score any savings in our current budget, but reform would save billions in reduced health care costs, benefits and pension payouts in coming years. My Senate Republican colleagues and I are glad to see a renewed drive to reform government and hope that it inspires all citizens- well aware of the down economy and its impact on government revenue – to take an active role in helping our government conserve every penny.

Bob Huff has a long history of public service and community involvement. He was elected in November of 2008 to represent the 29th Senate District, a region that includes portions of Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino Counties. Prior to serving in the Senate, Bob Huff served in the Assembly from 2004-2008, representing the 60th Assembly District.