iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Mike Lux

GET UPDATES FROM Mike Lux
 

Why Are Gov. Brown and Sacramento Democrats Trying So Hard to Raise Taxes on the 99%?

Posted: 02/24/2012 1:18 pm

My old friend Howard Dean shocked the political establishment when he opened his speech with these words at the California Democratic State Convention in 2003:

"What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the president's unilateral intervention in Iraq?"

In so doing, he called out a Democratic establishment that was steaming towards a reckless war in Iraq while ignoring reality, facts and common sense.

I must channel Howard in asking the same question about another situation taking place, funny enough, in California. What I want to know is why are Gov. Jerry Brown and the Sacramento Democratic establishment trying so hard to raise taxes on the 99%? It's bad policy and worse politics.

Here's the story: Gov. Jerry Brown is pushing a ballot initiative for November that raises sales taxes on 100 percent of Californians, as well as income taxes on those making over $250,000. The second half of that is OK with me, but there are so many messed up things about including a sales tax in this initiative, and the sales tax isn't the only thing wrong with it. The revenue from his initiative goes to the general state budget where they will spend it on refunding prisons or who knows what. What is really strange is that the tax increases expire in five years, meaning the whole thing will have to start all over again, which seems utterly insane to me: you have to be smoking some really good weed to think all of California's fiscal problems are going to be over in five years. And here's something else that makes me really suspicious: the people funding his ballot measure aren't people (unless you agree with the Supreme Court). They are corporations. Occidental Petroleum, Blue Shield, Kaiser, the California Hospital Association and various casinos, to name a few, have all ponied up big bucks to try and raise this sales tax on the 99%. Lastly, because of the complicated nature of this initiative, the fact that it sends the revenue to Sacramento (which people hate -- the state legislature there has a lower approval rating than Congress, if you can believe it) and the fact that it taxes everybody rather than just the 1%, this will be very tough to pass (polling shows that very clearly), and I believe it will turn into a drag on Democrats politically in November.

Gov. Brown and his allies in Sacramento are messed up fundamentally on their policy as well as their politics: sales taxes are the most regressive taxes there are. If you make $40,000 a year, most of your income outside of housing is spent in necessities that have a sales tax, and that sales tax takes a big percentage of your income. If you are poor, it's an even bigger take of the money you make. But if you are wealthy, the sales tax is something you don't even notice because it is such a small percentage of your income. That's what they call regressive, and that's why progressives who care about the 99% should oppose increasing the sales tax. Progressives know that tax revenue is needed to fund essential government services, but there is no reason to pass regressive tax increases when you can pass progressive measures that are based on the ability to pay.

The good news is that there is a politically viable alternative to Gov. Brown's ill-advised proposal. There is another ballot initiative, though, (the Millionaires Tax of 2012), sponsored by some of my favorite organizations: Courage Campaign, California Federation of Teachers, California Nurses Association and a variety of community organizations. They have written a clean, easy to sell initiative that is a straight up 1% vs. 99% play: Taxes go up 3 percent on every dollar California's millionaires make over $1 million, and 5 percent on every dollar over $2 million. The estimated $6 billion it would generate annually (it doesn't expire) goes to refund budget cuts to progressive priorities like education, public safety, and infrastructure. It is written in a way to unambiguously promote progressive policies, and the politics of it make complete sense in this 99er movement moment. Unsurprisingly, polling shows a whopping 70 percent of likely California voters in November would support it.

So what I want to know is why Gov. Brown is trying to raise taxes on the 100 percent of Californians, particularly the poor and middle class, instead of supporting a measure that raises taxes on the 0.4 percent who can actually afford it?

The dynamic here stinks pretty badly all around. Brown and corporate allies on this poorly thought through tax initiative are leaning heavily on the rest of the Democratic establishment and are getting them to play along. Democratic Assembly Speaker John Perez and Democratic Senate President Darrell Steinberg have decreed that no Democratic lawmaker in Sacramento shall endorse the Millionaires Tax of 2012, and have done the governor's bidding to muscle progressives into dropping their measure. But from a political standpoint, it's bad news -- legislators have to pick between their leadership trying to force a bad idea down their throats versus telling their constituents they want to raise sales taxes on the poor and middle class instead of just taxing millionaires? Like I said, terrible politics and terribly policy.

The question now is whether progressives will fight back, or simply roll over for the governor? I get the strong sense the fight back option is going to be the order of the day, thank goodness. In yet another similarity to the Dean situation, earlier this month, Gov. Brown went to the Democratic State Convention in San Diego. In his speech to delegates and activists, he said there was some sorting out to do on these tax measures, and then said the immortal words: "You'll get your marching orders soon enough." Unfortunately for Brown, progressives aren't waiting around for their marching orders. Those who are fighting for the millionaire tax kicked his butt in organizing at the convention -- from what I hear it was obvious that progressives won the day in terms of who had the most delegate support, and key progressive leaders like Van Jones took Brown on directly by backing the Millionaires Tax.

Brown is trying to impose an unwritten rule in California of late: No one criticizes or even pressures the governor. To hell with that. Progressives have a moral and political duty to take on the Democratic establishment when they are doing the wrong thing on policy, the stupid thing on politics, or -- as in this case -- both. The governor says if competing measures are on the ballot, they will all fail. History doesn't always match up with that, but I do know this: if there are competing measures, the governor should be the one to drop his regressive, corporate-funded, Sacramento-funding, 99%-taxing, movement-killing, inside-the-Beltway measure. Just as Democrats in 2003 ignored reality, facts and common sense, Gov. Brown and Sacramento Democrats are doing so here. In the meantime, the folks behind the Millionaires Tax of 2012 are collecting signatures to put their measure on the ballot, and the progressive movement should come together and close ranks in support of their efforts. I hope California progressives will stand their ground against Gov. Brown, and refuse to take their marching orders from him when he is pushing something this fundamentally wrong.

 

Follow Mike Lux on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ProgressiveLux

My old friend Howard Dean shocked the political establishment when he opened his speech with these words at the California Democratic State Convention in 2003: "What I want to know is what in the wo...
My old friend Howard Dean shocked the political establishment when he opened his speech with these words at the California Democratic State Convention in 2003: "What I want to know is what in the wo...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 221
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cadawa
07:52 PM on 03/25/2012
Since when is shifting the tax burden back on the rich where it belongs 'bad politics'?
Brown and 99% are not the ones that are 'messed up.
photo
tnkeating
Dyslexic agnostic insomniac
07:07 PM on 02/25/2012
Common sense, its only right we ALL have a monetary investment in ourselves and each other by paying taxes, but it could and should all be in the form of a sales tax. A tax purely on what you spend not on what you earn. That is to say, no income tax, no changing tax code, no IRS. If the 1% spend more they pay more taxes. Currently only 50.5% of the people pay taxes, of that 1% covers 40%, 2 to 10% covers another 40%, and 40% of that number covers 20% of the revenues collected. Its only fair we all pay taxes and contribute to society. The lower income levels could be subsidied to help with thier taxes. Even illegal cash businesses would end up paying taxes, because it all based on what they buy.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thomas colopy
08:39 PM on 02/25/2012
First of all your first stat is wrong. Only 50.5% of people pay taxes is wrong. Wheres your source for that Fox news? You said 1% covers 40% of Americans?!? Thats ridiculous, again where are your sources for these "figures"
Second if we were to have your tax model the rich would get richer and the poor would become worse. And that wouldnt be good for America.

Heres a stat- Fox news viewers are the most MISINFORMED people.
06:48 PM on 03/25/2012
He is right here is the link. Half of Americans do not pay federal income taxes -- it is not hard to see why they always want higher income taxes and greater benefits.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/19/chart-of-the-week-nearly-half-of-all-americans-dont-pay-income-taxes/

Good luck to this country of sponges.
05:48 PM on 02/25/2012
California has 85 billionaires with a total wealth of $287 billion. Only 3.5% of that wealth would close a state budget gap of $10 billion. And although it would be a hardship for 7 people since they would no longer be billionaires, and would only have $900 million, they would probably get that 3.5% back within a year. And California would not have to cut welfare, childcare, and schools. (This is from Laura Wells website. She is the Green candidate for California Governor).
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
mackbolan
Libertas inaestimabilis res est
08:54 PM on 02/25/2012
think what heroes those rich dems would be if they voluntarily wrote checks big enough to solve the problem...personally i don't think they should have to give a dime more to support anything until government learns to live within its means the way the rest of us are forced to do...
05:26 PM on 02/25/2012
Lets do both the schools need the money.
05:05 PM on 02/25/2012
The reason Brown is doing this is quite simple. California gets about 40% of its income tax money from only 1% or so of its residents. Their incomes rise and fall depending on whether they sell assets or not. When the economy is weak, the wealthy don't sell assets at much of a taxable profit, so tax receipts fall. When tax rates go up, the wealthy are less inclined to sell because a bigger hunk is taken in taxes.Raising tax rates on the wealthy often doesn't raise any more money -- as the Brits are finding out now.

California's politicians need MONEY. They can't feed the beast on tax rates. They need cash. So, they are going where they can get it reliably, by taxing everybody, using a sales tax.

The bottom half of California tax payers pay no state income tax (same as Federal situation) so many will happily vote to raise income taxes. But, the beauty of Brown's sales tax idea is that everyone pays for the bloat and has some incentive to want to rein in the beast.
photo
Peter Combs
Amused by the illogical..no, NOT a Republican
05:01 PM on 02/25/2012
CAlifornia has been loosing its wealtheir residents...California is viewed according to the most recent studies, the LEAST business friendly state in the nation...California also has the highest unemployment rate in the nation..they cannot afford to lose any more employers or money, if they are lucky though, maybe a few more low income earners might leave..or the unemployed.....
04:44 PM on 02/25/2012
CA is going bankrupt - when you have high pensions and are a sanctuary state - this is what you get - someone has to pay for all those perks.
Artu Di-tu
El valiente vive hasta que el cobarde quiere
07:04 PM on 02/25/2012
Let's not forget all those conservative welfare States we help support, too.
08:09 PM on 02/25/2012
I love in NY, now that's a welfare state!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:30 PM on 02/25/2012
Brown is going after the sales tax revenue because that is where the money is and the easiest way to get a tax increase past the middle class on up who will feel it far less than those earning less; they are also more likely to vote and be sensitive to the fiscal strains the state and local governments are experiencing. There are not enough wealthy to make up the revenue needed so that is a feel good, no result direction.

Having said that, we will vote it down. Get the work done with the some of the bloated pensions, double dipping, salary spiking and overtime shenanigans going on in our state governemnt first and then report back Guv.
05:53 PM on 02/25/2012
Actually there are 85 billionaires with an aggregate yearly income of 287 billion. A 3% tax on them would solve the entire California budget crisis. To say there aren't enough wealthy is just plain wrong. And these are just the super-rich. I don't think we should increase on those over 250K because that will really hurt a lot of small businesses. Everybody wants to ignore the super-rich. But if you want to know where the money is, it's in their pockets. All this info is out there. Stop buying in to the brainwashing that "there is no money." There is more wealth in this country than there has ever been. It's just accumulating in the upper 0.1 percent.
02:28 PM on 02/25/2012
Unlike the greedy selfish Republicans, Democrats know that sometimes it makes good sense to raise taxes even on ourselves to dig our way out of a financial mess!
05:00 PM on 02/25/2012
Well, we have greedy, selfish Democrats here in California who want to raise taxes because they failed to make good choices with the funds we had, which is why we are in such a mess in the first place...so no, we are not going to allow them to pillage us again...
01:06 AM on 02/26/2012
Republican Gov. Schwarzenegger is the louse who fouled up the California economy with his "good" business sense!!! And now Gov. Brown has to mop up his mess just as Obama has to mop up the mess left to him by GWBush! Republicans do nothing but destroy our economy and our country and it takes a Democrat 8 years to mop up their messes!!!
02:03 PM on 02/25/2012
I generally oppose new taxes. But K-12 public education in California has become a disaster, as California ranks 4th from the bottom in per-student spending out of all 50 states, yet has some of the highest teacher salaries because of the high cost of living in California. Something has to give with an equation like this. But California still has a lot of needless spending in place on frill programs that seemed desirable when the economy was booming, that have taken on lives of their own, but that California simply can't afford now and needs to dump. While spending money alone on K-12 education will never guarantee excellence, the present equation guarantees failure.

California needs to dump its last hired - first fired rule for teachers and needs to allow the least effective teachers to be laid off when layoffs are needed. Needless programs and even frills such as early childhood education need to be dumped and K-12 needs the priority for adequate funding, with tax increases if necessary.
photo
Dredd
Our government is a wartocracy.
01:14 PM on 02/25/2012
The power that corrupts does not discriminate. Any democrat and any republican can become corrupt.
04:42 PM on 02/25/2012
Most of them are now and have been - that's the problem!
photo
Soc3947
Repeal Obama care because the IRS is corrupt
12:24 PM on 02/25/2012
Because that's where the money is.. There are not that many rich and they often vote with their feet.
But getting dollars from all the working poor is real money. Same reason for the obama care mandate on the working poor.....
09:41 AM on 02/25/2012
The basically the author is saying the liberal plan should be what?

Increase Government for me and ask someone else to pay for it.
photo
Peter Combs
Amused by the illogical..no, NOT a Republican
05:06 PM on 02/25/2012
thats about right...PERFECT!
08:52 AM on 02/25/2012
Hey....forget about california. our hardworking family is very far from wealthy. myquestion is...why should i pay taxes when 49% of americans get off free? this is unfair. talk about redistribution of....wealth.(???) EVERY EMPLOYED AMERICAN american needs to pay their fair share of taxes.
Tax reform is one of the most important issues our country faces today. you 49%ers....pay your fair share!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joey Call
09:54 AM on 02/25/2012
Umm there are automatic taxes that are taken out of everyone's paycheck they are Medicare, Social Security and Government Withholding.

Now the 49 percent you are talking about generally make less than $20,000 a year. Do you know how hard it is to live on 20k and have kids?

Also I didn't need to file last year because I made less than 5800 but yet I paid for Social Security and Medicare and Government Withholding.

So be grateful you have enough money where you can pay taxes and probably get a decent refund check if you know what your doing. And stop complaining about the person working behind a corner store counter "not paying" there fair share
conservo
Tea Partier, Atheist, Libertarian, Objectivist
11:11 AM on 02/25/2012
$20,000 per year? No. Try up to $70,000 per year.
Look, I have no problem with those making less paying less in taxes but don't say that higher earners just don't pay their fair share when they are paying the majority of taxes (basically subsidizing the lower earners). They are paying far more than their "fair share" --and still get demonized.
You expect them to support you and still get badmouthed? Where's the love?
09:27 AM on 02/26/2012
your myth is that the 49% are at the povrty level.....$20,000 and under. fye...the majority of the 49% make well over $50-$75/year. no matter what your income brcket...you have to contribute...you can't continue living off the 51%.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hawkeye58
Open to the truth...
12:13 PM on 02/25/2012
They don't pay any income tax because they don't make enough money. Look at the tax tables, even if your net income is $6 you still owe $1 in taxes. By the way 16% is a higher rate than Mitt Romney pays. Look it up for yourself, just Google tax tables.

That 49% you refer to isn't running some scam or employing high priced accountants to avoid paying taxes. They are the working poor, you can't get blood out of a turnip.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Candide33
I heart Bernie Sanders
08:33 AM on 02/25/2012
Well if Cali would not have foolishly voted for republicans just because they were actors for the last 30 years, they would not be in a bind.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joey Call
09:57 AM on 02/25/2012
Or maybe if the Democrats weren't such elitist and actually run decent campaigns and stand up for what they believe in and not have the attitude of "they will never vote for that person".

There are millions of reasons why the Republican party took over this country over the last 30 years and there many people responsible but blaming the voter is just part of the equation.
conservo
Tea Partier, Atheist, Libertarian, Objectivist
11:19 AM on 02/25/2012
Are you kidding? California has been a Democrat stronghold for decades. Any Republicans that they do elect are or the RINO, liberal, tax and spend variety. California is bluer than blue. It is no co-incidence that your blue states are all deep in debt with high unemployment, whereas, your conservative states (and the states that have recently gone conservative) are fairing quite well...and the ones that have recently turned red are working their way out of the mess that the Dems have left them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Candide33
I heart Bernie Sanders
04:04 PM on 02/25/2012
How convenient that you always forget that Arnold Schwarzenegger was a republican and only been out of office a year, and cleaning up behind him will be a major under taking.

And funny how you got the other part exactly backwards... red states are the ones in bad shape with the high unemployment and high poverty...take more federal money than they put in, high teen pregnancy , low high school graduation etc. etc. etc.

You can believe what you want, but the facts speak for themselves.
CorpTreason
Fascism... it's what's for breakfast
06:00 PM on 02/25/2012
Really? Arizona, Nevada, Florida... doing well huh? I would hate to experience your idea of doing poorly if that is your idea of doing well. As it so happens, however, CA is not a blue state when it comes to the state legislature. The split is pretty close, which means policies that require a super-majority (like tax increases) rarely pass. Southern and Inland CA are red zones. It is only the ballot initiative process that makes CA seem more progressive than it is. If "red states" had such a process you'd see some very different policies there as well.