user warning: Table 'hjta_prod.cache_similarterms' doesn't exist query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire FROM cache_similarterms WHERE cid = '1:723' in /var/www/hjta.org/public_html/includes/database.mysqli.inc on line 156.
user warning: Table 'hjta_prod.cache_similarterms' doesn't exist query: LOCK TABLES cache_similarterms WRITE in /var/www/hjta.org/public_html/includes/database.mysqli.inc on line 156.
user warning: Table 'hjta_prod.cache_similarterms' doesn't exist query: UPDATE cache_similarterms SET data = 'a:3:{i:0;O:8:\"stdClass\":28:{s:3:\"nid\";s:3:\"207\";s:3:\"vid\";s:3:\"207\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"hjta_blog\";s:6:\"status\";s:1:\"1\";s:7:\"created\";s:10:\"1201551592\";s:7:\"changed\";s:10:\"1234384755\";s:7:\"comment\";s:1:\"0\";s:7:\"promote\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"sticky\";s:1:\"0\";s:18:\"revision_timestamp\";s:10:\"1234384755\";s:5:\"title\";s:48:\"Illegal Cell Phone Taxes -- Can you hear us now?\";s:4:\"body\";s:4639:\"A young man graduated law school, passed the bar, rented an office, ran an ad, and opened for business. For three days no one showed up. Finally the next morning he saw a man approaching his door. Wanting to impress his first potential client, the young lawyer picked up the phone. He motioned the man in while shouting, \"Absolutely not! You tell those clowns in New York that I won\'t settle for less than a million. We\'re ready for trial, and I\'ll take this case to the Supreme Court if necessary. Fine. I expect an answer within 24 hours.\" The lawyer replaced the handset and turned to the man. \"Sorry about that,\" he said, \"What can I do for you?\" The man replied, \"I\'m from AT&T. I came to hook up your phone.\"\r\n\r\nThere\'s a lot of bluffing going on by lawyers and politicians pretending that they have a connection to a phone, when there\'s really no connection. We\'re talking about cell phones, and whether a city\'s utility tax applies to them. Many city attorneys in California know that the past and present collection of their city\'s utility tax on cell phone bills is illegal, absent voter approval. But they, and the politicians they represent, are trying to bluff their way out of holding an election. Here are the details:\r\n\r\nA utility tax is a tax on utility usage. The tax varies in percentage from city to city, usually between 2 to 10 percent of the utility bill. Depending on the city, the utilities taxed may include electricity, natural gas, water, sewer, refuse collection, telephone, and cable television.\r\n\r\nThe idea of taxing utility usage first became popular in California during the 1960s, before cell phones. Many cities, rather than write their own ordinance, adopted (or plagiarized) a uniform Utility Tax Ordinance, based on federal law, that was in circulation at the time.\r\n\r\nHowever, because of changes in technology many phone services no longer fit neatly into the federal definition of fifty years ago. Because they do not limit subscribers to a local area, nor charge for calls based on both time and distance, most cell phone services do not legally qualify as taxable.\r\n\r\nIn a series of decisions beginning in 2005, five federal courts of appeal across the country held that that wireless cellular services for which charges are based on time, but not distance, do not qualify as taxable telephone services under the definition contained in the Federal Excise Tax statute.\r\n\r\nTo comply with these rulings, in 2006 the IRS ended the practice of collecting the Federal Excise Tax on cell phone bills.\r\n\r\nNow that the law has been clarified, no California city (to our knowledge) has simply ceased collecting its utility tax on cell phones.\r\n\r\nSome cities are ignoring the change in federal law and are continuing to apply their existing ordinance to cell phone bills, hoping no one notices. The rest have amended their ordinances to delete the reference to federal law and redefine telephone service to include cell phones. Most of the latter group have not sought voter approval. The few cities, such as Los Angeles, that are putting their amended tax up for a vote, are engaged in campaigns of deception. For example, the measure may lower the percentage of the utility tax by half a point, while backers advertise the election as a tax reduction.\r\n\r\nCities that dupe their voters aggravate us, but not as much as cities who deny the right to vote altogether. Even in a deceptive campaign, there is a chance the local newspaper or taxpayer group will bring the true facts to light. It\'s worse when a city believes that it is above the law and can decide for itself what matters shall be trusted to the electorate. No city is above the state constitution which -- thanks to Proposition 218, authored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association -- requires voter approval for any new tax or the extension of any existing tax to new circumstances.\r\n\r\nAs a test case, we filed suit against the City of Sacramento in June. Sacramento amended its ordinance in October 2006 to remove the former reference to federal law and redefine taxable telephone service in order to impose the tax on cell phones. This amendment, we charge, required voter approval and, without it, application of the tax to cell phones is illegal. To the Sacramento City Council, which apparently believes that Proposition 218 can be ignored, we say, \"Can you hear me now?\"\r\n\r\nTim Bittle is the Director of Legal Affairs and Jon Coupal is the President of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association -- California\'s largest taxpayer organization -- which is dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and promoting taxpayers\' rights.\";s:6:\"teaser\";s:596:\"A young man graduated law school, passed the bar, rented an office, ran an ad, and opened for business. For three days no one showed up. Finally the next morning he saw a man approaching his door. Wanting to impress his first potential client, the young lawyer picked up the phone. He motioned the man in while shouting, \"Absolutely not! You tell those clowns in New York that I won\'t settle for less than a million. We\'re ready for trial, and I\'ll take this case to the Supreme Court if necessary. Fine. I expect an answer within 24 hours.\" The lawyer replaced the handset and turned to the man.\";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:66:\"california-commentary/illegal-cell-phone-taxes-can-you-hear-us-now\";s:12:\"field_byline\";a:1:{i:0;a:1:{s:5:\"value\";s:28:\"by Jon Coupal and Tim Bittle\";}}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:3:{i:53;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"53\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:11:\"Court Cases\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:131;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:3:\"131\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:10:\"Sacramento\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:69;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"69\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:12:\"Tax Increase\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}}}s:22:\"last_comment_timestamp\";s:10:\"1234384755\";s:17:\"last_comment_name\";N;s:13:\"comment_count\";s:1:\"0\";s:8:\"taxonomy\";a:4:{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:53;r:31;i:131;r:37;i:69;r:43;}s:10:\"page_title\";b:0;}i:1;O:8:\"stdClass\":28:{s:3:\"nid\";s:3:\"198\";s:3:\"vid\";s:3:\"198\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"hjta_blog\";s:6:\"status\";s:1:\"1\";s:7:\"created\";s:10:\"1160360917\";s:7:\"changed\";s:10:\"1236623698\";s:7:\"comment\";s:1:\"0\";s:7:\"promote\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"sticky\";s:1:\"0\";s:18:\"revision_timestamp\";s:10:\"1236623698\";s:5:\"title\";s:27:\"Taxpayers Are Not Mushrooms\";s:4:\"body\";s:5499:\"Taxpayers are not mushrooms. So why do government officials keep us in the dark and feed us manure? Two seemingly unrelated stories are unfolding in California that are illustrative of the mindset of some in government that citizens and taxpayers are entitled to know neither how their money is being spent nor how it will be spent in the future.\r\nThe first story takes place in Petaluma, a small city in Sonoma County. There, a city resident had some questions about a certain \"intergovernmental charge\" the City is imposing on its own sewer department. The charge is not insignificant. At over $9 million, it represents a levy of over $500 per citizen. Now, according to the city, the $9 million charge represents indirect costs incurred by the City for the benefit of the enterprise of providing sewer service.\r\nFair enough. But our city resident, who also happens to be a former city council member, has real suspicions that the costs cannot be justified and that the city is simply trying to pad its general fund at the expense of those who use sewer service. In other words, a classic hidden tax.\r\nMoreover, it is apparent that the City is \"double dipping\" -- charging an administrative fee for work that is already accounted for through intergovernmental charges.\r\nIn order to confirm what seems fairly obvious, our stalwart citizen has tried repeatedly to obtain public records to verify his suspicions. But the City has stonewalled the release of the requested documentation. No fewer than a half dozen verbal, written and emailed requests have been ignored. When the citizen submitted a formal request under the California Public Records Act seeking detailed information, the City produced only a two-page summary -- a meaningless and nonresponsive document.\r\nIn sum, the City of Petaluma has made clear its intentions never to reveal the requested financial records.\r\nThe second story has a similar theme. In Sacramento, there is an effort bordering on desperation to keep the professional NBA team, the Sacramento Kings, from leaving the city. The ultra-rich owners of the team, the Maloof family which owns The Palms Casino in Las Vegas, are trying to milk the taxpayers for all they are worth. They are also getting a lot of help from city and county officials.\r\nDespite overwhelming evidence that public subsidies for professional sports franchises are at best a wash for taxpayers and usually a negative, city and county leaders have placed a one-eighth-cent sales tax increase on the ballot to pay for, among other things, a new NBA arena. (Of course, the Kings owners want all the revenue from the naming rights, parking, concessions and surrounding businesses, but taxpayers will pay for the debt service on the project).\r\nThe proposed tax -- which is trailing badly in the polls -- is flawed for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that \"the deal\" hasn\'t been worked out yet between the City, the County, the Kings ownership, and the developer of the proposed site. Indeed, even after the tax hike measure was put on the ballot, the Maloofs stormed out of a negotiation session over the number of parking spaces they would get.\r\nIn the wake of the collapsed negotiations, a city official sent a revised proposal to the King\'s ownership via email. Because voters will be voting on this proposal in a few short weeks, the opponents of the tax demanded that the communication between the government officials and the ownership of the franchise be released to the public. The reason is simple: Taxpayers and voters want to see how much the City of Sacramento is willing to give away in public subsidies to the team\'s owners. The answer to that question is likely to have a dramatic effect on how local citizens will vote on the tax increase.\r\nBut, just like Petaluma, Sacramento officials have refused to disclose this obviously public communication.\r\nTwo years ago, Proposition 59 presented the following question to California voters: \"Shall the Constitution be amended to include public\'s right of access to meetings of government bodies and writings of government officials while preserving specified constitutional rights and retaining existing exclusions for certain meetings and records?\"\r\nBy more than 83%, California voters said yes to the question of making the availability of public documents a Constitutional right. The failure to provide public documents is violation of that right.\r\nIn both Petaluma and Sacramento, government officials are wrongfully keeping information from the public that the public has the right to know. In both Petaluma and Sacramento, officials have revealed their distain and contempt for the voting public and further revealed their arrogant attitude that says, \"We know better than you. How dare you interfere with us?\"\r\nBut Petaluma and Sacramento have one more thing in common. They were both sued by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. It\'s time we let the courts weigh in and tell secretive officials about the importance of open government.\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\nTo print or download a PDF version of this commentary, <a href=\"/pdf/commentary/HJTACalCommentaryV4-41.pdf\">click here</a>.\r\n\";s:6:\"teaser\";s:353:\"Taxpayers are not mushrooms. So why do government officials keep us in the dark and feed us manure? Two seemingly unrelated stories are unfolding in California that are illustrative of the mindset of some in government that citizens and taxpayers are entitled to know neither how their money is being spent nor how it will be spent in the future.\";s:3:\"log\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"format\";s:1:\"3\";s:3:\"uid\";s:1:\"4\";s:4:\"name\";s:10:\"Jon Coupal\";s:7:\"picture\";s:28:\"files/pictures/picture-4.jpg\";s:4:\"data\";s:111:\"a:4:{s:7:\"contact\";i:1;s:17:\"mimemail_textonly\";i:0;s:14:\"picture_delete\";s:0:\"\";s:14:\"picture_upload\";s:0:\"\";}\";s:4:\"path\";s:49:\"california-commentary/taxpayers-are-not-mushrooms\";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:3:{i:130;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:3:\"130\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:8:\"Petaluma\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:131;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:3:\"131\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:10:\"Sacramento\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:69;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"69\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:12:\"Tax Increase\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}}}s:22:\"last_comment_timestamp\";s:10:\"1234319383\";s:17:\"last_comment_name\";N;s:13:\"comment_count\";s:1:\"0\";s:8:\"taxonomy\";a:4:{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:130;r:92;i:131;r:98;i:69;r:104;}s:10:\"page_title\";b:0;}i:2;O:8:\"stdClass\":28:{s:3:\"nid\";s:4:\"1147\";s:3:\"vid\";s:4:\"1147\";s:4:\"type\";s:10:\"news_story\";s:6:\"status\";s:1:\"1\";s:7:\"created\";s:10:\"1267830620\";s:7:\"changed\";s:10:\"1267831778\";s:7:\"comment\";s:1:\"0\";s:7:\"promote\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"sticky\";s:1:\"0\";s:18:\"revision_timestamp\";s:10:\"1267831778\";s:5:\"title\";s:61:\"ARTICLE: Sneaky Gas Tax Scheme Could Raise Prices at the Pump\";s:4:\"body\";s:578:\"The California Legislature has approved a complex plan to eliminate the current 6 percent sales tax on gas and replace it with a 17.3 cent per gallon excise tax. This manuever will not raise prices at the pumps now, but the new formula could sock motorists with higher taxes as the price of oil itself fluctuates. Opposition leaders denounced the proposal as a tax increase disguised to avoid Prop. 13\'s two thirds vote requirement.\r\n\r\n<a href=\"http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/03/04/1846476/lawmakers-send-budget-package.html\" target=\"blank\">Click Here</a> to read this article.\";s:6:\"teaser\";s:578:\"The California Legislature has approved a complex plan to eliminate the current 6 percent sales tax on gas and replace it with a 17.3 cent per gallon excise tax. This manuever will not raise prices at the pumps now, but the new formula could sock motorists with higher taxes as the price of oil itself fluctuates. Opposition leaders denounced the proposal as a tax increase disguised to avoid Prop. 13\'s two thirds vote requirement.\r\n\r\n<a href=\"http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/03/04/1846476/lawmakers-send-budget-package.html\" target=\"blank\">Click Here</a> to read this article.\";s:3:\"log\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"format\";s:1:\"3\";s:3:\"uid\";s:2:\"21\";s:4:\"name\";s:8:\"erichjta\";s:7:\"picture\";s:0:\"\";s:4:\"data\";s:111:\"a:4:{s:7:\"contact\";i:1;s:17:\"mimemail_textonly\";i:0;s:14:\"picture_delete\";s:0:\"\";s:14:\"picture_upload\";s:0:\"\";}\";s:4:\"path\";s:58:\"news/article-sneaky-gas-tax-scheme-could-raise-prices-pump\";s:12:\"field_byline\";a:1:{i:0;a:1:{s:5:\"value\";s:0:\"\";}}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:1:{i:69;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"69\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:12:\"Tax Increase\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}}}s:22:\"last_comment_timestamp\";s:10:\"1267831778\";s:17:\"last_comment_name\";N;s:13:\"comment_count\";s:1:\"0\";s:8:\"taxonomy\";a:2:{i:5;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:1:\"5\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"2\";s:4:\"name\";s:4:\"News\";s:11:\"description\";s:4:\"News\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:69;r:153;}s:10:\"page_title\";b:0;}}', created = 1269062200, expire = 1269065800, headers = '' WHERE cid = '1:723' in /var/www/hjta.org/public_html/includes/database.mysqli.inc on line 156.

ARTICLE: They Can't Live within Our Means

July 3, 2009

HJTA president Jon Coupal published an article in the OC Register , spotlighting Democrat Noreen Evans' inflammatory actions towards finding a budget solution. He goes on to explain California's gloomy financial condition and what will happen if politicians like Ms. Evans do not start taking the situation seriously.

Click Here to read the article.