Jon Coupal, the President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, sent over this exclusive piece with all of the discussions that somehow the Governor’s proposal to increase the state sales tax by a full cent for years may "not" be a tax increase — um, yeah, it is…

A Tax Increase is a Tax Increase
By Jon Coupal

We’re hearing only rumors of the budget "deal" that Don Perata claims he has with Governor Schwarzenegger but, if what we’ve heard has any basis in reality, the proposed tax increase is a non-starter. 

The rumored deal involves a "temporary" sales tax increase that would, not only be repealed in three years, but would actually be reduced until it is "paid back" to the taxpayers. 

A couple of simple concepts here.  First, even a temporary tax increase is still a tax increase.  Any legislator who pledged not to raise taxes would be breaking that pledge – irrespective of any characterization that the increase would sunset at some point in the future or that the funds would somehow be "returned" to taxpayers.

Second, does anyone think that the same tax-and-spend forces pushing for massive tax hikes now are simply going to roll over in three years and let the sales tax rate revert to what it is now?  Or even lower?  No one in Sacramento is that stupid or naive.   If the Legislature goes along with
this rumored deal and imposes an additional one cent sales tax, don’t expect it ever to go away.  As soon as it is approved, the new programs and employees who depend on it will begin their campaign to make the tax permanent. 

The French have a saying, "There is nothing so permanent as the temporary."

When Pete Wilson confronted the budget crises of 1991 he responded with a penny and a quarter tax increase, with a half cent to sunset the next year.
However, as soon as the half cent expired, state and local officials found a way to extend it.  They figured Californians had become accustomed to the higher tax and could be lured into approving Proposition 172, touted as a way to boost local law enforcement and fire protection.  Several wildfires, given great publicity by the tax backers, allowed Proposition 172 to pass by a narrow margin.   We have been paying the extra 1.25 cents ever since.

Any Republican who would consider voting for this is saying three things.  First, they would be saying "Californians aren’t taxed enough."  We doubt voters – especially in Republican districts, would agree with this assertion.  Second, a vote for this proposal is saying, "California government – both at the state and local government – is relatively free of waste, fraud and abuse and we have cut to the bone."  Again, voters are likely to respond to this assertion with a barnyard expletive.  Finally, a Republican vote for this would be saying "My political career is over and I going into the Witness Protection Program."

In short, a vote for a tax increase – when California’s economy is bleeding to death – would be the ultimate act of cowardice, not courage.

This entry was posted on Thursday, August 14th, 2008 at 12:00 am and is filed under Blog Posts.