I just got a press release from the “Think Long Committee” announcing that they are putting off until 2012 plans to place a measure on the statewide ballot to “broaden” the tax base in California to include taxes on services.

While I think that there is actually some opportunity to bring people together behind the idea of broadening the tax base so that such a big chunk of the state’s tax income doesn’t come from a pretty darned small group of the most wealthy Californians (thus substituting predictability for volatility in the state’s budgeting process) — this committee’s contribution to the process was a proposed ballot measure that purported to be about tax “reform” — but was in a large measure about tax increases.  Their draft proposal was not “revenue neutral” — a key component to bring any right-thinkers to the discussion about broadening the tax base — instead the Think Long Committee went with a rather-short sighted proposal to play a shell game that, when over, would have meant a $10 BILLION tax increase.  Good Lord.

The think long committee is made up of Nicolas Berggruen, David Bonderman, Eli Broad, The. Hon. Willie Brown, The Hon. Gray Davis, Maria Elena Durazo, The Hon. Ronald George, Antonia Hernandez, The Hon. Robert Hertzberg, Gerry Parsky, The Hon. Condoleeza Rice, Eric Schmidt, Terry Semel, The Hon. George Shultz, Dr. Laura D’Andrea Tyson.  You don’t need to spend a lot of time looking through the list for the conservatives — by definition, you can’t be that conservative if you think, in the midst of a recession, socking it to California taxpayers for another $10 billion for the state government is a grand idea.

While some are of the opinion that “the more tax increase proposals on the November ballot the better” — because the sheer number of them will increase the odds that they all are defeated — I am of the opinion that a tax increase initiative that isn’t on the ballot is one that cannot possibly pass.  With that it mind, I was thrilled to hear that this particularly noxious one (as it is a tax increase masquerading as “reform”) is not moving forward this year.

In the release from the Think Long Committee, they drop in this line:   “In the meantime, a high-turnout election is a terrible thing to waste.  California voters deserve the opportunity in 2012 to begin the long process of reforming state government.  Therefore, in the coming days, we will be announcing our intention to partner with other organizations by generously supporting one or more reform measures that have already been filed for the 2012 elections, consistent with our Blueprint.”

The Blueprint to which they refer is here.  Pages 9, 10 and 11 of the report talk a lot about the problems with the current tax code in the state, and their recommendations on how to make it better.  For the purposes of this commentary, what is significant is that a lot of column inches are spent talking about the state’s over-reliance on the income taxes.  In fact, one central policy objective of the Think Long Committee is to extend taxation to services, and lower the personal income tax rates in California.

It remains to be seen which reform measures will qualify for the November ballot — and of those, which ones the Think Long Committee will find are “consistent” with their group’s Blue Print.  That said, there is certainly one initiative that we know actually runs counter to the Think Long Committee’s policy objective — and that is the one being put forward by Governor Brown that would actually seek it increase the state’s income taxes (and sales taxes).  Presumably, the Think Long Committee should actually come out with a rather critical statement against a measure to further increase the state government’s reliance on income tax revenues.

Then again, most of the people associated with the Think Long Committee don’t think long at all, and undoubtedly will trip over themselves to line up the the Governor and state public employee unions behind these taxes.   Look for some sort of creative double-speak: “Well, in the long-term view, the Think Long Committee thinks we should reduce the state’s dependence on income tax revenues.  But, given the immediate need for new taxes, we are going to sacrifice our own long-term desires for the state.”

Who knows?  Maybe I will be proven wrong.  But I wouldn’t bet on it.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 3:22 pm and is filed under Blog Posts.