[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: California Focus: Our tax dollars turned against us When the Legislature is in session, the Capitol is awash with millions of dollars worth of lobbying talent. You have never seen so many suits per square yard in your life. In Sacramento, nothing of importance happens without the involvement of lobbyists. They draft legislation, find sponsors and co-authors, visit legislators and staff, build coalitions and generally engage in serious horse trading to secure passage of bills favorable to their clients and to crush those that threaten their clients. During the final debate on bills in either the Assembly or Senate chambers, lobbyists are frequently hanging around just outside these chambers passing a note to a sergeant at arms to deliver to a particular member beseeching for just one more meeting to secure a critical vote. So influential are these hired guns that the lobbying corps is known as the "Third House." The demand for their services is so strong that some lobbying firms represent clients on both sides of the same issue – but more about that later. So, who foots lobbying's multimillion-dollar tab? Sure, the usual suspects – trial lawyers, doctors, oil companies, tobacco companies, the insurance industry – spend tons of cash. But ordinary Californians might be surprised to know that they finance more lobbying – with their tax dollars – than any of these other "special" interests. How can this be? The little-known truth is that the biggest spenders of lobbying dollars are local governments, cities and counties – $40 million in the most-recent fiscal year. And if you guessed that cities and counties, who are constantly pleading poverty, are doling out this cash to influence the Legislature to lower taxes, you'd be wrong. One of the arguments made by those representing local government is they need to lobby to protect themselves from state government's tendency to take their revenue. This argument ignores the fact that voters in 2004 passed a proposition that barred the state from taking from the locals except in extreme circumstances. Even then, it outlines very specific requirements for rapid repayment. In fact, some of the bills that local governments attempt to influence with our tax dollars seem irrelevant or actually adverse to the interests of their constituents. Examples include the city of Los Angeles' lobbying on behalf of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants and against modest restrictions on the use of eminent domain to seize private property. Ironically, according to media reports, outside lobbyists hired by cities and counties sometimes work against them and for other clients with competing interests. A bill considered this year that would have phased-out the use of plastic-foam food containers was supported by the city of Los Angeles. In opposition were the American Chemistry Council and California Grocers Association. The city and its opponents on this issue were all clients of the same lobbying firm. Even more offensive to taxpayers is the spending by the California League of Cities, whose lobbying expenditures last year were reported as nearly $2 million. The league, actually a quasilobbying organization, supports itself through memberships paid by the cities with money taken from taxpayers. This puts the league, which is not accountable to any single city, an additional step beyond being accountable to the average citizen who pays its way. Because of this, league officials feel they can became involved in whatever issue they wish, with impunity. For example, in 1996, the league opposed Proposition 218, the Right to Vote on Taxes Act, and spent money in a failed attempt to defeat the measure, which has expanded Californians' right to vote on local taxes. Taxpayers rightfully question why local government interests need to spend all this money on lobbying. The majority of legislators already have some local government experience, so it is not as if they have to be educated on local issues. And of course, the positions taken by local governments are, more often than not, contrary to the interests of taxpayers. When was the last time a city or county lobbied for lower taxes, less regulation or greater property rights for its citizens? So, when local governments use taxpayer dollars to lobby for greater powers to tax their citizens, this is nothing short of taxpayers having to pay for the bullets fired in their direction.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||