California Construction Trucking Association (CCTA)

California Proposition 22, would facilitate a Ban on State Borrowing from Local Governments, it will be on the November 2, 2010 ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment.

Language for the proposed initiative was filed with the California Attorney General on October 20, 2009 by an alliance of local government groups, including the League of California Cities and local public unions mainly in safety and fire. About 1.1 million qualifying signatures were filed with election officials on April 29.

Their goal is to “wall off” money in local government budgets from the state government. The initiative would prohibit the state from taking local government, transit, and transportation funds. Proposition 1A in 2004 and Proposition 1A in 2006 allowed the state government to borrow from some categories of local funds during fiscal emergencies.

Chris McKenzie, Executive Director of the League of California Cities, says the current system is “unsustainable, and we want to make sure that local services are not sacrificed because of the inability of state leaders to manage the state budget.”

California Proposition 26, Supermajority Vote Required to Pass New Taxes and Fees Act, is on the Nov. 2, 2010 ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment.

The proposed initiative would require a two-thirds supermajority vote in the California State Legislature to pass many fees, levies, charges, and tax revenue allocations that under existing rules can be enacted by a simple majority vote. Supporters of the initiative call it the “Stop Hidden Taxes” initiative because they believe that fees, levies, and so on imposed by the California government amount to taxes, and should therefore require the same supermajority vote required to enact income or sales tax increases.

According to Allen Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce, “The Stop Hidden Taxes initiative will prohibit politicians from using a loophole to raise even more taxes by disguising them as fees. Right now, elected officials at the state and local level pass higher taxes by labeling taxes as ‘fees’ so they can pass or increase them with a 50% vote instead of the two-thirds required by law—and in the case of many local taxes, enact them without a public vote. We need the Stop Hidden Taxes initiative to close this loophole. Higher taxes and fees make it more difficult for businesses to stay in California—the very businesses that employ Californians, create jobs, and generate revenue for our state. Increasing employment and growing the economy are crucial to California’s recovery.”

California Proposition 23, an Initiative to Suspend AB 32, the Global Warming Act of 2006 will be on the Nov. 2, 2010 ballot too.

The proposed initiative would suspend AB 32, a CO2 Cap & Trade related environmental law enacted in 2006 that is sometimes referred to as the Global Warming Solutions Act. Sponsors of the initiative refer to their measure as the California Jobs Initiative.

The goal of the initiative is to freeze the provisions of AB 32 until California’s unemployment rate drops to 5.5% or below for four consecutive quarters. AB 32 requires that greenhouse emission levels in the state be cut to 1990 levels by 2020, in a gradual process of cutting that is slated to begin in 2012. Reducing greenhouse emission levels to 1990 levels will involve cutting them by about 15% from 2010 levels. According to the Los Angeles Times, this means that “power plants, refineries, cement manufacturers, and other industries [will] be forced to install expensive equipment or purchase emissions allowances.”

AB 32 includes Section 38599, a provision allowing the Governor of California to annually suspend the provisions of AB 32 if there are “extraordinary circumstances” in place, such as “significant economic harm”. However, Gov. Schwarzenegger has said he will not suspend AB 32; therefore, the supporters of the Jobs Initiative decided to circulate a petition to accomplish a suspension tied to the health of the economy.

Louise Bedsworth, a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, predicted in April that total campaign spending on this proposition could top the $154 million record set in 2006 by Proposition 87, which would have put a $4-billion/year tax on energy companies in California. This American Lung Assoc.–sponsored proposition was handily defeated by taxpayers. If campaign spending on Prop 23 does reach that level, it could be because supporters and opponents view the battle over the suspension of AB 32 as symbolic in the larger national and international debate over claimed global warming. Steven Maviglio, the spokeshole with Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs, the key coalition rallying around keeping AB 32 intact, said, “...this could be a ground zero for the battle for the future of clean energy.” The term “clean energy” is all code for the environmental movement’s goals to test the Cap & Trade tax scheme here first. Many here today believe that environmental over-regulation is singularly responsible for California’s 12.7% unemployment rates.