|
|
Today’s Issue |
|
|
|
|
Leonard Letter |
|
|
|
|
Taxpayer Rights |
|
|
|
|
Biography |
|
|
|
|
Contribute |
|
|
|
|
Contact |
|
|
|
|
Links |
|
|
|
|
Today’s Issue:
Recent | Archives
Inside the Leonard Letter
By: Bill Leonard on: Monday, May 05th, 2008
*** CSBA to Wealthy Californians: Run, Run Away***
I was contacted recently by a California School Boards Association member who was preparing for the group’s May meeting and wanted my comments on the preparatory materials sent out to Association members. At the meeting the Association will on its policy platform, which is essentially the members’ position on the state budget, which the Governor now pegs at $20 billion in the red. The CSBA has already decided that it will oppose a budget that is only balanced by cuts and says it is looking for “additional revenues.” Sadly, to justify looking for more revenue, CSBA points to the Legislative Analyst’s alternative budget that finds revenue by doing away with “tax expenditures” like the home mortgage deduction, the Sales and Use tax exemption on food, employer contributions to pension and health plans. These are the top of the list, they are politically ridiculous, and the remainder of the list does not get us $20 billion.
Another option the CSBA will consider is a higher sales tax. Senate President Don Perata (D – Oakland) has proposed a one-cent increase in the state portion of the sales tax, which by the way is a 16% increase in the tax (6.25% to 7.25%). Remember, this is a tax that must be paid by retailers only. In 1990 the state had roughly 900,000 retailers 18 years later, we have roughly 1 million. This is an 11% increase, which might sound good except the state’s population is up 44% in the same period. Yet, the Democrats are looking to this diminishing class of businesses for more revenue. Our retailers are under siege already. The vacancies in the strip malls will get even worse if this tax increase becomes law.
The materials the CSBA sent out heavily rely on research by Jean Ross and the California Budget Project, which lobbies every year for higher spending and higher taxes. I am in agreement with them on one thing -- that California's high and regressive sales tax results in the poor having the highest percentage of their income going to taxation than any other income group. Jean and I part ways when it comes to what policy change should arise from this information. I say her data show that lower and flatter taxes are both fairer and better for economic growth.
This leaves a higher income tax for wealthy Californians as CSBA’s last alternative.
When California raises taxes on people the liberals define as “wealthy,” the actual collections do not meet expectations. Back in 1991, Governor Wilson bought into the liberal logic for a moment and raised taxes on the upper-income brackets. The following two years, revenues were $1 billion short of forecast each year. Currently, the top one percent of taxpayers in California contributes 40 percent of the state income tax, and the top 10 percent pay 70 percent of the tax.
Our tax system has gotten so hyper-progressive that a single taxpayer can affect revenue estimates. Last year a wealthy taxpayer settled his tax liability for $200 million. How much will a Microsoft buyout of Yahoo investors yield? Hard to say, but what is clear is the state’s spending level is already overly dependent on a few wealthy individuals gaining financial windfalls, and then paying taxes on them. We are fast running out of Californians who can do this.
How did we get here? California had an extraordinary revenue boom in the late 1990s. The subsequent revenue bust in the early 2000s was the result of the popping Internet bubble, and the failure to recognize that revenues were in an unsustainable spike. The personal income tax soared from $28 billion in 1997-98 to a peak of nearly $45 billion in 2000-01, before plummeting to below $34 billion in 2001-02. The state’s fiscal problem has its roots in how we treated this spike in revenue. Had we treated it as one-time money and invested in capital projects rather than committing the state to those lofty spending levels permanently there would not be a budget deficit today.
Instead, as of 2002 the state had a $2 billion deficit and $5 billion more the next. California went from a $5 billion surplus to a $5 billion deficit in just two years, and now it is up to $20 billion and increasing. The state has hit a revenue wall. Spending cuts and budget reform are needed to avoid catastrophe.
***Fraud Warning***
My email account was hit several times this weekend by a fraudulent email that I worry will trap many people into becoming victims of identity theft. This email uses the IRS logo and a return email address with “irs.us” to make it look legitimate and says that your economic stimulus rebate can be direct deposited into your checking or savings account if you click on the link and follow the instructions. It is a scam. The IRS does not initiate communication with taxpayers through email. If you receive such an email, do not open any attachments or click on any link. Instead, go to the official IRS website and read about how to report such scammers:
http://www.irs.gov/privacy/article/0,,id=179820,00.html
***Inflation Ouch***
There has been much talk lately of inflation. It has been a mostly academic concept for the past several years, but now we are experiencing its bite at the grocery store as well as the gas pump. I found a simple inflation calculator:
http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/research/data/us/calc/
I punched in 1967 and found that goods for which I had paid $1.00 that year would cost me $6.46 this year. Applying that to state government expenses is even more frightening. The total state budget that year was $4.7 billion. (That is about 1/30th of this year’s state budget.) That would make the growth in state government roughly 4.6 times the general inflation rate. So while you are getting annoyed at having to pay more for milk, rice and flour, ask yourself if you are getting nearly five times the value in state services than you used to.
Inside the Leonard Letter
By: Bill Leonard on: Monday, April 28th, 2008
***Kudos for Creativity***
For years now public policymakers have lamented the challenges with the Delta, including the diminishing population of the Delta smelt, a small minnow that is threatened by the water quality. Liberals have used the smelt’s declining population as an excuse to ban development and claim habitat, and conservatives have railed against denying denying property rights to human beings because of a tiny fish. Now Sen. Dean Florez (D-Shafter) has a creative idea that puts a stop to the finger pointing and meets the idealism of both sides. Florez said simply, if the problem is that the smelt is dying off, let’s build a hatchery to help them breed. Instead of impeding water flow that humans need and preventing necessary projects like power plants, we can help grow the species. One side may not like the idea of paying for a hatchery and the other side may not like the idea of helping a species unnaturally, but if everyone gives a little, we may just have a common sense solution to what has been an intractable problem. Read about Florez’s bill and initial reaction here:
http://www.bakersfield.com/102/story/422639.html
***The Root of Money Problems***
Several Leonard Letter readers, as well as pundits and columns, have written recently about the current education funding crisis and pointed the finger of blame at Prop. 13. I am disappointed when Prop. 13 blamed for all the woes of California. As far as schools are concerned, the culprit is the California Supreme Court in 1971 and not Prop. 13 in 1978. The court ruled in Serrano v. Priest that property taxes could not be used as the sole source of school funding and that schools should not have the right to set tax rates that result in unequal education. The court ordered the legislature to develop a school finance system that did not fund schools locally. The result is the mess you see today. I, too, wish there was local control and local decision making ability. In fact, even if Prop. 13 were repealed there would still be no local control of schools.
Read more about Serrano v. Priest at these sites:
http://www.hjta.org/commentaryV5-34
http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Dec/1/129939.html
http://www.californiaschoolfinance.org/Portals/0/PDFs/EdS_hist_serrano.pdf
***Questions to Ask of Your School District***
Richard Rider, chair of the San Diego Tax Fighters, has done some excellent research about school funding in San Diego. The answers he received to his questions should prompt you to ask similar, straightforward questions of your local school officials. You may be surprised at the answers and how the facts differ from the public relations war being waged in the media right now. He asked, “How does a district coming year's budget compare with the previous year's budget?” He found out that, “the vaunted 10% ‘cut’ really is a cut from this year's projected spending, not last year's actual budget. The actual year-to-year district cut is usually under 4%, not the 10% so widely publicized.”
He asked about student enrollment over the last decade and found that contrary to public perception, many districts have declining enrollment, not burgeoning attendance. In one instance, he identified more than a 20% decline. He asked how much of a district's budget goes for employee compensation? He found a district with 87% of the money being used to pay employees. I wonder how many of those employees actually work directly with students every day.
And finally he wonders whether taxpayers are paying too much for K-12 public schools and gives this example: The San Diego USD budget for 2007-2008 was about $2.2 billion. There are about 135,000 students enrolled in K-12 in the district. Divide 2.2 billion by 135,000 students, and you discover that we are paying about $16,300 per student.
***Peripheral Canal Map***
For those of you who were not around for the 1970s debate over the Peripheral Canal, but will be around for the coming debate, go to this link to see a map of the proposed route:
http://www.boe.ca.gov/leonard/images/03-Waterways%201.pdf
***When in Rome***
The federal judges and California liberals who support letting prisoners out early in an attempt to improve conditions at our state’s prisons might wish to learn from Italy’s recent experience. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Italy faced a similar crisis: a prison system designed for 48,000 that was holding 60,000. “So the government crafted an emergency plan. It swung open prison doors and let more than a third of the inmates go free. Within months, bank robberies jumped 20%, as did computer crime, arson and purse snatchings.”
Inside the Leonard Letter
By: Bill Leonard on: Sunday, April 20th, 2008
***Getting Punked by the Franchise Tax Board***
Now that tax season has passed, you may not have positive regard for the Franchise Tax Board. I know my regard has waned after I became a victim of the FTB’s legislative unit last Monday in an Assembly committee. I sponsored a bill carried by Assemblyman LaMalfa (R-Redding) that would have brought two IRS pro-taxpayer reforms signed by President Clinton to California. One of the elements is already policy at the Board by our own rule. The other element sought to shift the burden of proof from the taxpayer to the government in a very limited number of situations. I want it to be the government’s obligation to prove there own new assertions if they dispute the tax calculation of a fully cooperating taxpayer. This idea is to give those taxpayers who fully co-operate the benefit of hearing FTB’s proof of why the taxpayer is wrong.
I had sponsored a similar bill last year and the Democrat Chairman of the committee, Assemblyman Charles Calderon (D-Whittier), liked it enough that he encouraged me to bring it back with some changes to satisfy some minor concerns. This was in January. In this new session, I sponsored the same concept, but I pared it way down so it would only affect cases that come before an oral hearing before the full Board, with restrictive definitions that would have made very few taxpayers eligible for the benefit. In the last five years I can think of only a handful of taxpayers, small business owners all, who may have benefited from this. Some might ask if the bill is so narrow, why bother? I am pushing this concept simply because I am bothered that, unlike criminals, taxpayers are always considered guilty under California law unless they prove otherwise. I want there to be at least one instance where taxpayers have the same rights as accused criminals.
Shortly before the committee hearing, I learned the FTB had done an analysis of the bill which claimed it would cause California to lose $300 million in revenue in the first year and $365 million the next, and more each subsequent year. Too bad the FTB did not have to prove where it came up with such a silly number. Not only does this bill potentially affect just a few taxpayers it also means that FTB does not believe that they can prove the taxpayer is wrong if they are ever required to do so. The result of this outrageous analysis is that when the bill came before the committee, rather than being favorably disposed toward it, the committee chair announced there would be no vote because the bill was going to the suspense file – the place where bills that cost the state too much money go to die quietly. Calderon even lectured LaMalfa that he had a lot of nerve bringing a bill that cost so much money before the committee because of the state deficit.
So, I am sorry to report that there will be no change in law this year. Taxpayers still will not have the same rights as accused criminals thanks to the FTB analysis of my bill.
***Top Ten Tax Increases: #7 A New Car Tax***
Assembly Bill 2388 by Mike Feuer (D-West Hollywood) proposes raising the car tax based on the weight of the vehicle and the amount of carbon dioxide emissions it emits, to a still-unspecified level. So unlike the current car tax where the more valuable your vehicle is the more in tax you pay, this bill could impose a very high tax on a vehicle that is not worth much at all. I thought liberals liked taxing the rich? Now, Feuer wants to introduce other elements that have nothing to do with wealth into the car tax. So under this bill, instead of hitting “the rich,” the idea is to hit people who are environmental offenders because they drive heavy vehicles, like, for instance, the guys who come out to trim your trees, truckers, delivery drivers etc.
Apparently it is not enough for limousine liberals to settle for hyper progressivity (rich vs. poor); now they need to establish who is greener than thou. On top of being absurd, this bill is also unnecessary. People who own heavy vehicles already face severe punishment at the pump and end up paying a lot more gas tax than people who have smaller vehicles. But alas, people who work hard for a living are pretty much invisible to urban liberals.
Feuer cancelled his first chance to have the bill heard in the Assembly Transportation Committee last Monday.
***Kudos to Ackerman***
Senator Dick Ackerman is the latest of good Republican leaders to fall victim to term limits. It is losing people like the good Senator that proves the negative consequences of some good intentions. Ackerman's leadership style is suited to the Senate where the small size of the body (40 Senators) magnifies personal relationships. A lot can get done if people of different opinions nevertheless sit down and try to find common ground. Dick helped me a lot when I was Assembly Republican Leader and I will never forget it. His wit, intelligence, and work ethic form the basic ingredients for success. He jokes about the work of being Commodore of the Fullerton Yacht Club but I know he has many new projects awaiting him. Godspeed leader, well done.
***California Still Building Boats***
On April 6, I had the privilege of attending the christening and launch of the latest United States Navy Ship Amelia Earhart (T-AKE 6) in San Diego. It will deliver ammunition, provisions, stores, spare parts, potable water and petroleum products to naval forces around the world.
General Dynamics NASSCO is located in San Diego and has been designing and building ships since 1959, specializing in auxiliary and support ships for the U.S. Navy and oil tankers, and dry cargo carriers for commercial markets. It employs around 4,600 people and is the only major ship construction yard on the West Coast. According to the company, they are currently enjoying a backlog for building additional Navy supply ships as well as commercial vessels. They also do maintenance and repairs on frigates, and navy assault ships.
I posted a short video of the launch and festive atmosphere here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHEJmPbmXls
Inside the Leonard Letter
By: Bill Leonard on: Monday, April 14th, 2008
***Proof in the Pink Slip***
Cal-Tax has done some research that I believe supports my point that the pink slips issued to teachers statewide are, indeed, phony. Several Bay Area school districts were mentioned in the newspaper as having issued pink slips: 193 in Vallejo City Unified School District, 189 in Mount Diablo Unified and 52 in Berkeley Unified, among others. Cal-Tax found that each of those districts’ websites showed “that despite the issuing of pink slips, new teachers are being hired. The Vallejo City USD site lists a wide range of jobs posted on March 21, including openings for science teachers, Spanish teachers, and many others. The job openings also include three vice principal slots. Applications are due by April 11. The Mount Diablo site also lists a host of job openings for teachers, with the listed starting salary range of $44,650 to $69,193, plus fringe benefits. Jobs include teaching positions at elementary, middle and high schools. At Berkeley Unified, the job listings include five openings for positions including a speech language pathologist at a salary range of $51,162 to $77,179, plus fringe benefits. The district's site states: ‘Berkeley Unified is a great place to grow your education career. A vibrant, relatively small urban school district, we have a range of resources from the generous parcel tax courtesy of Berkeley voters to the many departments at UC Berkeley, all located in the temperate climes of the San Francisco Bay Area. What the teachers' union and the school districts are missing in all of this posturing is the real negative effect on the morale and plans for working teachers. Teachers who get these “note of preliminary intent to layoff” letters may know in their head that they are phony, but it can only raise the anxiety levels until the May deadline is reached.
***Coming to a Ballot Near You***
California has held one primary election this year, but another is coming. On June 3 more than 450 people are running for their party’s nomination for more than 150 congressional and state legislative seats. Notwithstanding all the shenanigans going on at the presidential level, voters really should put thought into casting their ballots to ensure that their political party nominates the very best candidate for the general election. See the complete list of candidates to find out who is running in your community:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_cand.htm
***Top Ten Tax Increases: #8, Making It Easier for Politicians to Raise Taxes. Sneak Attack on the 2/3 Threshold***
Senate Constitutional Amendment 18 by Senator Tom Torlakson (D-Antioch) would make it easier for local politicians to raise taxes by allowing educational finance districts to impose a district sales and use tax by a majority vote in a major watering down of Proposition 13 protections. As if this was not bad enough, the true subterfuge is that Torlakson has another bill, SB 1430, which would allow the same educational finance districts to impose any tax that can be imposed by a charter city. Charter cities can impose transit occupancy taxes, parcel taxes, utility user’s taxes, business license taxes, and vehicle license fees. These two bills together will allow all these taxes to be raised by simple majority vote. The Board of Equalization’s analysis of the bill argues this will create havoc for consumers, retailers, and the Board, because it is not clear where the boundaries of these special districts begin and end.
The basic problem with a majority vote tax threshold is it is often used to raise taxes on a distinct group. This means that half the people, plus one, can raise the taxes they themselves often do not have to pay. For example, people who do not own property are more easily able to raise the taxes of people who do own property under a majority vote threshold. In contrast, a 2/3 vote usually requires the assent of those who will actually have to pay the tax, or at least a good number of them.
This is a very important issue. Once the 2/3 vote goes away, the relatively unproductive go after the productive, and everyone loses.
***Opposition to Paid Sick Leave for All is Lacking***
I saw the footage of Assemblywoman Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) presenting her AB 2716 in Assembly Labor and Employment Committee on Wednesday. The bill passed out of that committee easily on a 6-2 vote and will soon be heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. The bill is a massive, socialist/quasi-fascist mandate that will require anybody who employs a person for at least seven days a year in California to provide paid sick leave benefits. This is a policy the city of San Francisco recently put in place.
The usual business lobbyists spoke against the bill, talking about how this is bad for business. The opposition did not, however, have a single speaker from San Francisco to testify how bad this law has been for businesses there. But what really bothers me is nobody is objecting to how huge an assault this is on our basic freedom. This is not creeping Leviathan; it is the genuine article. Is there any level of government meddling the people of California will resist?
Under this bill, if you employ a baby sitter, gardener, tree trimmer, whatever, for what adds up to seven days a year, not only must you provide paid sick leave, you will need to keep track whether the sick leave is taken for that person, a relative, a friend, whomever. Unless you do all this, you will be a law-breaker. The best way to not be a law-breaker, of course, will be to not employ people at all.
I remain very disappointed by the absence of voices defending out basic liberties. If we do not fight for limited government, the American founding will have been in vain. This philosophical issue is far more important than whether businesses have greater costs.
To see an edited version of the hearing on this bill, go to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hcz1yB8u73U
***Appealing to the Investment Class***
Last week another bill caught my eye. Kevin De Leon’s (D-Los Angeles) AB 2940 would open the California Public Employees Retirement System to private sector workers by making the PERS system offer a new 401(k) product for anybody. The bill sailed out of the PERS committee and is supported by the Governor. I am not necessarily keen on having the government in the 401(k) business. The bill should be making it easier for working people to make investments. I am, however, struck by the fact that is perhaps the only bill where a Democrat is paying attention to “investment class” voters. More than 50% of American own stock. Democrats cannot win the presidency unless they appeal to these voters. Republicans need to remember that defending investors is the high moral ground. Private investment is the foundation of freedom.
Inside the Leonard Letter
By: Bill Leonard on: Monday, April 07th, 2008
***Common Sense Solution***
Two problems: high gasoline prices and a state budget deficit. One solution: new oil drilling in California. San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders explains how. Can liberals handle her common sense approach?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/03/ED29VUH6D.DTL&hw=debra+saunders&sn=001&sc=1000
***Peripheral Canal Geography Lesson***
My comments on the revival of the Peripheral Canal elicited some email queries asking for more detail how this would work. On the map at this link, locate Hood north of the Delta just west of Stone Lake, and then find Tracy in the south:
http://baydeltaoffice.water.ca.gov/DeltaAtlas/03-Waterways.pdf
The canal, as first proposed, would start at Hood and run a southerly course just outside the Delta until it circles back west until it reaches the pumping plant west of Tracy. The current situation is that the huge state and federal pumps near Tracy actually divert the current of the San Joaquin River toward the pumps and thus also allow salt water to come up from the lower Sacramento. This is the environmental nightmare. The streams no longer run to the sea and saltwater intrudes deeper into the Delta. The proposed canal would have valves at every river crossing including the San Joaquin. Some of the water drawn from the Sacramento River near Hood would be released into those rivers, thus enhancing their stream flow and keeping the salt out. And because the canal would directly lead to the pumps, the pumps would no longer draw water from the lower delta thus restoring the river flows in the correct direction.
Right now the Sacramento River and the delta channels function as the canal but because they are so far south the pumps can only take so much fresh water without doing more damage. With the peripheral canal more water can be diverted while also aiding the restoration of the upper Delta that is suffering from too much salty water.
***Liberal Conundrum***
Generally I like the idea of contracting our government services to private firms. In most cases, private firms can do the job more efficiently for a lot less money. Yet, in the current debate about the Board of Equalization contracting our some taxpayer collection functions, I do not see the benefit. What I do see is an interesting debate between the liberals on this plan. Liberals generally oppose contracting out to private firms. Indeed, one of the state employee unions is pitching a fit about this option even being considered. As Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters writes, the union “obviously wants to bolster civil service worker ranks and stave off privatization.” Yet, the others pushing this plan are also liberals, liberals who are drooling at their possibility of bringing in more revenue (at least that is what the potential vendor promises.)
Two thoughts on this: 1) If the private contractor is allowed to harass recalcitrant taxpayers in ways that state employees are not, then they might be able to collect more. 2) My own experience trying to find people on the state’s unclaimed property lists indicates that many taxpayers are easily findable. With a bit more diligent searching and improved tools to do that searching and collecting, the state could be more efficient.
***Property Tax for Seniors***
The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors is considering a proposal by Board Members Mitzelfelt and Ovitt to extend Prop. 13 property tax protection to seniors who buy homes in their county. I encourage San Bernardino County to pass the proposal and other counties to follow suit.
An unintended consequence of Proposition 13 was that a senior who no longer needed the big house might find that the retirement house would amount to a huge property tax increase. If the senior was moving within a county then there was not a harm in allowing the base to be transferred since the buyer of the big house would be paying a huge property tax payment to the county. That was enacted in Prop 60.
However, counties objected to extending that benefit when the senior moved to another county since the receiving county would only get the old property tax basis of the senior moving in and not get the benefit of the old house being resold. Since the legislature would have had to pay for this as a state mandate, it was made optional for each county and was enacted as Prop. 90. Some counties have been smart and enacted the transfer allowance, but most counties have not yet done the right thing.
Some county officials see this as losing money. They are ignoring the fact that the new resident will be paying sales taxes in the new county as well as other taxes and fees. And, as a senior who can afford to move, the new resident will be using less of government services like schools and welfare. I believe it is an economic win for the county of the new senior resident. Active seniors (sorry, us folks over 55) are a tremendous asset to a community and it is time San Bernardino County and others around the state, acknowledge that.
Inside the Leonard Letter
By: Bill Leonard on: Sunday, March 30th, 2008
***Phony Pink Slips***
There have been a number of press events lately with teachers in the back row holding “pink slips.” I do not know what the color really is, but I do know that these papers are the PRELIMNARY notices of potential lay-offs and that they are mandated by state law. If the notice is not given by March 15 then the district cannot lay-off the teacher next fall even if the district closes entirely. This sounds overly threatening to teachers, but the truth is that this state mandate on local school districts was sponsored by the California Teachers’ Association to separate teachers out from any budget cutting. No other public employee in California has this protection. And as far as I remember, no teacher has ever been laid off because of state budget shortfalls. So if history holds, none of thee 9,000 teachers who got these scary notices will actually be laid off. The teachers’ union did this to make it harder for districts to balance budgets by cutting back on teachers, but the awful side effect is that it looks like districts are singling out teachers for extra pain, and it makes it look like teachers are being terminated when they really are not. This silly law should be repealed.
***Rethinking Liberalism***
If you have been reading this newsletter for awhile you will be surprised to see me recommending an article from the Village Voice. Yet, it is an important essay, one that should be broadly disseminated and thoughtfully read by all who care about America. Writer David Mamet, known for plays like “Speed-the-Plow” and screenplays like “Wag the Dog,” compellingly explains how he changed from his ‘60s era liberalism to his current political views and following free market thinkers such as Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman and Paul Johnson, all of whose works I have regularly commended in this newsletter. Mamet is able to give voice to the underlying assumptions about human nature made by both liberals and conservatives, but more importantly he puts the abstract questions about political philosophy in terms of the people he encounters every day. He determines that the important question to ask is not the question that he, as a liberal, used to ask, “‘Is everything perfect?’ but ‘How could it be better, at what cost, and according to whose definition?’” His writing is, as ever, marvelous, and his conclusions are eye opening. Despite the disagreements, he says “at the end of the day, they are the same folks we meet at the water cooler. Happy election season.”
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0811,374064,374064,1.html/1
***Charities to Help***
I wrote recently about the Board of Equalization’s unwillingness to grant relief to California charities that do their philanthropic or humanitarian work outside of California even though their headquarters are located here. Since those charities now face a tax hit that they were not—rightfully so— expecting, I encourage you to support these organizations so that they can continue their valuable good works despite the government’s interference. They are:
The International Community Foundation (San Diego), which supports nonprofit efforts in the Americans and Asia, particularly in Mexico:
http://www.icfdn.org/
Rotaplast International (San Francisco), which provides free cleft-palate reconstructive surgeries to children around the world:
http://www.rotaplast.org/
Relief International (Los Angeles), which provides programs in disaster-stricken and war-ravaged communities:
http://ri.org/index.php
Lifewater International (San Luis Obispo), which helps provide safe water, sanitation and hygiene around the world:
http://www.lifewater.org/
Assist International (Scotts Valley), which “delivers medical equipment, food, funds, building materials, educational supplies, business assets and more to charities, agencies, and refugee camps around the world”:
http://www.assistinternational.org/default.htm
Green Cross International (office in Pearblossom), which provides “environmental analysis and expertise, information dissemination, education, objective evaluations for public debate, scientific studies, and social and medical support”:
http://www.gci.ch/index.htm
East Meets West Foundation (Oakland), which supports grassroots programs in Vietnam and runs the Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (CIE) “to develop innovations that solve development problems for the poor and disadvantaged people in developing countries”:
http://www.eastmeetswest.org/index.php
It is disappointing that the pro-tax side of the Board of Equalization want these California charities to pay more in property taxes.
|
|
|
|
