Put “paycheck protection” prop on EVERY ballot — EVERY election

Richard Rider, Chairman, San Diego Tax Fighters Richard Rider, Chairman, San Diego Tax Fighters 13 Comments



One lesson from the election I HOPE “my side” now understands and should support — we need to CONTINUE to use the proposition system against the labor unions and the left. Hit ’em with propositions they must fight, or else these unions risk dying from the passage of such reform measures.

After all, the left doesn’t hesitate to hit US with the same propositions over and over — putting tax increases on the state ballots year after year.  Even when these tax props fail miserably, next election they are back with the same thing in somewhat different packaging.

On the state level, eight times in a row California state tax increases were rejected by the voters over the last decade or so.  Did that discourage the Big Spenders?  Nope.  They put not one, not two, but THREE tax increases on the November California state ballot — plus scores of local tax increases.  And finally they got two state measures to pass.

Let’s do the same thing.  We just lost on the latest version of paycheck protection — trying to end the employer collecting money via payroll deduction for political activities.  The unions knew full well that would end their control of California, so they spent over $70 million against it.  They “won.”  THIS time.

In 2014, we should do it again — preferably on the June ballot.  Then there will be no “Obama effect.” And generally speaking, more knowledgeable and conservative voters make up the voting electorate.

Even if we lose again, we cost the labor unions another $50 million or more — money they otherwise will use to raise taxes and elect their sycophants.  It costs us maybe $3 million to put it on the state ballot.

Even if we spend only a nominal amount on the 2014 prop campaign, the unions will feel compelled to spend a LOT more to make sure it doesn’t pass.  And that’s a good thing.

A second measure we should have on each ballot is a “school choice” proposition.  Other states are moving towards at least some use of education vouchers or tax credits.  Half the kids in Louisiana are now eligible for school vouchers, with many Democrats supporting the reform.We should support that reform.  It will cost the unions tens of millions of dollars to defeat such measures.

School choice is a GREAT “wedge issue,” as nothing harms blacks and other minorities more than our monopoly urban detention center failing government school system.  Many if not most urban minorities would welcome school choice — we’ve seen this response around the nation.

The Democrat Party clearly cares more about labor unions than the future of our kids.  A school choice proposition highlights that callous disregard for our children’s future.

Even when we lose, we get to engage in a months’ long debate on these urgent issues — allowing us to educate the populace in discussions the labor unions fervently wish would go away.  And this debate boldly displays which side REALLY cares about the kids.

One other point.  We should not limit such props to the state level.  After all, the unions are pushing to raise local taxes every election.  Let’s do the same thing.

Put “paycheck protection and “school choice” props on LOCAL ballots wherever feasible.  Bleed the unions white, educate the public while offering real world solutions, and (hopefully) ultimately prevailing at the ballot box.  It’s a win-win-win strategy.


Comments 13

  1. R.R. is right as to short term and long term objectives. You have to have the former to get the latter. Make the opponent pay through the nose and use his extravagant spending to help finance educating those you need to swing your way. This is especially true in education as they already use your tax dollars to make you indoctrinate students against yourself.

  2. The San Diego County Taxpayer Association and the Lincoln Club by their silence on the matter, are conspiring with the City, Labor Unions, and private Hoteliers to Increase Taxes without a Public Vote.

    What about Core Principles and Values?

    A Public-Private-Partership between the City of San Diego and Hoteliers are allowed a 5% increase (annual $80 million = 2% TMS + 1-3% Special Tax) to our Hotel Taxes without the Constitutionally required 2/3 Voter Approval, without any opposition from Taxpayer watchdogs.

    If the City’s Tax Validation lawsuit wins in Court, then the same legal strategy of creating Private-Public-Partnerships to dramatically increase taxes without a public vote could be used by any private industry statewide.

    Where is the outrage?


    Although the San Diego County Taxpayers and Lincoln Club don’t care about the 5% Hotel Tax Increase, there are also at least two private civic-minded citizens who want the City of San Diego to follow our State Constitution and 2010’s Proposition 26 which requires 2/3 public voter approval to Raise our local Hotel Taxes or Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT).

  3. ‘In 2014, we should do it again — preferably on the June ballot. Then there will be no “Obama effect.” And generally speaking, more knowledgeable and conservative voters make up the voting electorate”

    I think you’re right about this BUT… Citizens United was a double-edged sword, As I understand it, CU permitted union members to knock on the doors of non-union members now (which is as right as the ruling on SuperPACs). Do you think this is a one-time event Richard or will we see this kind of union=backed GOTV effort forever now?

  4. I believe there is a relatively new state law that limits statewide proposition to general elections.

    Also, I really wonder if these type of propositions that are a transparent attempt simply to silence those who have a different agenda really play well with the general public ,or do they just reinforce the stereotype of the Party as an exclusive angry club.

    Brian makes a good point. After Citizens United, every election may be high-turnout, or at least higher turnout than used to be.

    I will repeat one of my earlier points: the Party will not flourish until it becomes the party whose ideas appeal to the majority of all voters, not just high-propensity voters. I think one needs look no further than the Party’s social platform and some of the comments that were made in this election for the first thing that needs to change.

  5. Will San Diego Rostra back Mayor-Elect Bob Filner’s recommendation to put the TOT increase to Voters as required by our State Constitution and Proposition 26 of 2010?

    When the Hoteliers-only vote is struck down by the courts several months from now, San Diego will be leaving an annual $80 million on the table, and will not have financing for the Convention Center Expansion and Comic-Con will be forced to leave San Diego.

    The 5-year Temporary Tourist Marketing District (TMD) expires on December 31, 2012. Starting January 1, 2013 CONVIS will have ZERO revenue from Taxpayers to market San Diego as a Tourist Destination world-wide.

    Linked below is the Video of Wednesday morning, June 13, 2012 City Council Rules Committee Hearing to put forth Propositions on the November 6, 2012 Ballot.


    Please see our public comments on the 60 day default for legal Validation Claims, Tax Increases without the Constitutionally required public 2/3 vote, TOT issues, and the annual $80 million San Diego will leave on the table by not allowing the public to vote on a Tax increase for Hotel Visitors.

    See Video:
    Start time 2 Minutes to Video End Time 5 Minutes.
    Start time 36 Minutes to Video End Time 40 Minutes.
    Start time 1 Hour and 42 Minutes to Video End Time 1 Hour and 54 Minutes.

  6. Will SD Rostra back a position on the TOT matter? In case you haven’t noticed, Rostra doesn’t take positions in that sense, our various bloggers do. As well as guest columnists, if something is submitted worth considering. It still takes an individual blogger’s interest in writing about any particular issue, no one dictates what they choose to cover. For the record, the blog post above has nothing to do with TOT. Some may consider it troll-like to enter the discussion with an off-topic comment, simply because someone wants to post it somewhere. For those feeling very strongly and apparently single-minded about an issue, please, you may want to consider a guest column.

  7. There is much talk about Core Values and Principles as they relate to Tax Increases in San Diego.

    The blog post above discusses 3 Tax increases approved by voters statewide.

    Both the TMD Tax and Special Tax were approved by the City Council, Hoteliers, and okayed by business and political leaders, without a public vote. The Tax Increase will raise an annual $80 million for 40 years. This is a huge Tax Increase issue that has yet to be acknowledged.

  8. Post

    Some lefties claim my column is just a petulant whine. From a timing standpoint, that might seem to be the case.

    But if you go back and review my postings and writing over the last 10 years (including on SDRostra), you’ll find I’ve been advocating exactly this “drain ’em” strategy over and over.

    What makes it appropriate to bring it up again is the massive amount of money we forced the other side to spend opposing “paycheck protection.”

    If only we had had “school choice” on the ballot, we might have had a shot at Prop 30 — a measure supported by over $50 million in union money — including a number of OUT OF STATE unions. And $25 million of that union money for Prop 30 came from our three major public employee unions — CTA, SEIU and AFT.

    Would we have won on Prop 30 with school choice draining these unions?. Probably not, but surely it would have been a LOT closer contest. Spending $3 million to put school choice on the CA ballot will cost the other side AT LEAST $20 million to beat it – IF they beat it.

    Let’s do it!

  9. Richard Rider fails to understand the real lesson of Prop 32: By having paycheck protection on the ballot, you put the unions back on their heels BUT you also forced Labor to invest millions of dollars into their ground game efforts which sunk everything else on the ballot. Do we really want to energize that many voters again?

  10. So, Jefferson, you figure that the unions would have taken the money they spent on Prop 32 and buried it in the back yard? Perhaps given the funds to Mother Teresa? Told the troops to not vote come election day? I think not.

    They would have spent that money on Prop 30, other props and on their stable of flunky candidates — and on turning out the vote. Just like they do EVERY election. Only difference is that they would have had MORE to spend.

    And let’s not forget my side’s ultimate goal — reform of education, and Reining in our power-mad unions. YOUR power-mad unions, to be more accurate.

    Assuming things get worse in CA (or not appreciably better) this election’s defeated reforms may be next election’s successful change.

    After all, the unions backed EIGHT state tax increases and lost on all of ’em, but they kept trying. We should do the same.

    And NOTHING assures me more that I’m right than to have you trying to talk us out of that strategy.

  11. Hypocrisy:

    “or do they just reinforce the stereotype of the party as an exclusive angry club.”

    No, “the exclusive angry club” moniker primarily comes from repetition by the MSM and their acolytes. Until Republicans over come that Goebbels type devotion by the media Socialists to telling the lie big enough and long enough they will operate at a disadvantage. Republicans will be much better off building and supporting alternative media to shine light on the truth that less government and more individual responsibility build a better community.

  12. “less government and more individual responsibility build a better community.”

    That is not the issue Republicans are losing on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *