UT: Tax group corrects Fletcher grade, apologizes

Thor's Assistant Rostra Administrator (Thor's Assistant) 19 Comments


From the Union-Trib…

“The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association on Wednesday issued a correction and apology for giving the San Diego Republican a “C” grade in its annual rankings of lawmakers released last week.

“Fletcher should have earned a ‘B,’ reads a mea culpa issued by Jon Coupal, president of the group.”

Read the U-T story.


Comments 19

  1. As is always the case, the first story is the one everyone will remember, not the “apology”. The damage is done, just as intended, I’m sure.

    Ever wonder why retractions never get put on the front page, with bold headlines, just like the original stories that ran?

  2. Post
  3. No implications towards Rostra intended. My comments were for the print media. Retractions always seem to me to be buried in the least read part of the newspaper.

  4. Post
  5. So he got a B- not a C+ (78.2 vs 82.6) lets keep that in mind. He’s still among the most liberal Republicans in the legislature.

  6. Let’s see…would that be the same group of ineffective legislators that passed up a golden opportunity to craft a state budget that might actually work in the name of ideological purity?

  7. Uhh, Kirk, you DO realize that the CA state budgets are now passed by a simple majority of Democrats, thanks to the new “reform.” For the foreseeable future, Republicans have no say in the state budget. Democrats can cobble together whatever fictitious projections they like and pass the “balanced budget” with glee.

    It’s YOUR party’s budget. It’s what the Democrats so badly wanted, and now y’all get to live with the consequences.

    You need to learn learn to love the budget. You might even try to defend it. Good luck with that!

    Would Fletcher’s added vote to pass the Democrats’ budget somehow have given the state the “golden opportunity” you pretend was out there just beyond reach??

    Kirk, thanks for demonstrating the utter separation from reality that is a prerequisite to be a “progressive.”

  8. I think that what Kirk is blaming us for is not voting to put a tax increase on the ballot. However, notice how Ol’ JB and/or the CTA have yet to put their own tax increase on the ballot, like they said they would. Wonder why?

  9. Richard,

    The Democrats only control half of the budget – the spending side. It still takes a super majority to raise taxes. And before you point out what a disaster it would be if taxes could be raised by a simple majority, please note that I was not asking for that change. I am simply pointing out that your claim that Democrats have complete control over the budget is not accurate.

  10. Good point, “marshall.” The Democrat bosses know that tax increases have little chance of being passed by the voters, and won’t help their candidates win re-election.

    Still, too many Democrats are delusional. They believe that only obstructionist Republicans stand in the way of what most Californians want — higher taxes.

    Facts prove otherwise. Since 2003 there have been 8 tax increases on the statewide ballot — increases that required only a simple majority to pass (not the 2/3 the press regularly bemoans). The first one did pass (a “millionaire’s tax”). The next seven failed, six by double digits. The last one almost got at 2/3 vote — a 2/3 NO vote!

    These results were in spite of big-time spending by the Democrats’ allies — several times more than what tax increase opponents spent. Still the California voters said NO!

    Get the message, progressives. While this is a blue state when it comes to party tribal loyalty, that loyalty does not translate into a death wish for even higher taxes.

  11. You are missing my point entirely and jumping to the VERY WRONG conclusion that I am a Democrat. What I am saying is that the Republicans missed an opportunity to take advantage of a narrow window to negotiate SOMETHING that would benefit the citizens of this state. It might not have been perfect, and it might have only been a partial victory, but a partial victory sure beats ignominious defeat and complete impotence.

    If all you have is singles hitters, you can still win the ball game playing small ball. You sure won’t do it trying to hit a five-run homer.

  12. Yeah, Kirk, that strategy worked SO well when Maldonado cut the deal with the Dems in 2009 for billions of dollars of “temporary” tax increases in exchange for . . . well . . . what?

    Some reform that never happened?

    Two-three more years’ of “kick the can down the road”?

    “Top two” runoffs that effectively will ban third parties in CA?

    I think the better analogy than your baseball singles example is that you are advocating “Norv Ball” — playing football not to lose, giving ground on every play (and ultimately losing anyway).

    Giving Dems tax increases only delays the reckoning, and the needed reforms — exactly like what would have happened if the citizens of San Diego had given the Big Spenders their “temporary” sales tax increase under Prop D. Rejecting Prop D is what finally got reforms rolling in San Diego.

  13. Richard,

    No need for the quotation marks around “temporary” tax increase. That tax increase actually did expire this past July.

  14. OK, so let’s just keep playing to win the big victory, right? So far, that’s really working out.

    Actually, Norv ball has always been going for long strikes down the field and then working the ball. And if you really want to go there, what good is chucking it up there if you keep having the other guy ramming it back down your throat?

    Keep hanging on to the my way or the highway strategy while the state goes in the tank. The voters will certainly appreciate it.

    In case you haven’t been paying attention, the only way governments around the world are going to get out of the mess that has been created WITH THE PEOPLE’S ACQUIESCENCE, is through a gut-check that combines fiscal austerity with higher taxes to offset programs and services that cannot be eliminated through sheer momentum. I know you think otherwise, but you are dead wrong.

  15. Hey Alger,

    I will keep using the quote marks, thanks. It was NEVER the intent of the PROPOSERS to later let the tax expire. It was not THEY who got things straigtened out so that the need for the tax was eliminated.

    From the start, their plan was to get us hooked on the higher taxes, and then get people to approve renewal of the tax. It’s a strategy that has worked VERY well in the past, as they can blithely claim (a debatable claim, but a claim nevertheless0 that the extension of the “temporary” tax was somehow NOT a tax increase.

    Fortunately that strategy didn’t work this time, thank Goodness.

    Speaking of “temporary,” note that Brown has brought forward another massive “temporary” tax increase proposal. $7 billion — sales tax and soak the rich.

  16. Kirk, I think you plan was best described by retiring crusty old conservative Wyoming U.S. Senator Malcolm Wallup (he died a couple months ago) when he said something to the effect that “the difference (in the Senate in his time) between the Democrats and the Republicans is that if the Democrats submitted a bill to burn down the White House, the Republicans would immediately offer an amendment to phase it in over three years.”

    But to get more specific — what “singles” do you have in mind? Sports analogies aside, you’ve made no proposal at all, except to try to get along with the Democrats.

    BTW, the PEOPLE of California have OPPOSED tax increases on the state ballot — over and over. The last seven such increases in the last decade went down to defeat — six by double digits — and they could have passed with a simple majority vote.

    While TRIBAL allegiance still favors Democrats, the electorate is no longer keen on further tax increases. And yet you favor such increases. So who is really out of touch with the electorate?

  17. Richard,

    If the extension of a temporary tax increase is in fact a new tax increase (and I agree that it is), then isn’t an extension of a temporary tax cut a new tax cut?

  18. A restructuring of the tax code that doesn’t relyon individual income tax is what is needed and if cooler heads prevailed, maybe that could have been accomplished. All the WWRD conservative out there (What Would Reagan Do?) seem to have forgotten his accomplishements as Governor and President were marked with concilliation that allowed him to draw a line in the sand when absolutely necessary. We have not of that here. The line is permanently encased in concrete.

  19. Sorry for the sloppy post…was heading out the door at the time. I think you get the gist. To be clear, I am not by any means a progressive. I consider myself a conservative in most things, but I am also open-minded enough to believe that if our democracy is going to work, we have to remember that there are a lot of moving parts and we aren’t always the ones with the answers on how to best coordinate them.

    Are we over-taxed? No doubt. Are we over-regulated? Without question. Would private industry do a better job than government in providing services? Some, maybe. Others, not so much.

    The big question is: Can we possibly cut enough government to balance the budget? No one has shown credible evidence this can be done…especially not when the sacred cows pop up.

    Can business be trusted to self-regulate? Not a chance in hell. The debacle on Wall Street is proof enough of that. They WERE self-regulating for practical purposes. Fat lot of good that did.

    As for the private enterprise delivery of government services, I think it’s certainly an idea worth expanding. After all, it’s been done for years in the areas of waste management, to cite on example. Of course, corruption in the awarding of those contracts has been common, too. Nothing’s perfect.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.