Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

California Legislative Session Ends With Higher Taxes, Anti-Trump and Union Priorities

California lawmakers kept themselves busy.

California's legislative session, which completed its work in the wee hours Saturday morning, was one of the more controversial ones in years, given the degree to which the Democratic majority was able to secure various tax and fee increases. It was also one of the more divisive recent sessions from a partisan standpoint.

The most significant measures passed long before the session's deadline. In April, lawmakers passed a controversial 12-cents-a-gallon gas-tax increase by a razor-thin margin. The law also increased vehicle-license fees. In July, they passed a 10-year extension of the state's cap-and-trade program, with the help of several Republican legislators. The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates the measure could increase gas prices as much as 63 cents a gallon by 2021.

But the final hours of the session were still filled with tension. The housing package worked out between Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and legislative leaders had stalled in the final days, but snuck past the finish line. The package includes three bills. One (Senate Bill 35) would streamline the approval process for high-density affordable housing projects, but requires contractors to pay union-based prevailing wage rates on those subsidized projects in return.

The other two parts of the deal have a bigger tax-and-spend element to them. SB2 imposes new fees of $75 to $225 on various real-estate transactions to help fund subsidized high-density housing projects. SB3 will place before voters on the November 2018 ballot a $3 billion state housing bond that likewise will fund the construction of low-income housing units.

The gas tax increase has sparked a GOP-led recall effort of Fullerton-area Democrat Josh Newman, mainly because of his vote to support the increase—and because he represents a GOP-heavy district. Democrats passed two bills this session to change the recall rules to help the embattled senator, but that issue is working its way through the courts. If Newman loses, Democrats would lose their supermajority in the Senate. Anti-tax activists also are gathering signatures for an initiative that would repeal the new gas tax and license fees.

Nevertheless, some commentators were relieved that the session wasn't worse, from a tax-hiking perspective. Joel Fox, editor of Fox and Hounds Daily, referred to this as a "tax-happy session," but noted the California Chamber of Commerce's success in defeating nine so-called "job killer" bills that proposed some form of tax increase.

Some of these defeated tax proposals include: A tax on contractors who do business with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; excise taxes on manufacturers, distributors and wholesalers of distilled beverages; an excise tax on distributors of sweetened soft drinks to fund a new health program; an increase in the personal income tax of 14.3 percent; a tax on opioid distributors; a new retail tax to fund affordable housing; expansion of the capital gains tax; and a measure to lower the vote threshold for local property tax increases.

California Democratic leaders spent a lot of time this session positioning themselves to resist the Donald Trump presidency. Many efforts involved little more than posturing and press conferences, but the Legislature passed three substantive bills that are designed to either affect the next presidential election or confront the Trump administration over its controversial immigration policies.

For instance, the Legislature passed SB568, which moves up the state's presidential primary. It now occurs late in the primary process in June, but would move to March. That would make California the fifth state to vote for president in the 2020 election, provided other states don't play leapfrog with their dates. California's voters currently have little say in the presidential races because the nominees are fairly obvious by June.

"Winning big in California could help a Democrat clinch the nomination in the spring instead of the summer," according to the Washington Post's analysis. That could help defeat Trump in the next election because "if you can wrap up the primary in the spring, you have more time to focus on taking out an incumbent president." It could also help Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti or Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., both of whom are eyeing a presidential run.

The Post also pointed to two other anti-Trump measures now on the governor's desk. SB149 requires presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns to be eligible to run in the state's primary election. That's obviously aimed at Trump, who refused to release his returns in the 2016 race. Most controversially, lawmakers passed a "sanctuary state" bill (SB54) that forbids state and local authorities from cooperating with federal officials to deport illegal immigrants. That sets up a serious showdown with the administration, which has threatened to withhold federal funds from localities that embrace sanctuary status.

Finally, California's politically powerful unions got many of their priorities through this year's legislative session. The most far-reaching measure, Assembly Bill 1513, would provide the names and personal information of home-care workers who work for private companies. That would enable unions to contact private-sector workers for organizing purposes.

The Legislature also passed Senate Bill 63, which expands the state's family leave law, applying it to companies with at least 20 employees. It also passed AB1461, which would require employees at some companies that provide meal-delivery services to get a "food-handlers' card." Similar to the home-care bill, unions would then have access to these workers' private information for organizing purposes.

The Legislature passed some other workers' rights bills. AB168 bans employers from asking for an applicant's salary history. That was posited as a women's rights issue, as backers claim that providing pay information makes it harder for women to receive higher pay scales. Another bill (AB1008) would not allow employers to ask applicants about prior criminal convictions until a tentative job offer is made.

The Sacramento Bee noted that not all labor-backed bills succeeded: "Heavy opposition from the dialysis industry blocked SB349, which would have set staffing levels for those clinics" and opposition from county governments blocked a bill (AB1250) that would have largely banned counties from contracting out many services. AB568 did pass, however. It requires school districts, charters and community colleges to provide six weeks of paid leave for pregnancy-related reasons.

Lawmakers didn't shy away from hot-button social issues. SB179 provides a gender-neutral option called "non-binary" for driver's licenses. And AB1209 "will require large companies to report their mean and median salary data by classification and gender to the Secretary of State, who will post the data online," as the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Critics complain the state didn't deal with several pressing financial issues, ranging from California's exploding unfunded pension liabilities to reforming the California Environmental Quality Act, which is widely blamed for encouraging lawsuits that delay needed construction projects. The Legislature certainly didn't control spending this year either, as it approved a budget that sets every manner of spending record.

The governor has until October 15 to make his decision on the bills that made it to his desk.

This column was first published in Calwatchdog.com.

Photo Credit: David Monniaux/Wikipedia

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Episteme||

    Dumb question: isn't most of their state literally on fire right now?

  • SilentSkies||

    iscaliforniaonfire.com

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It is. The house I grew up in burned down.

  • Telcontar the (Obama) Birther||

    Cali: all of the bureaucratic predation and musty-smelling nomenklatura of Marxism-Leninism, with none of the bitchin' tank and missile launcher parades.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Give them time... give them time.

    Gov. Moonbeam has already traveled to China and Paris to try and enter into foreign agreements relating to climate and trade. Unfortunately for him, the Constitution specifically bans states from entering into binding foreign agreements, so they are nonbinding worthless pieces of paper.

    Section 10.
    No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

  • Lester224||

    The Paris climate accord was non binding too. There were no enforcement mechanisms tied to the deal. Individual countries could possibly pass sanctions on other countries for not sticking to the provisions, but no country as done that. Trump just pulled out of it as a symbolic FU for anything-Obama and a signal to his oil and gas buddies.

  • Fuck You - Cut Spending||

    When they secede from the union, they'll get all that bitchin' stuff from Russia.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The USA bought Alaska from Russia for $7.2M back in 1867. Too bad we cannot sell Commifornia to Russia for $7.2M.

  • colorblindkid||

    SB149 requires presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns to be eligible to run in the state's primary election.

    Is that even legal?

  • Escalente||

    What difference, at this point, does it make?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It will be challenged because the only requirements for President are outlined in the Constitution.

    I predict Republicans will ignore Commifornia during election time.

  • Calidissident||

    I'm not sure how it will go, because this seems to be nominally aimed at ballot access, which has traditionally been a state issue, not the qualification for holding the office. I could see the courts deciding either way.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Either way, the whole thing sounds racist.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    And sexist.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That could help defeat Trump in the next election because "if you can wrap up the primary in the spring, you have more time to focus on taking out an incumbent president." It could also help Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti or Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., both of whom are eyeing a presidential run.
    What? Commiefornia moving up their primary only helps Democrats vs other Democrats. For the republican primaries, Taxifornia would be ignored and Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, and then Super Tuesday would still narrow the primary candidates as usual.

    All this does is further alienate California from the rest of the USA. If the trailing states were smart, they would move their primaries ahead of Fruit-and-Nut land.

    It won't matter much, people will be leaving Taxifornia more and more each year.

  • Calidissident||

    With an incumbent Republican president, I don't expect the Republican primaries in 2020 to be of much importance. But going forward, it will. California still has the most delegates of any state in the GOP primaries. It's not going to be ignored just because you hate the state.

  • BYODB||

    I think you're discounting the 'never trump' brigade and tea party types in the next election, but we shall see.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Taxifornia will give their all their delegates to the top two Democrats since you guys have that stupid primary system now.

    As I said, California will be ignored by Republicans in 2020 and beyond.

  • I can't even||

    They plan to back-fill the departed with the entire country of Mexico.

  • brady949||

    Few things in this life make me laugh as hard as the notion of Eric Garcetti as a legitimate Presidential candidate.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Proposition 13 continues to devastate California.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties hate Prop 13, which is why its rarely discussed by lefty media. Even though the left controls California they have not been able to change Prop 13.

  • Cranedoc||

    Clearly Lefties do not hate Prop 13, as the wealthy elitists love paying 10% property tax on their coastal estates and family-owned business property. Including, of course, apartment complexes which jack the rent up every year! We wouldn't want to drive those people out of the state by making them pay a 1.15 mil rate like the rest of us!
    As usual, only the newcomers and young people get hosed. The wealthy old fucks laugh.

  • Don't look at me.||

    How are you expected to keep up with all the new laws?

  • Rhywun||

    If you wake in jail and don't know why, you've violated a new law.

  • Don't look at me.||

    There should be a law that makes it illegal to not know all the laws.

  • esteve7||

    keep telling yourself there are no difference between democrats and republicans.

    the question is how much longer I'm going to live in this state

  • Fuck You - Cut Spending||

    Solid, liquid, or gas?

  • Rhywun||

    Sometimes all three at once.

  • Eeyore||

    Plasma

  • Rebel Scum||

    How's the CalExit campaign going? Is there anything I can do to assist?

  • I can't even||

    Last time I was in CA for business I was driving to the office and something about the gas prices seemed strange. Then I realized that the prices almost exactly a dollar higher than they were in New Jersey.

    With all that extra tax revenue, CA must be a wonderful and affordable place to live.

  • BYODB||


    The Post also pointed to two other anti-Trump measures now on the governor's desk. SB149 requires presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns to be eligible to run in the state's primary election.


    These guys have no idea how bad that's going to go for Democrats, do they? They're biting their own nose to spite their face.

  • Hunthjof||

    The problem with that theory is progs truly do not care about progs politicians tax returns. No one cared 1%r Bernie paid only 13% and took a 9000 dollar deduction for non-reimbursed meal expenses cause "He cares" No one will care if Garcetti, Warren or Harris take every deduction they can or that they take in income from the same Wall Street they rail against. No prog cares that the Clintons and Kennedy's shield their assets in trusts so their kids won't pay estate taxes. They will be shielded by the media and even if it did get out the prog sheep will just put their fingers in their ears and repeat over and over "They Care Evil Koch's". Meanwhile every Republican who deductions his or her mortgage interest will be raked over the coals by the media.

  • Hunthjof||

    "Finally, California's politically powerful unions got many of their priorities through this year's legislative session. The most far-reaching measure, Assembly Bill 1513, would provide the names and personal information of home-care workers who work for private companies. That would enable unions to contact private-sector workers for organizing purposes.

    The Legislature also passed Senate Bill 63, which expands the state's family leave law, applying it to companies with at least 20 employees. It also passed AB1461, which would require employees at some companies that provide meal-delivery services to get a "food-handlers' card." Similar to the home-care bill, unions would then have access to these workers' private information for organizing purposes."

    Liberals "Companies are selling our private on-line information they must be stopped.""

    Also Liberals "Unions should have access to private sector workers private information for the common good"

  • Ariki||

    "organizing purposes"..........

    Future code for a quick trip to the gulag.

  • Hunthjof||

    Then there is this little nugget.

    " AB1209 "will require large companies to report their mean and median salary data by classification and gender to the Secretary of State, who will post the data online," as the San Francisco Chronicle reported."

    So employers cannot ask this information but however they want to post for all to see what the mean is at a company. So therefore the employer can go on to the website and get a rough estimate of what someone was making. Brilliant plan. I would say only in California but no doubt some goobernugget in DC could make this real.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online