California voters will find Proposition 29 on their ballot this June.
Supporters bill it as important to cancer research and a sound investment by Californians for California. Opponents highlight some of the more spectacular problems with the measure at their website No On 29.
Among them, Prop 29 raises annual taxes on Californians by $735,000,000 while failing to address the current $10,000,000,000 deficit the state enjoys. The measure circumvents requirements of the state constitution that 40% of all new tax revenues go to schools. Adding insult to injury, nothing in the measure requires a single dime from Prop 29 to be spent in California. It just creates a slush fund on the backs of California taxpayers for those controlling it to spend however they choose anywhere in the country.
Problems are already surfacing and begin with two prime players.
Don Perata served in the California State Assembly and the California State Senate where he was President pro tempore for 4 years. He began his political career by leaving teaching for a seat on the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County. He got out of elected politics and began “consulting” after he lost a 2010 race for Mayor of Oakland.
Ignacio De La Fuente was a City Council Member in Oakland, eventually becoming President of that body. He stepped down when he became Vice Mayor of Oakland in 2009. De La Fuente is a union official serving as International VP for the Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics, and Allied Workers International Union, AFL-CIO. He is also a co-chair of the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Joint Powers Authority, overseeing the City’s Coliseum-Arena complex and three professional sports franchises.
What do these two politicians, Prop 29 and the Oakland Coliseum all have to do with one another?
The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting Perata paid De La Fuente nearly $40,000 from Proposition 29’s campaign fund while he was simultaneously lobbying that councilman on behalf of a client who wanted to run Oakland’s sports arena. In return, De La Fuente was to help generate support among labor groups for Prop 29. De La Fuente never disclosed the payments on his statement of outside earnings as a councilman and head of the Coliseum authority. When asked whether he saw anything wrong taking money to work for someone who’s lobbying him, he said “He doesn’t see an issue.”
The potential conflict is that Perata is also working as a lobbyist for SMG, one of three companies vying for the contract to manage the Coliseum for the next 10 years. Further, Prop 29 campaign disclosure forms show that Californians for a Cure, the group leading the charge to pass Prop 29, owes Perata’s committee about $300,000. That means that people who donated thinking their money was going to groups like the American Heart Association are actually paying off loans to fund lobbying payments made to political cronies! Per the Chronicle, “Perata also denied any ulterior motives, calling De La Fuente “a close and dear friend” but adding, “I do not see a conflict of interest.”"
Prop 29 needs to go. California should Vote “NO” on 29. It will not help cure cancer and it will harm California and Californians. In addition, Perata and De La Fuente should be fired, recalled or whatever else can be done to stop the havoc they are wreaking on their city and state. If those in charge act this badly while it’s just a ballot proposition, consider their actions should it become law and put $750,000,000 in the hands of men like Perata and De La Fuente to spend as they wish.
We all want a cure for cancer. But Prop 29 is not the answer. Nor are men like Perata and De La Fuente. California deserves better. That’s my proposition.
#1 by byHisgrace on 04/06/2012 - 07:14
Somewhere along the way these men learned how to be crooks at the public trough. They need to go. California needs principled leadership…a very hard row to hoe….Without revival and repentance, a complete change in man’s heart…CA and this nation is doomed.
#2 by scott okamoto on 04/09/2012 - 15:52
One in two Californians born today will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives.
Prop 29 is not a general tax as inferred by the above article. It is a tax only paid by those who choose to purchase tobacco related products. This also is not a solution to the deficit. The money will not be sent to a general fund where it can be allocated improperly, but rather divided by those who know where it could make a difference. I encourage yourself and readers to please visit proposition29.org to view the full proposition that the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, American Heart Association, Stand-up 2 Cancer, LIVESTRONG and so many more credible and do-good organization are supporting.
“The American Cancer Society wrote Proposition 29 because they know it will save lives, keep kids from smoking and fund cancer research that may just lead to a cure. Prop 29 is a $1.00 tobacco tax that will fund more than $500 million every year for cancer research.”
#3 by Blue Collar Muse on 04/10/2012 - 14:15
@Scott -
I appreciate your input on the matter. However, your additions make it even worse than it is.
In the first place, you do not address the real issue here, that of the corruption of the people tasked with handling the money. They are so bad that it seems unlikely that any monies collected could be said to be well spent with any hope of that being an accurate statement.
Secondly, one of the biggest problems of such legislation is that it funds ongoing research with a diminishing supply of tax dollars. If there really will be fewer people smoking as a result of Prop 29, then there will not be $500M a year to spend. In future years there will be less. If the number stays at $500M then at least one of the major goals for Prop 29, reducing smoking, isn’t working. Bad plans for the money don’t equate to good results.
Finally, of course the Cancer industry loves the idea. They are the ones who would be the beneficiaries of it. But if it’s such a good idea, why haven’t the people rallied behind it to support it due to its excellent nature? Why must you force the money to be collected by adding even a $.01 per pack tax, let alone a $1 per pack tax.
The truth may be that organizations who would stand to benefit from the funds are behind it, just like De La Fuente and Perata are for it since they stand to benefit from the funds. But the notion that this is a tax, forced on any segment of CA’s population or on the entire state’s population is flawed.
Taxes should be paid by all the people who stand to benefit from the portion of government being funded by their taxes. Taxes should be low. Taxes should be specifically delegated before being levied and applied only to the area they are advertised as impacting. If the problem gets fixed, the taxation should stop.
Applied in this fashion to Prop 29, we find most of the premises of my post: it’s bad because only smokers and not all Californians would pay it; $1 a pack in taxes would be an increase of 15%-25% here in TN and likely the same in CA – not to mention the percentage of increase in the actual tax amount on a pack of cigarettes – this is not a low tax; the taxes should only be spent in California and only for the purposes of curing cancer – I would add only those cancers specifically resulting from smoking. Since it does not, it’s a bad tax. I see no sunset provision for the cancellation of the tax once a cure is found regardless of whether or not people continue to smoke. There are more bad things involved but space and time do not allow a full accounting.
In short, your objection misses the point of corruption; it assumes integrity on the part of men at every step along the way and assumes a premise you also say you don’t want to be true – a consistent tax base of smokers. As usual, such arguments sound very good until you actually consider the realities that impact them.
Prop 29 is a flawed and faulty premise despite the good it claims to be after. It needs to die quickly!
#4 by maz abbey on 04/16/2012 - 18:06
And when politicians can’t or won’t do the right thing, the people must. That’s why we have the initiative process in California and that’s why so many cancer survivors and volunteers worked so hard to get this on the June ballot.
Proposition 29 will generate much-needed funding to make advances in prevention, detection and treatment of cancer, heart disease and other smoking-related illnesses. According to public health experts, it will save 104,000 lives, stop 228,000 kids from smoking and generate approximately $500 million every year to support life-saving research.
And by the way, the last time the state passed a cigarette tax the result was $86 billion in health-care cost savings to the people of California. Now that’s a smart way to cut public spending.
#5 by Blue Collar Muse on 04/17/2012 - 12:21
@Maz Abbey -
Perhaps your stats are true. Perhaps not. The truth of the matter generally remains what it has always been: If there was that much profit in it, someone in the private sector would already be doing it.
However, you make some of my points for me. How is it going to continue to do all these fine things by taxing cigarettes if 228,000 kids and who knows how many adults stop smoking? You will either NOT raise $500M a year or will have to raise taxes again to maintain the $500M level. That is not a sustainable program. It is, however, an excellent example of ignorance in funding ongoing programs with shrinking revenues. Which means eventually the actual taxpayers of California will be on the hook for all or part of Prop 29 because we simply CANNOT permit such an important program to not be implemented now and continued later. Fools!
Perhaps you got your numbers wrong. But if you are going to stand by your contention that a single tax increase on cigarettes cut just HEALTH CARE costs in California by $86 BILLION, then why aren’t we funding Prop 29 from the $86B in savings instead of raising taxes a mere half billion?
If you can’t use an extra $86B wisely, why should I vote to give you more money from any source? And if it’s just $86 million, well, that’s not much of a savings at all. By all means, let’s tax Californians $500M to save $86M …
Perhaps you should rethink your position and stop supporting it before you destroy it altogether by proving all my points …
#6 by Ellen Franks on 04/19/2012 - 07:58
Prop 29 is a tax only paid by those who choose to purchase tobacco related products. JUST LIKE they have for your car… my bad… we call that tax car insurance. But It works along the same lines: if you are irrisponsible, you pay dearly in the @$$.