Proposition A Rebuttal [1 Attachment]

Activists List
1

Hi All! Here's my rebuttal to the proponents of A (CCSF parcel tax):

Are taxes not high enough in San Francisco? The proponents of A feel they need to be
higher to help fund this fiscally mismanaged school. This will reward the irresponsible behavior
of those running CCSF. If CCSF were
serious about living within its means, like the rest of us have to do, it would
have fixed its fiscal problems years ago. Instead it has increased the number of major problems noted in the
recent Accreditation Commission Report from 8 in 2006 to 14 in 2012. Now it has the audacity to ask the taxpayers
to bail it out of its financial mess.
Proponents claim that state budget cuts are the reason for
CCSF’s financial woes. But all 112 of
California’s community colleges have been hit hard by cutbacks from the state,
yet only 3—CCSF being the most prominent—are now being threatened with loss accreditation. While many community colleges have scaled
back benefits for retirees in the last 20 years to balance their budgets, CCSF
has not.
A community college that spends 92% of its budget on salaries
and benefits—when the state average is 85%--runs deficits for the last 3 years,
fails to conduct financial audits, and gives department heads unusually strong budgetary
power, influencing their own salaries, should not be trusted with more
money. Don’t reward the money
mismanagement team at CCSF by giving them more of your hard-earned money to
waste. Vote NO on A.
Libertarian Party of San Francisco

It came in at 245 words. Please feel free to make comments/suggestions, but remember it has to be turned in tomorrow at noon with the other 3 rebuttals. Starchild, I don't mind if you give it that extra little bite you often give to my writings. I think you're better at biting than me!

Thanks!
Aubrey

2

Right on Aubrey! I'll take a look at it and let you know if I have any suggestions. Here's my suggested edit of the rebuttal Mike Denny proposed for Prop. E, incorporating more of the points from his original argument which I thought were well-taken. Mike and others, please let me know if this version meets your approval.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

No on E (rebuttal argument)

Proposition E, a 60-page, $28.5 million tax increase rushed onto the ballot just before the deadline, proposes a gross receipts tax as a “fairer” tax structure (as if government taking yet more money is fair).

Proponents are correct that the current payroll tax discourages job creation. When you tax something, you get less of it. Proposition E implicitly acknowledges this truth by exempting businesses with under $1 million in gross receipts.

Nevertheless, larger companies employ thousands of people in San Francisco. Prop. E would put those jobs at risk by taxing receipts at higher percentages the greater a company’s gross receipts – a figure that doesn’t necessarily reflect actual profits, which can be considerably less after expenses. This measure would send the message that City Hall doesn’t want successful companies to grow and stay in San Francisco.

The mayor and Supervisors complain that the current tax “provides an unstable revenue stream.” Politicians too greedy for more money to play with to simply replace the flat payroll tax with a flat gross receipts tax designed to bring in an equal amount of revenue (a measure we would not have opposed) may find themselves unpleasantly surprised by how unstable revenues can become, if newly targeted businesses decide to leave San Francisco rather than stick around to be fleeced.

Taxes on business don’t just affect rich people. Tax increases like this one are passed along to the public in the form of higher prices, lower wages, and fewer jobs.
Vote NO on E.

Libertarian Party of San Francisco

3

Okay, here's my suggested edit on the Prop. A rebuttal, below. I was able to dig up another great fact and some quotes to add to the good arguments Aubrey already brought to bear.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

4

Anyone have any ideas on what else can/should be said against propositions C and G that I have not already said in the previous arguments below?

  Here's the link Aubrey provided to the proponents' arguments for these measures -- http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/9549028/1212700161/name/sharpscan

  And the links to the texts of the measures:

Prop. C - http://sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/candidates/Nov2012/Nov2012_SanFranciscoHousingTrust-CharterAmend.pdf
Prop. G - http://sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/candidates/Nov2012/Nov2012_RepealingCorporatePersonhood-DecofPolicy.pdf

Love & Liberty,
                                   ((( starchild )))

    Argument against Proposition C (bringing back redevelopment)
      Last year, governor Jerry Brown signed a bill passed by the legislature’s Democratic majority and upheld by the state Supreme Court shutting down California’s redevelopment agencies.

The action was justified. These agencies earned a reputation for waste, cronyism, racism, and lack of accountability.

The Orange County Register called them “engines of corporate welfare” that “use eminent domain to confiscate private property and typically sell it cheaply to developers, who sometimes build shopping centers and auto malls”
( http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/agencies-293985-redevelopment-government.html )

The criminal legacy of San Francisco’s redevelopment agency includes destruction of the Fillmore, once a thriving African-American neighborhood: “883 businesses were shuttered and 4,729 households were forced out,” according to the San Francisco Chronicle, and around “2,500 Victorian homes were demolished.”
( http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Sad-chapter-in-Western-Addition-history-ending-3203302.php#ixzz23SxGJw3L )

Proposition C attempts to bring redevelopment back from the dead. Its text admits “the measure is structured as a revenue capture mechanism” like that “previously used by the former San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.”
    Before it was abolished, the Redevelopment Agency had plans to “redevelop” over half of Bayview-Hunters Point, the city’s major remaining black neighborhood, in part to “build affordable housing” – the same rationale being used to sell Proposition C.

But Proposition C won’t make San Francisco homes more affordable. It would actually reduce affordability requirements for new projects, while subsidizing housing for people earning more than the median income.

Worst of all, Proposition C would commit San Francisco to increasing payouts through 2042 – hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars that won’t be available for other priorities like schools, parks, infrastructure, or health care – plus an open-ended authority to issue bonds without voter approval!

San Francisco needs affordable housing, not more unaccountable and unaffordable government schemes.

Redevelopment was killed for good cause. Let’s not bring it back from the dead! Vote NO on Proposition C.

Libertarian Party of San Francisco
Starchild

Argument against Proposition G (declaration of policy against "corporate personhood")
If you write essays supporting your favorite candidates and spend your money to publish them, everyone agrees this is protected as free speech under the First Amendment.
But what if you and a group of friends who like your essays get together and form a media company called San Francisco Friends Press Inc. (SFFP) for the purpose of publishing them?
We believe the right to free speech still applies, and that you and your friends acting as SFFP should be able to legally spend the group's money to publish your essays. The U.S. Supreme Court in its Citizens United decision agreed that people's free speech rights do not disappear when they act together cooperatively, whether as a corporation, a union, or a nonprofit like Citizens United itself.
Proponents of Proposition G say no. They claim that as a corporation, SFFP should face restrictions on publishing your essays. Yet if SFFP were a union or a nonprofit, no problem -- Prop. G says nothing about restricting the legal rights of those groups to promote political views, even though they aren't “persons” any more than corporations are.
Proposition G's text claims the Constitution and Bill of Rights are “intended to protect the rights of individual human beings” and that “corporations are specifically not mentioned in the Constitution as deserving of rights entitled to human beings.”
By this logic, government would have the power to search your company's offices without a warrant or reasonable cause, or quarter troops there without the company's consent, since the Constitutional rights guaranteed under the Third and Fourth amendments don't apply to corporations!
Proposition G is inconsistent and dangerously flawed. It threatens the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press, and other freedoms we take for granted. Please vote NO!

Libertarian Party of San Francisco
Starchild

5

I think this is excellent...punchy.

Mike

6

Thanks Starchild...I've taken some of your ideas and incorporated them into this.

Perhaps some of my snide comments would be better removed although they made me feel better.

:>)

Mike

Prop E Means MORE Taxes, MORE City Hall Waste, HIGHER Prices and FEWER Jobs

Proposition E, a 60-page, $28.5 million tax increase rushed onto the ballot just before the deadline, proposes a gross receipts tax as "fairer" (as if government taking more money is fair).
Proponents are correct the current payroll tax discourages job creation. When you tax something, you get less of it. Proposition E implicitly acknowledges this by exempting businesses with under $1 million in gross receipts.

But medium and large companies represent huge economic activity and employment here. Yet E wants to tax receipts so companies pay ever higher percentages as they succeed. By this City Hall effectively says it doesn't want businesses to grow and stay.

The mayor and Supervisors complain the current tax "provides unstable revenue" But rather than replace the flat payroll tax with a flat gross receipts tax designed to bring in equal revenue (a measure we wouldn't oppose) City Hall got greedy with Proposition E. If E passes they might be surprised how unstable revenues can be if businesses leave rather than sticking around to be fleeced.

Taxes on business don't just affect rich people. They are passed on to the public in the form of higher prices, lower wages, and fewer jobs. That means people buying everything from Giants tickets to milk will pay.

All signing onto Proposition E PERSONALLY benefit from higher costs to YOU. Tell City Hall you want REAL tax reform, not an imposter. Vote NO on E.

Libertarian Party San Francisco

New Prop E.docx (11.5 KB)

7

Hi Starchild! I knew you would give it that extra "punch" that I didn't give it. Thanks. I have two suggestions. One is adding back something to the 92% spent on salaries and benefits, like "when the state average is 85%," (perhaps in parenthesis), as I originally put in. My reason is to put the 92% in context--the average reader won't know what to make of the 92%, though it might sound high, without comparing it to the state average. When you read the 85%, then you know 92% is ridiculously high (in fact Kern Community College District has a salaries/benefits rate of 78%). My other thing I noticed is that in the sentence "Fiscal mismanagement, not state budget cuts, is the reason..." sounded funny, so I changed are to is. Disregard if you think I'm wrong.

Otherwise great as is, and I'm happy with it. Marcy's opposing argument was so strong and well-researched that I had a hard time not stealing facts and thoughts from it. Thanks Marcy!
Thanks!
Aubrey

8

Hi Starchild! Well, I didn't come up with too much for C, if you're still up and writing. There's a statement in the Proponent argument that needs to be dealt with: "This is accomplished without raising any sales or property taxes" under the section NO NEW TAXES. The City will spend $1.5 billion over 30 years and there will be no new taxes?! This is an incredible statement to make--even in San Francisco! Will the $1.5 billion grow on trees? In actuality $13 million will come from E, the Gross Receipts Tax measure, and it will be from increased business license fees. I guess when it's "other people's money" (as Les always says), then it doesn't really count anyway. Since the Gross Receipts Tax will be new (if passed), that does qualify it as a new tax. The other point, well made by Marcy, was that The City should not be giving interest-free loans to help first-time homebuyers nor should it get involved in the mortgage business.
When the federal government got involved in that mess (Fannie & Freddie Mae), it helped fuel the housing crisis. That's all.

Thanks for all your work on these measures!
Aubrey

9

Aubrey,

  Thanks! My thinking on taking out the 85% reference is that the 92% number will sound even higher *out* of context. I personally had no idea that the statewide average would have been as high as 85% -- if someone had asked me to guess what percentage of its money a California community college typically spends on salary and benefits, I think I would've guessed much lower than 85%. Besides that it saved a few words.

  The "are" to "is" switch is grammatically correct, so thanks for catching that.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

10

Aubrey (and Marcy), excellent points here. I think I may put some of this verbatim -- I'm still struggling to think of what to say in the rebuttal against C. But where do you get the fact that $13 million in funding for Prop. C would come from Prop. E? I'd love to use that, if it can be substantiated.

Love & Liberty,
                                   ((( starchild )))

11

I read about the funding coming from the gross receipts tax too; but I can't find where now. The wording of the proposal? I would also focus on why is the government taking over decisions and spending taxpayer money on where and how folks live? Why are renters made to subsidize the free loans to buyers? (although entre nous because buyers are already subsidizing section 8 renters).

Marcy

12

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/07/board-supervisors-vote-housing-fund-november-ballot
http://http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/07/board-suhttp://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/07/board-su
the last paragraph

13

Good thinking making the connection with E

Mike

14

Aubrey,

  Link appears to be broken, can you resend?

                            ((( starchild )))

15

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/07/board-supervisors-vote-housing-fund-november-ballot

16

Ah, excellent -- I see where it refers to the $13 million from Prop. E. Updated version including Examiner citation below.

Love & Liberty,
                              ((( starchild )))

Proponents claim Proposition C will require “no new taxes.” Who are they kidding? City Hall would spend an additional $1.5 billion over 30 years but there would be no new taxes? That statement doesn’t pass the laugh test. Will the $1.5 billion grow on trees? Seriously, do Supervisors intend to fund redevelopment by cutting existing programs and services? Are they promising to repay any money borrowed via new bond measures out of the City’s general fund?

According to the San Francisco Examiner (http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/07/board-supervisors-vote-housing-fund-november-ballot ), $13 million would come from Proposition E, the gross receipts tax, if that measure passes, which would be a new tax. I guess when it's "other people's money" then it doesn't really count?

Having municipal government involved in the mortgage business by giving taxpayer-financed home loans to people who could not otherwise afford to buy is a bad idea. This is the same kind of thing the federal government did via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that resulted in billions of dollars of bad debt written off at taxpayer expense and massive amounts of foreclosures which helped create the current economic mess. Why should renters be asked to subsidize buyers?

A much better approach to creating affordable housing would be to cut the red tape and bureaucracy surrounding development, and let developers convert unused city buildings and property into homes for the working poor.
Let’s not inflate another housing bubble. Vote NO on Prop. C!

Libertarian Party of San Francisco

Starchild