.
.
.
Irvine contingent in LA earlier this month, staring down the LAPD: Dew-B, Joey, Stephen, Web, Anastasia. We are now beginning Phase 2 (while continuing Phase 1.)
Yes, my proposal is now “staffed,” which will be the first question I get asked when I propose at the next General Assembly that we at Occupy OC/Irvine form an Initiatives Committee. That is, I have another couple Occupiers interested in helping me – a political scientist and an economist – to sort through and analyze the best initiatives for us to be involved in collecting signatures for.
I was inspired by two things – the wearisome Dan Chmielewski’s tireless chiding of the movement for lack of involvement in the political process, AND finding out about three great initiatives filed for next year that totally converge with this movement’s goals. That’s the Millionaires’ Tax, the Corporate Political Accountability Act, and the Tax and Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act. If my proposal is accepted, we will have Occupiers at all the usual crowded places collecting the needed signatures to get these vital measures on next year’s ballot, and hopefully Occupies all over California will follow suit.
Just think – we can wear something indicating that we are UNPAID VOLUNTEERS collecting signatures for something we believe in and are not misrepresenting. Very few signature gatherers out there can say the same.
And the rest of you should remember to vote YES on these initiatives next year, too!
The Millionaires’ Tax
Officially entitled, for now, the “Millionaires’ Tax to Restore Funding for Education
and Essential Services Act of 2012,” and filed by the “Restoring California Coalition,” this measure is the most progressive solution on the table for undoing the devastation that has been wreaked in California by the destructive excesses of the 1%. It, simply, entails raising by 3% the taxes on INCOME over ONE MILLION DOLLARS, and by 5% on income over TWO MILLION DOLLARS. These are the people who have profited throughout, and often as a result of, the financial shenanigans that have driven the rest of us Americans and Californians into unemployment, bankruptcy, and foreclosure.
The measure would restore SIX BILLION in funding for K-12, higher education, social services, public safety, and roads. As the Courage Campaign’s Rick Jacobs says, in language Occupiers can understand:
“This is the only initiative proposal that would restore funding devastated by the recession, and rehire thousands of teachers, senior care providers and public safety personnel, without affecting the wallets of working families and the middle class. It addresses the heart of the problem: that total income share to the state’s richest 1% has doubled over the last twenty years, while their tax rates have fallen and the 99% have fallen further behind.”
And this measure is tremendously popular, with a recent Tulchin Research Poll showing 2/3 of Californians backing the idea of the Millionaires’ Tax. Broken down:
- Definitely yes: 37%
- Probably yes: 26%
- Lean yes: 4%
- Lean no: 2%
- Probably no: 7%
- Definitely no: 15%
- Don’t know: 8%
This measure is in contrast, and somewhat in competition, with another revenue measure being pushed by Governor Brown, the Democratic leadership, and the SEIU leadership (although many if not most SEIU members prefer the more progressive Millionaires’ Tax.) The Governor’s plan would raise a little more – 7 BILLION a year – through a 1/2% sales tax for five years, and a tax hike on folks making more than 250 grand a year. In that way it’s more regressive – arguably less fair – since the lower 99% of us who would be paying this sales tax didn’t do anything to tank the economy and have only been suffering. And folks can vote yes on both plans if they like, but I wouldn’t be asking Occupiers to collect signatures for the Governor’s plan – it doesn’t need us.
Question: If both the Millionaires’ Tax and the Governor’s plan pass, will only the one with the most votes go into effect? Answer: It’s too early to say, until we see how the Governor’s plan is written. The Millionaires’ Tax is written so that if they both pass they both go into effect and we get $13 BILLION a year in new revenue – wow! But the Governor could conceivably be a prick and put the two bills into competition – let’s wait and see. That would make him the enemy.
When can we start working to get signatures to get the Millionaires’ Tax on the ballot? Some time around mid-January, as the bill was filed with the Attorney General on Dec. 5.
The Corporate Political Accountability Act
This one, also, is right up our alley, as we all agree that corporations, especially since the Citizens United ruling, wield WAY too much influence on our politicians (and initiatives.) The authors of the CPAA note that “decisions to use corporate funds for political contributions and expenditures are usually made by corporate boards and executives, rather than shareholders… [and] shareholders and the public have a right to know how corporations are spending their funds to make political contributions or expenditures benefiting California candidates, political parties, and political causes.”
Hence the bill would require any political contribution to be approved by a majority vote of the company’s shareholders, and if that vote is between 50-99%, the contribution can only be that percentage of the originally proposed amount.
I asked one of the bill’s authors, Tom Willis, if he had any idea by how much this would decrease corporate contributions, and he admitted there was no way to tell exactly, but “it would certainly be very substantial, as corporations DO NOT WANT their shareholders OR the public to know how much they’re spending on politics, and where.” [paraphrase]
Then I asked, “Is this bill in response to the ‘Paycheck Deception’ measure also on the ballot?”
“Yes, ABSOLUTEY!” he laughed.
In case you don’t know, “Paycheck Deception,” or as they call it, “Paycheck Protection” is a scheme that anti-labor rightwingers have tried to pass repeatedly, and are trying again next year, to decimate the power of labor unions by outlawing their use of union dues for political contributions.
So, our Corporate Political Accountability Act would be a good thing in its own right. But if “Paycheck Deception” passes, the CPAA will be UTTERLY ESSENTIAL if we don’t want to see corporate money dwarf labor money even more than it already does.
Status? This was filed with the AG last week, so it will probably be till February before we can start collecting signatures for it, but Occupy will be all over it, if *I* have anything to say about it!
Tax and Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act
This one’s a little harder to connect to Occupy’s themes of economic justice, but
- Greg Diamond made the case to me that it does, maybe he’ll get on here and remind me how
- It WILL help our revenue shortfall, and thus the 99%
- The other two aren’t quite ready to work on yet, but this one is
- It received major “spirit fingers” at last night’s General Assembly
- and Guy Fawkes will rip my head off if I don’t include it!
You can read all about this vital measure here. I hereby ask Guy Fawkes to give us an update on the progress of the signature-gathering in the comments here, and invite him to bring forms down to Occupy Irvine this week, because I intend to ask my colleagues to get to work qualifying it for the ballot. And lay off the “Northwood Night Stalker” stuff, it’s getting boring and the guy’s not important, okay, dude?
The rest of you – keep your eyes open for Occupiers with clipboards, and sign!
SIX BILLION in funding for K-12 <–I like that idea. We need revenue coming in. Great ideas, Vern!
Well, since you asked….
There are actually four cannabis initiatives being pushed for next year. Aside from Regulate Marijuana Like Wine, there are:
– the California Cannabis Hemp Health Initiative, at cchh92012.org, which is a revised continuation of the proposal made by the late Jack Herer and (which focuses on hemp production as well as marijuana; it was the apparent model for Regular Marijuana Like Wine and would allow cultivation of more plants per person — the small flyer I have here literally has the slogan “99 plants for the 99%”)
– the California Reduced Marijuana Penalties Initiative (which reduces punishment for various levels of possession, cultivation, sale, or transportation and exempts offenses involving two ounces or less from property forfeiture laws)
– the Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act (which allows for 3 pounds of marijuana and 100 square feet of garden space, preempting local jurisdiction enactments)
All of them retain penalties for DUI and against sale to minors (which is defined at anywhere from 19 to 21 — post-high school, at a minimum)
Obviously, having so many options has its downside as well as its upside, but I don’t know why anyone who favors any of them wouldn’t want to circulate petitions for all of them.
As for why favoring sustainability, small business, curtailing the damaging effects of prison for minor drug offenses on especially minority cultures, reducing police corruption, etc., fit with the aims of the Occupy movement, I’ll let people figure it out themselves!
Only “Like Wine” has what it takes to get on the ballot though. Repeal just lost their head honcho. Reduce is as bad as Prop 5 was in 2008 and will get no traction (people on the streets want legalization).
CCHHI has a good chance on Jack’s name and on the promise from Like Wine that their volunteers want to carry Jack’s initiative around with them. They have failed to get funding for decades so I am not holding out a lot but to hope. Shame really, two initiatives on the ballot would send a really strong message of momentum.
On the 99% aspect of legalization, one very important point is left out. The war on drugs is the 1%’s number one way of repressing the 99%. It is selective enforcement and racism that gave birth to these laws. It is still selective enforcement and racism that drives their use by law enforcement today.
That is why if you are a black man, you are 13 times more likely to go to prison for a marijuana arrest than a white man. Marijuana prohibition is the new Jim Crow.
Political contributions combined with short terms in office along with term limits are killing the ability of lawmakers to push real change. Time in office should be changed from 2 to 5 years. This can help lawmakers focus on big picture issues rather than worry about where reelection contributions are coming from.
Vern?? Is that my niece in that picture?
Anastasia Wagner is your niece?
I thought Nicole Nelson was your niece.
Nicole is my niece. I have three nieces and thre nephews. That gilr is a mirror image of my niece. I think we went over this before.
A few things I need to address before discussing Regulate Marijuana Like Wine 2012.
1) When leaving a message on my cell phone, please speak clearly and coherently when leaving a message. I didn’t know if it was you or Charlie Brown’s teacher that was calling me.
2) When asking me to speak on a topic that I am very knowledgeable about and take very seriously, it would be wise not to lecture or make demands on me if you really don’t want your head to get ripped off. If you are going to extend an invitation to someone to speak before a group, using phrases and words such as “please,” “thank you” and “your participation and input would be appreciated” would be the civil and professional route to go, not “got it, dude.” Taking the rash and rude tone that you did with me on a public forum accomplishes nothing. I will not be lectured to like a child. While my Wednesday night is open and free, I am still deciding whether or not I should even bother to show up, even though I live nearby, and speak about the topic because of the unprofessional tone that you took with me. My two cents, take it for what it is worth.
3) I will quit making references to the Northwood Night Stalker when you quit writing high school cheerleader like pieces for every single Democratic Party candidate running for local and state office. Frankly, it’s getting boring reading the verbal fellatio that you and Geoff Willis scrawl up for your respective political parties because it sounds like the tired old 1970s Miller Lite chant “Less Filling, Tastes Great.” And you have the gall to lecture me on being unprofessional when you put that picture up to represent Regulate Marijuana Like Wine? Project much, Vern? Hello pot, it’s the kettle!
On to the topic at hand.
CCHHI 2012, aka the Jack Herer (R.I.P.) initiative has been circulated around for as long as we have talked about cannabis legalization in this state. It does allow for the production of industrial hemp in California like Regulate Marijuana Like Wine 2012. Unfortunately, it does not prohibit the manufacture and cultivation of genetically modified strains of cannabis, or as we stoners like to call it “FrankenWeed” Regulate Marijuana Like Wine does prohibit the growth and sale of GMO hemp and cannabis plants. Also, there is no regulatory structure for the sale, manufacture and distribution of hemp and cannabis in CCHHI 2012 while there is one in Regulate Marijuana Like Wine 2012.
The Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act has also been championed by one of the authors of Regulate Marijuana Like Wine 2012, 1998 Libertarian candidate for governor Steve Kubby, for some strange reason. Craig Beresh, the president of San Diego NORML has been one of the biggest vocal leaders pushing this initiative which, unlike Regulate Marijuana Like Wine 2012, does not prohibit the advertising of marijuana in print, radio and television. The no advertising clause in RMLW 2012 was specifically written by RMLW 2012 chief proponent Judge Jim Gray. He has made it very clear on more than one occasion that he does not want to glamorize the use of marijuana in any way, shape or form. This is a clause that was most likely put in there to appease some concerned citizens and parents. Also, there is no mention of permitting the sale and manufacture of hemp products in the Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012 or prohibiting the growth of GMO cannabis plants. Despite these omissions, it is a very well written initiative and I would not hesitate to support it if it made it on the ballot. William Panzer, the attorney who drafted the legal language for Prop 215, is one of the authors of this initiative.
I would not waste my time or energy with the California Reduced Marijuana Penalties Initiative. Essentially, it is Prohibition lite. No mention of a regulatory system to control and tax the sale of cannabis or anything that is included in RMLW 2012 and the Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act.
My money would be on RMLW or Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012 to make the ballot. The other two aren’t that well written to be blunt. Hopefully this time around, we can get the support of the godfather of Prop 215 and former Harvey Milk campaign staffer Dennis Peron. The big mistake with Prop 19 was that chief proponent Richard Lee had alienated Mr. Peron early on in the process that Peron was urging people to vote No on 19. His support could have gotten Prop 19 on the winning side and he is a person who should not be taken for granted. Dennis can be a little cranky at times, but he is one hell of a person to have on your side.
For more information of RMLW 2012 and to see how it stacks up against the other proposed initiatives, visit http://www.regulatemarijuanalikewine.com.
Who said stoners were lazy and unmotivated? We got three proposed initiatives circulating signatures right now! The other one is a waste of time.
Thanks for all the info, Guy. Sorry if you got irritated. My “tone” was the one I take with someone I thought had a sense of humor and thought was my friend for a year or two.
Couple little things – you obviously have me confused with some OTHER Democratic blogger; everyone knows I criticize Democrats all the time, except for when they actually do something good.
That photo has a history, its the one we used last year in the story that convinced the DPOC to endorse Prop 19, so I thought it was good luck.
I wasn’t actually inviting you to the GA tonight; although you’re always invited of course. I’m not even sure I’m gonna be there tonight. I’m probably occupying the home of a foreclosed woman in Irvine instead. If you’re kind enough to bring signature forms by, please call and let me know when it’s convenient for you. And I will try to speak closer to the damn cell phone mouthpiece.
Most importantly, this is the main thing I wanted to know – what is the progress of the sig-gathering on Regulate Like Wine? How many more days do we have, and how many more sigs to gather? Or do you think our time would be more productively spent gathering for the Repeal Cannabis Prohibition one?
The signature gathering for Regulate Marijuana Like Wine started on November 1st. The AG office gave us 150 days to gather 800,000 signatures to qualify for the November 2012 ballot. In essence a deadline of April 1st. Last I heard, we are right on pace to exceed that goal and possibly submit the signatures for verfication by February. However, the more signatures we can get and exceed the number, the better.
Unlike a lot of other initiatives, the signature gathering has been a pure volunteer effort from day one. Many volunteers have gone to the web site and downloaded the petitions. Also, the responses from the dispensaries has been more than positive than they were with Prop 19 which bodes very well for a November victory.
As far as gathering signatures, we want to make sure that anyone that is gathering signatures for RMLW 2012 is doing it right. The last thing we need is a bunch of rejected petitions because some volunteer did not do their due dillegence in making sure that all fo the necessary fields were filled in and that the voters were signing the petition to correspoond with the county that they are registered in. Sounds a bit anal, but contrary to popular belief stoners are known for their finite attention to detaIls.
Is there a plan to resort to some paid sig-gatherers towards the end if need be? Congratulations on the anality.
For those that wish to work on initiatives that will change things from a Federal level please join 99% American Occupiers for Change . . . we are home based Occupiers that support Occupy on initiatives that we feel will actually turn this country around (like Move To Amend Citizens United) while aligning with other progressive organizations and promoting our own initiatives. We are currently working on reinstating Glass Steagall.
We have a national Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/AOC.Nation
And a local closed group serving Orange County, just ask to join: https://www.facebook.com/ap_index#!/groups/AOC.OOC/
Thanks D’Marie. Of course, this is the alternative for those who are unable to join us at the Occupation itself. A luta continua!
Guy, thanks for the perspective. Here’s mine — less informed than yours, but better than some.
I attended events last week with speakers for both RMLW and CCHHI. The former was supported by Judge Gray and a retired police lieutenant and (unless I misunderstood) heartily endorsed by Frank Barbaro; the latter was attended by lots of people for whom cannabis is akin to a religion. It struck me that unless both groups — and the third one, too — just agree to be supportive of each other’s efforts and let voters choose the best of them, we may once again see an initiative fail due to the inability of supporters to pull at the same oar. I’ll sign for and vote for all of them — even the weak tea (or should I say “seeds and stems”) penalty reduction one — and let the chips fall where they may. I don’t know which one I’d most favor, but I am pretty sure that it will be easier to enact the best legislation if we start out with “good.”
Seriously — infighting between initiative proponents will screw things up. Let’s don’t.
CCHHI starts circulating on Jan. 7, by the way.
It is well known that cannabis/hemp oil was used by religious leaders to bless people when Christ was walking the earth and prior to his birth. So to say that cannabis is religious for some may not be that far fetched. Especially in some circles of the Universal Life Church.
The retired police lieutenant you are referring to is Stephen Downing, a former LAPD cop and member of LEAP.
The real religious ones in the cannabis legalization community that I know tend to trend towards the Jack Herer initiative. Jack is like a cult figure in a lot of circles of the cannabis legalization community hence his moniker of “The Hempfather.” While Jack did a lot to bring the issue of cannabis legalization to the forefront, some of his ardent supporters can be more abrasive than me when it comes to advocating this issue. Like I said before, their initiative is well intentioned but falls short to help sway some of the “on the fence” voters when it comes to the question of a regulatory system of sales and distribution of cannabis or industrial hemp. I know that Prop 19 did not have anything in its language for allowing the hemp industry to be revitalized in California and that was one of the qualms that Heather Pritchard, who knows a hell of a lot about hemp, had with the initiative. Flawed as Prop 19 was, it did make the cannabis legalization community into a serious political force.
The infighting in the cannabis community has been going on for years and even if one of these initiatives makes the ballot (I’m willing to bet that two of them will), there will be a small group of “activists” (and I am being facetious here) in the community that will rally against it because one or two small things were excluded from the language of the bill. In the case of Prop 19, we had heard every accusation ranging from reduced protections for medical marijuana patients to a secret plan between Monsanto and RJ Reynolds to create GMO cannabis. The public spat that splintered the Prop 19 campaign and some of the most ardent activists was the pissing match between chief proponent Richard Lee and Prop 215 author Dennis Peron. I like Dennis and Richard a lot, but the maturity of their feud did more to hurt the legalization movement in 2010 than it did to help. Fortunately, Richard Lee is taking a back seat this time around and Dennis is, well just being Dennis. Cantankerous guy, but his heart is in the right place.
In reading the language of RMLW 2012, it is by far the one legalization initiative that will appeal to even the most skeptical of people.
I’ve been working with Judge Gray on this issue for a long time now and will be working directly with him again. One of the things the campaign is going to do this time around is get our own office space once RMLW is on the ballot. This is my proposal. No sharing an office with a political party and sending messages that we support Ron Paul, Obama or whoever the candidate du jour is. Since Judge Gray is in Newport Beach, we will have a space in Orange County. It’s just a matter of where in Orange County.
No, the police lieutenant is a woman — Diane Goldstein?
My feeling with initiatives is: get the camel’s nose under the tent and fix the deficiencies later. That’s why I voted for Prop 19 despite any deficiencies.
I don’t want to insult CCHHI by saying “give it up, RMLW is better”; I want to show them respect. I want all factions to agree to support everything; voters will hash it out later. Infighting is what kills these efforts.
I agree that the effort shouldn’t be tied to a party — but Prop 19’s presence in Irvine Democratic HQ in 2010 was the best option at the time.
It’s best if you don’t piss off the Jack Herer worshippers. Things never end well when you try to confront them or correct them, Think of them as the cannabis legalization movement’s equivalent of the College Republicans when Reagan was in office or the make up of today’s College Democrats and their worship of Obama.
Diane was there? She’s a great resource and a wealth of information. I’m working with a videographer friend of mine to do a series of video essays with members of the clergy who are opposed to the Drug War. Unfortunately, most of your so called “progressive” clergy in Orange County (***cough, cough***** Progressive Interfaith OC, Progressive Christians Uniting OC), including my pastor in Irvine, are too chickenshit to take a stand on this issue or act like the ignorant fool when you mention “the “L” and “M” words. In other words, the act like the problem of the Drug War does not exist. They do this even though they welcome Occupy OC with open arms and give them a forum at the pulpit. Kind of a double standard if you ask me.
Anyway, thanks to Diane she gave me some names of some local clergy who are well versed on the issue.
When you have the likes of Dragonfly De Luz and Letitia Pepper in the the cannabis legalziation activist mix, there will always be some infighting going on. Fortunately, Dragonfly (not her real name SURPRISE!!!) is seen as a joke in activist circles and Ms. Pepper, a self proclaimed attorney, has pretty much burned every bridge that she has crossed. You are better off dealing with Kandice Hawes of OC NORML or Mark and Diane Fitt of the Cannabis Peace Corps than you are with these jokers or some of the real woo woo types that think Jack Herer is the second coming. I like Jack, I appreciate what he has done. I don’t think he’s God..
Thanks for advice. E-mail some contact info on the last group you mentioned if you can. (You can use Vern as a cutout if you don’t have my address. We should also discuss the status of RMLW’s efforts, off the record.)
I’m pretty sure that Jack Herer is not the second coming, since he’s been dead for more than three days. But his memory and his fans still deserve due respect.
“.. we can wear something indicating that we are UNPAID VOLUNTEERS collecting signatures ..”
I will sign anything that the chik in the bikini is collecting signatures for.
Wouldn’t be easier to tell them that you’re not getting paid? That’s what I did.
Yes – you need to pile on the initiatives – the more the merrier. Voters will be so confused and pissed off that they will vote NO on all of them – except the paycheck one.
Can I opt out of being classified as a 99%-er? I aspire to be a 1%-er.
Just stay on that treadmill, buddy, with the carrot dangling right in front of you, like a good boy, until your dying day. That’s what they want.
I do work hard – it is better than being on the dole.
There’s a middle ground though. You’re not gonna be in the top 1%. And the cards are stacked against you and me both. There’s time in the day to work hard and also put up a fight.
My fight is against big fucked up government.
Wrong culprit. That’s YOUR government by the way.
No, it’s descriptive. Do you make/have enough money to be part of the 1%? No? Then you’re part of the 1%, mathematically. You may be screwed up about it, but 1.0-.01=.99, like it or not.
WELL FOR STARTERS nice photo of the scholars bearing down on lapd . this is the ocupy crowd .. yeah folks are going to support these guys.. 2nd progressive movement = aka liberal taxing policys .. no more taxes. enough . state is going broke and you keep screaming for more taxes to give to seiu , teachers union , NO FREAKING WAY .. i and many more will be on the otherside voting against any tax plan by brown and his uinon loving goons . . hopefully it will get SHOT DOWN . just like the last time ..people are sick of paying taxes .. and dont give me 1% rich crowd they have made most of their money on investments wich go up n down . and the more you tax them . they will tax you in rising prices , and services ..
In my humbble opinion with all the photos that have been shot since October 15th, these two photos do the most to harm the reputation of Occupy Orange County CA @ Irvine.
What Occupy is about is the serious business of reclaiming our government from the ultra wealthy mega corporations that are bankrupting our country. It is not to overthrow the government. It is not fun and games. This is the future for us and generations to come! I have been speaking to organizations all over Orange County and when they realize we are not a group of anarchists they breathe a sigh of relief. When they hear that we are organized and that we are working on Citizens United they say that’s what they want to hear and that they can support that.
Pictures are worth a thousand words . . . I am not sure what words you are trying to convey here Vern but they are not words I want coming from my mouth.
Different strokes… I like those pictures. (I assume you’re not talking about the Monopoly guy or the magnifying glass guy; anyway the marijuana girl is not one of us, she’s from Google images.)
Question on the CPAA- would this also require Unions to do the same thing in terms of requiring a vote of its membership (i.e. equating them to corporate shareholders) and also impose the same % limitations? If not, what is the rationale?
I personally would rather see all of the money out…get the money out of politics. Look forward to a response.
Actually, no. There is already a measure that would do that, which the Republicans call “Paycheck Protection.” The CPAA, aimed at corporations, was crafted as a response to Paycheck Protection.
Your position makes good sense, and you should probably vote yes on both measures. Me … I’m just gonna fight for the CPAA because I find myself a lot more sympathetic to labor than big business; big business is doing fine. And I think Paycheck Protection would hurt labor much more than CPAA would hurt big business. I might be wrong…
Combine the two…get all of the non-personal money out of politics. I personally would love to go one step further and have a blind escrow contribution system also…new idea and big picture: candidates do not know who contributes to their campaigns as the money goes to an escrow account without donor info known to the politico…yes, lots of refinement needed. Never heard this idea before, so this is “my own”.
Funny thing about the above, is you can pretty much substitute “union” for “corporation” and “member” for “shareholder” and you would have the exact same argument, but most people will only support one side. If everyone who actually says “get the money out of politics” actually meant it, maybe we would actually get politicians listening to the people and doing the right thing instead of appeasing their moneybags.
I really don’t see how one can be in favor of one and not the other without being so overtly politically divisive.
Here’s the problem: what do you do about volunteers — the place where Labor can outperform Business? Do you allow paid volunteers as well as union members? If so, money is not really out of politics.
Sorry, after reading the post a few times, I am not exactly sure what you mean…”paid volunteers” seems to be an oxy-moron but maybe I am missing the larger point of your post.
Good point: that should be “paid ‘volunteers'” — you know, like signature gatherers are now. If no, advantage Labor; if yes, advantage Capital.
I am probably more concerned with money going to the funding of certain initiatives and candidates once they are on the ballot. You know, the major amount of money that business, unions, others spend on advertising during the voting season. How about we just say what the initiative does and let everyone decide instead of having a boat load of money spent on them and if one side can way outspend the other, they likely will win. The only good thing about the money being spent on these campaigns is that they generally contribute to the state and federal tax roles- the donations are generally not tax deductible but the income for the recipients generates taxable income.
Sounds like you may be more referring to getting certain initiatives on the ballot. I personally probably would not have a problem about not allowing paid signature gatherers or at a minimum requiring disclosure of whether someone is getting paid to do it…both for Biz and for Labor. I presume that some Union Members may also get paid, in one form or another, for “volunteering” also.
Thank you for the discussion.
If it really matters to you about my compensation for the initiative that I am supporting, I get paid a dimebag for every 100 signatures collected.
Don’t take it personally, GuyF. It’s a broader issue than just you.
Guy, if you are referring to me, I do think that signers of petitions should know if the one holding the clipboard is getting paid or not. Seems like it goes towards a goal of transparency for those who are signing.
The law in California states that the person signing the petition has the right to ask the petition gather if he/she is getting paid to collect the signatures. It’s in bold lettering on the petitions that I have. When I have been collecting signatures for RMLW 2012, I start out by telling the people before I tell them about the initiative that I am not being paid. Unless they know me, people can usually tell if the petition gatherer is being paid or not. In my case, they seem to think that I am pretty knowledgeable about the subject.
You’d be surprised at how many people don’t even bother to ask that question or don’t even know that they have the right to ask the petition gatherer that question. During my gathering of petition signatures for this initiative and last election year’s Prop 19, I have received a lot of business cards for medical dispensaries and edible bakers. And off the record, even a “freebie.”
I know you are new. The dimebag comment was a joke.
Yeah, I figured you were joking. Those who are gathering sigs b/c they are passionate and believe in the cause, I am sure would be MUCH more successful in getting their goal of sigs and initiatives on the ballot. I would think that the powers behind the initiatives would want to recruit passionate individuals who are able to talk the talk and walk the walk instead of just getting paid to try to hustle signatures.
This is why Judge Jim Gray and I get along so well. Besides, I got the petitions directly from him. The copies were courtesy of the Fed Ex Kinko’s in MasterPlannedistan on Barranca and Culver.
Tax and Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act
How do they get around the “self incrimination” protections of the 5th?
What about those protections do you think requires “getting around”?
Tax and regulate. What forms would need to be signed “under penalty of perjury” to forward the tax payments? So if you comply with the state and file forms and pay taxes, the fed’s take those same forms and nail you to the wall as a drug pusher with 100% forfeiture.
The mechanics of Tax and regulate make it a self incrimination problem.
If you are not working with your federal representatives to change the drug laws as it effect marijuana, then all you are doing is wasting air.
That’s a valid concern, but I think that there are workarounds. Sales tax, for example, need not be declared as to the federal government; if a company rather than individuals accrues whatever profit there is in such sales, I don’t think that there’s a self-incrimination problem.
Regarding the Millionaire’s Tax…It seems to me that most people would agree with the phrase “do you believe that others are not paying their fair share of tax?”. This is true for lower income (i.e. they would say that the rich are not paying enough and are reaping the benefits of our society) and also for higher income (i.e. they would say that those making less are not paying enough since they feel they are paying a higher % of income tax and here that half of people don’t pay income tax).
The governor’s plan is at least a balanced approach so that the pain is actually shared between everyone…the lower income families will pay more on taxable goods while higher income will pay not only more on taxable goods but also on their income over $250K. Unfortunately, the higher the state income tax is, the lower the federal income tax is as it creates a higher deduction for federal purposes, so it shift some of the burden to the feds.
Everyone benefits from an educated society. Everyone benefits from roads. Everyone benefits from public services. To shift the pain only to one class of people does not seem to be “fair”.
It is indicated that the 99% “didn’t do anything to tank the economy and have only been suffering” which to me seems to be a little extreme to me considering that some of the property/foreclosure/mortgage issues I think would have to born by some homeowners who presumably are in the 99%. By getting into mortgages they did not understand or those that they were over extending themselves on, they likely have also contributed (yes, not fully 100% responsible either). I feel like we got into this problem together and we need to work together to get out of it.
If taxes are to be raised, I feel it should be a shared burden. Fortunately, for those who do not feel they and their family are currently paying enough, they can write a check to the state, choose to not claim some deductions, choose to fully pay their share of use tax on un-taxed purchases (i.e. out of state purchases), etc…
why is everyone ALWAYS SAYING THE RICH dont pay their share . they pay 51% of the taxes . how much more do you want them to pay . this meltdown we have is because of all kinds of things , housing market crash , giving out loans to folks that have no busniness getting them . pension plans of public employeee unions destroying states , = calif one of the main culprits .
You should clarify that they pay 51% +/- of federal income taxes. They do not pay 51% of other taxes such as state income tax, property, sales, payroll, state gross receipts, state franchise, etc…
Part of the problem is that each side exaggerates or underdiscloses…one side will pick a group who may have hyper charged deductions (i.e. 50% of their income to charity) or high foreign tax credits or most of their income taxed at 15% long term capital gains/qualified dividend rates saying that the rich pay a lower share of federal income tax than those who may a lot less, while the other side will say that the top 10% pay 70% of the tax (or something like that…I know my %’s are wrong) or other %’s when they are speaking about only federal income tax thereby leading the reading to utter confusion.
We all have to get to a level understanding prior to being able to move forward.
i agree that the tax code is WAY TO COMPLEX .. I WOULD NOT MIND A FLAT RATE FOR EVERYONE ?
Do you realize how much more you’d be paying under a flat rate, chump?
Vern, not sure how you could make that assumption unless you know TGO personally and his financial situation…some will pay more, some will pay less.
Well … I do know who he is and where he works, actually. He’s a very hard-working middle-class guy. And I’ve been arguing with him on here for years. And we all know he’s a Cuban exile (not relevant to this discussion, but a nice bit of color that explains why he writes the way he does.)
We go way back…
THANK YOU mr vern.. tjlocal welcome to the site . sometimes it gets a little heated in here . i am not a rich guy . vern and i go back a few years on here we disagree on views about 90 % of the time . i come form a different place and grew up with a conservative anti left view of the world . he mostly is on the other side so sometimes we clash . i have no hate for him just a BIG difference on lots of views .. welcome and enjoy the stories .
Thanks for the background…for me, I was blessed to have parents who did not really make their political views known to me- or I was just not that concerned about them. I am just now realizing that their are actually not the same as mine which makes for some fun family events and even better “bets” about future events and policy.
I likely fall more on the fiscal conservative, socially moderate side…probably some libertarian views also. Not confined by group think, but instead my own think.
Got it…new guy error. Ironically, even hard working middle-class guys (and ladies too!) may even see their taxes go down under a flat tax. It is all in the details of the tax and the deductions that would no longer be allowed. I personally feel it would definitely help with the complexity (his initial argument), planning, and maybe most importantly- compliance.
Another new guy error…not replying to the post but the thread instead. Sorry (if mod wants to change, please do).
By the way, welcome New Guy! Hope you stay around, you are a very thoughtful commenter.
Thanks, I try to be even keeled, courteous, and hopefully thought provoking. There are so many issues that just make me shake my head in bewilderment about misinformation and such…I know that I am misinformed on certain items also, and as such I always reserve the right to get smarter on any issue. Hopefully I can be a good addition to the board.
As long as everything is intellectually stimulating and I am learning, then I will be around. I will not be one to attack personally and am not easily offended.
Has anyone thought about an itiative that would place restrictions on bars taverns clubs and restaurants that sell alcohol to keep them at a minimum of 600 feet from housing schools churches and other sensitrive use areas? Anyone intersted in helping out with that one? If they wanna place people in jail for using or selling cannabis, then shouldnt we respond as CA Citizens concerned about drunken violence and fatal DUJI accidents? Anyone wanna join me in this one?
Short version of a conversation at Occupy the other night (a typical Occupy conversation)
Wild 18-year old: It’s not fair that 18-year olds can’t drink legally, but we can fight for our country. I want to drink!
40-year old Marine: 18-year olds don’t have the maturity to know how to drink. They don’t have the maturity to have a gun either, but for that they are given a lot of training and supervision.
Therapist lady: I’ve seen 17 and 18-year olds who have signed up for the military, and they have absolutely no idea what they’re actually signing up for.
Me: Maybe you’re all right. If you don’t have the maturity to know how to drink until you’re 21, then you don’t have the maturity to decide you want to be in the military until you’re 21. Let’s make 21 the minimum age for military enlistment.
Nice proposal even though I don’t agree with it. Regardless of my views, the business and alcohol lobbies would spend copious amounts of money to defeat that initiative if it were to make it on the ballot. Which bodes well for any cannabis legalization initiative because they would be so focused on defeating that initiative due to the possible economic impact that initiative would have on their respective industries.
Shout out to the Orange Juice Blog. I am on the executive committee for RMLW and an active LEAP speaker as well. I want to clarify that as a group RMLW is encouraging registered voters to sign all the petitions. Guys Fawkes & Greg’s assessments are correct. I believe, as does Law Enforcement Against Prohibition who endorses our proposition, that RMLW has the best chance to survive the socially conservative democratic and republican voters who were scared by the rhetoric of the anti-Prop 19 moralists and law enforcment leaders.
One of the things I have been striving to achieve is to get all the stakeholders in this fight to realize that there are silenced voices who are currently incarcerated that we need to represent as well. We need to ensure that our friends, our families and our communities are no longer devastated by the sensless war on drugs and marijuana.
RMLW will help us make California a better place to live. I am in OC as well so if you need petitions or need someone else to speak at churches or political events Judge Gray, Chief Downing, myself and other LEAP/RMLW folks are available. Send me a FB message you can find me at Diane Wattles-Goldstein on FB or at @dianemgoldstein at twitter. Thanks for helping us win this good fight.
Welcome to the Mosh Pit, Diane. Sorry I didn’t do that one story we were talking about. By the time I figured it out, it didn’t seem timely any more.
I tie it to crony capitalism by law enforcement. It shouldn’t be allowed. I understand collective bargaining and lobbyists, but an example is CNOA who influence legislation through paid lobbyists and continue to fight appropriate reform of areas such as forfeiture laws and intransigent refusal to accept that cannabis is safer then alcohol and has proven medical efficacy. But that’s another story. It can be pulled out maybe as a piece on RMLW and how LE works against the movement.
Thanks for popping in, Diane. I look forward to hearing you speak at the Democrats of North Orange County meeting at 7 p.m. on Thurs. Jan 5 at the Sizzler near the intersection of Harbor and Brea Blvds. (Not that I’m advertising that meeting or anything.)
Thanks for the support! I’ll have petitions and nuggets of wisdom. I encourage everyone in the mosh pit to become members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition http://www.leap.cc. We don’t charge a membership, don’t sell your email list and send out some great informative news about the failed drug war. On occasion we will ask for a donation! Join us as we help each other and put the peace back into policing.
Glad for the support. We still should talk about the email. I think we can use it to show the extent of crony capitalism in law enforcement in its opposition to reform both locally and nationally as we work through this initiative.
New guy double post or in my old profession FNG 🙂