New Bills to Afflict Californians

Commentary

The California Legislature seems determined to drive out even more residents by erecting “a multitude of New Offices” and sending “hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance,” to quote one of the Declaration of Independence’s charges against King George III, tyrant. Before the Feb. 17 deadline to submit legislation, 2,632 new bills were introduced, a new record. Here are some of the worst.

Assembly Bill 1690 was introduced by Assemblyman Ash Kalra (D-San Jose). It’s a rehash of last year’s Assembly Bill 1400 and Assembly Constitutional Amendment 11, both also by Kalra, which I covered in The Epoch Times here.

AB 1690 so far consists of “placeholder” language, a few words with the rest to be added later. Here’s the main part so far: “SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature to guarantee accessible, affordable, equitable, and high-quality health care for all Californians through a comprehensive universal single-payer health care program that benefits every resident of the state.”

But the only way any California “resident” would “benefit” from socialized medicine would be by leaving. And note it says “resident,” not citizen, or “legal immigrant.” So illegal immigrants would get the same treatment as legal residents, driving up costs for taxpayers and making the state a magnet for sick people.

Last March, the Legislative Analyst pegged the cost as high as $552 billion a year, entailing massive tax increases. Since then, we’ve suffered 8 percent inflation. So the number today would be almost $600 billion. Socialism is never cheap.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1 is by Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters). It currently takes a two-thirds vote to pass a local property tax or bond, except for school bonds, at 55 percent. This bill would drop the threshold to “55 percent of the voters in the local government voting on the proposition.”

Basically, it would gut Proposition 13, the landmark 1978 tax limitation measure that made owning a home the one major area in California, except exempt grocery purchases, with low taxes. ACA 1 includes numerous requirements for how the tax increase could be spent, such as, “A list of the specific projects to be funded, and a certification that the city, county, city and county, or special district has evaluated alternative funding sources.”

But all government money is fungible. Meaning paying for Project X with funding from an ACA 1 bond would free up normal revenue to fund Project Y, which has no limitations.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 3 is by Assemblyman Alex Lee (D-San Jose). It would drop to a simple majority, from the current two-thirds, the votes needed in the Assembly and Senate to pass a tax increase. Back in 2010, voters already passed Proposition 25, which made the same change, from two-thirds to a simple majority, to pass the overall budget, while maintaining the two-thirds for raising taxes.

Also in 2010, voters elected Gov. Jerry Brown, who spent eight years maintaining his frugality reputation and limiting the Legislature’s spending addiction. Gov. Gavin Newsom has not followed that path. His first budget, for fiscal year 2019-20, was for $208 billion. His proposal (pdf) for fiscal 2023-24, which begins on July 1, was $297 billion. In just four years, that’s an increase of $89 billion, or 48 percent. The simple majority change to pass a budget obviously has encouraged wild spending.

With a recession bearing down on the state, and the almost $100 billion surplus turned into a deficit, making it easier to increase taxes would only drive more Californians out of this state, and faster.

Senate Bill 637 is by state Sen. Dave Min (D-Irvine). It’s another sparsely worded “placeholder” bill. So far it reads, “It is the intent of the Legislature to subsequently amend this measure to include provisions that would prohibit financial institutions that do business with firearms manufacturers from doing business with the state of California.”

Min used to teach law at the University of California–Irvine. So he has to know this would violate the U.S. Constitution in two ways. First, banks are primarily regulated under the Interstate Commerce Clause and federal banking laws passed by Congress. That’s especially true since the banking consolidation after the Great Recession and the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010.

Then there’s last year’s Bruen decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, affirming the Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms.” SB 637 obviously violates that by making it more difficult to buy “arms” legally. It would be similar to a bill banning financial institutions from doing business with the state of California if they provided banking services to conservatives, a clear First Amendment violation.

Min obviously is hoping this bill advances his bid for a congressional seat. Gun control is popular with Democratic donors. But it may not go over in the “purple” 47th Congressional District, where last November Rep. Katie Porter, now running for U.S. Senate, barely beat Republican Scott Baugh, 51.7 percent to 48.3 percent. Baugh has announced he’s running again. Min actually is far more radical in the left-wing, socialist direction than is the progressive Porter.

On the other hand, favoring Min, conservative Republicans are more likely to flee the policies he has pushed, leaving behind those who thrive in a big-government environment, such as public employees and their union leadership. If you’re pulling down a $200,000-plus tax-funded compensation package, you’re loving California. At least until so many taxpayers have left, it all washes out to sea.

(Full disclosure: I worked as press secretary for state Sen. John Moorlach (R-Costa Mesa), and during off-hours helped on his 2020 re-election bid which was lost to Min.)

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.