News

SacTax Calls Out the League of California Cities

At the April 13, 2023 Board meeting of the Sacramento Taxpayers Association (SacTax), the organization refuted the bogus claims of the League of California Cities that the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) violates citizen rights and is corporate sponsored. In a recent special news release, the League claimed that the Taxpayer Protection Act, which is a qualified initiative on the November 2024 ballot, will force residents to pay higher taxes, damage the environment, create frivolous lawsuits, force cuts to public schools, and a laundry list of other wild allegations.

Per President W. Bruce Lee, "The claims of the League are hysterical, outrageous and are intended to mislead the public well before the November 2024 ballot measure. The TPA is designed to protect historic citizen/taxpayer rights, not erode them. Rights that the voters themselves enshrined in Proposition 13 (1978) and Proposition 218 (1996). We hope that they will see that the measure is in the best interest of citizen taxpayers as well as the League, for then we’ll have genuine consensus in smart tax policy rather than a simple mob rule.” weaken Prop. 13 protections, and in several instances developers have taken advantage of the Upland court decision loophole to use taxpayer dollars for their own self-interest. I have seen this firsthand.

The TPA is a qualified initiative for the November 2024 ballot with over one million citizen signatures calling for it to be adopted to protect Prop. 13 and override local attempts to raise taxes and fees. It is a common-sense measure that will give taxpayers the final say on all proposed state tax measures after they have passed the Legislature with a 2/3 vote and the governor’s signature. Most importantly, the Act doesn’t cut any current state or local government funding. It simply gives voters the right to vote on all future tax increases and stops working families from paying billions more in “hidden taxes” imposed by unelected bureaucrats. According to SacTax Vice President, Jon Coupal, “Californians are overtaxed. They are subject to the highest income tax rate in the nation, the highest sales tax rate, and the highest gas tax. The TPA will guarantee voters, not politicians, have the final decision on whether to raise taxes, maintain current revenue streams, and ensure transparency and accountability on future tax and fee increases.”

The full article is in the attached PDF. Click below

SacTax Calls Out the League of California Cities 1 May 2023

Sac Tax Challenges Pay Increase for Board of Supervisors
SACRAMENTO - On June 8, 2023 the Sacramento Taxpayers Association (Sac Tax) Board of Directors formally rebuked the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors for their recent decision to grant themselves a substantial 36 percent pay raise. Compensation would increase from $127,000 per year to $173,000 per year or by $46,000. This action has captured the attention of the public and two primary reasons were given for this rebuke. First, considering the economic challenges the county is currently facing, the timing of the pay raise could not have been more inopportune. Second, the process of using the “consent calendar” for the passage of the pay increase in order to avoid public scrutiny is highly inappropriate. Sac Tax is dedicated to the highest levels of government transparency and meaningful government oversight by members of the public and media. It is worth noting that while the vote in favor of the salary increase was nearly unanimous, one supervisor, Sue Frost, stood against the decision. Supervisor Frost recognized the inappropriateness of the pay raise given the burden of the recent pandemic and current inflation on the economy. In contrast, the remaining board members chose to reward themselves, which can be seen as a selfish move by many. Even more troubling, median income in Sacramento is only $36,152 — so a County Supervisor will make nearly 500% more than their constituents. In fact, the pay raise they just voted for themselves is $10,000 more than the ENTIRE ANNUAL INCOME of many of their hard-working constituents. This vote is an issue that is bound to generate controversy and divide opinions. On one hand, the board members justified the pay raise by citing the County Executive's advice to the Board that a substantial increase was necessary as some media outlets quoted that Supervisor pay had not increased since 1991. However, in examining the public record it is discovered that from just 2012 to 2022 (or 10 years) the Supervisors’ base pay went up by $34,000 a year, not counting a car allowance, pension, and higher pay for serving on regional committees and commissions that they appoint themselves to. That is a far cry from the claim that “Supervisors’ pay hasn’t changed since 1991.” Many Californians who have lost jobs during the pandemic will likely view the decision as tone-deaf at best and unjust at worst. The Board might argue that their work, which ensures Sacramento County is taken care of, should not go unrewarded, but the optics of their move in the present context could bring into question the decisions made by the supervisors. For example Alameda county was cited as compatible with Sacramento in population and was the basis for the 36% salary adjustment, yet housing prices which represent 40% of a household budget are double Sacramento County housing prices ($1.1 million in Alameda vs. $550,000 for Sacramento County). The duplicity comes when the County Executive recommends raises for County staff using neighboring counties with lower costs of living than Alameda County to justify smaller staff wage increases. Also shocking are the rumors of 25% wage increases for County Executives. This is outrageous. According to Sac Tax President W. Bruce Lee, “Being on the Board of Supervisors is a public service, not a way to pad one’s own pockets. We are not attracting candidates for public office because we offer a big salary. We are not trying to hire employees away from other companies as is done in the general marketplace. A reasonable wage is appropriate, but elected office is a service to the community and so many candidates run for public office for all of the wrong reasons – including money, ego, and fame. That’s how we get career politicians. Our electeds need to serve in office out of sense of duty – not out a sense of personal gain. I can guarantee you that if we pay $173,000 for a county supervisor, we will not get a better supervisor than if we pay $127,000. And, we can find highly qualified people to serve for $110,000. Money is not the issue and should not be the motivation. Public duty and service should be the reward in itself. Remember, that US Senators and Congressional Representatives are paid $174,000 per year.” The Sacramento Board of Supervisors' decision to grant themselves such a huge pay raise is just inappropriate and wrong. Supervisor Frost, who vocalized her concerns and voted against the raise, deserves commendation, and the board needs to question County staff conclusions more and consider their constituents when making such decisions. Sac Tax hopes that during this budget season at the County the Board of Supervisors would revise downward their large spike in pay.

The full article is in the attached PDF click below.

Sac Tax Challenges Pay Increase for Board of Supervisors

The new "INSIGHTS" Newsletter from SacTax is attached!

Articles include:

• Economic Update for California
• Infrastructure Bill Hurts Schools
• Government Liaison Officer/Watchdog Teams
• and more!

Our lead article is "MORE TAX PLEASE ..."

It begins ....

"Local government is jiggling your front door handle … “Anyone home?  It’s election year.  We want more taxes please.”  Yes, they are knocking and soon many tax measures will be proposed. 

And, here’s an old proposal in new clothes!  A 40 year, transportation half percent sales tax hike for Sacramento County.  First proposed in 2016 and voted down; then resurfaced in 2020 to be pulled off the ballot at the last moment when the Sacramento Transportation Authority realized it would again miss the two-thirds threshold for passage.

Here’s the twist … rather than local government proposing a special use tax again (requiring a 2/3 majority vote); let’s con the voters into taxing themselves!  Let’s use the “citizen initiative” process to put the tax on the ballot, which now only requires a simple majority vote due to a recent array of court decisions.

In 1978 California voters, through the historic Proposition 13, established that the state legislature approve tax increases with a two-thirds vote requirement.  In 1996 this was strengthened by Proposition 218 requiring local tax increases to have voter approval – a simple majority for general fund revenue, and two-thirds for special purpose taxes. 

Then a 2017 California Supreme Court opinion commented, “(W)e will not lightly .... "

The full article is in the attached PDF click below.

Insights Newsletter Sept 2022

Happy reading and thanks for making a difference in our community!

W. Bruce Lee, President

Sacramento Taxpayers Association

"Building Citizen Ownership Over Our Governments"