MOORLACH CAMPAIGN UPDATE — City Treasurers and Clerks — October 15, 2016

With November 8th drawing near, you’re starting to see more campaigning occurring in the Letter to the Editor pages. TheLaguna Beach Independent has certainly had a few interesting ones of late. I’m using the one below to provide my recommendations for non-Council elected positions in cities, where they occur.

I’ll provide the list first, then the Indy piece, and then a piece from the Valley News on two of the statewide ballot measure.

For previous voter guide information, here are the links:

STATE PROPOSITIONS — See MOORLACH UPDATE — SB 32 and Propositions — September 18, 2016 september 18, 2016 john moorlach

COSTA MESA BALLOT MEASURES — See MOORLACH CAMPAIGN UPDATE — Costa Mesa Ballot Measures — September 29, 2016 september 29, 2016 john moorlach

ORANGE COUNTY CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATES — See MOORLACH CAMPAIGN UPDATE — OC City Council Recommendations — October 13, 2016 october 13, 2016 john moorlach

You and I know that you are responsible for your votes. I’m just providing another tool as you do your personal research. You have many other input factors that you need to include in your decision process.

Allow me to give you the ground rules for my ballot recommendations. As someone with a long history with the Orange County Republican Central Committee and the California Republican Party State Central Committee, their bylaws only allow me to endorse Republican candidates. Therefore, the candidates identified below are registered Republicans (Rep), unless otherwise noted (Libertarian = Lib, Democrat = Dem, and No Party Preference = NPP).

Note: I am making exceptions for the San Clemente Treasurer, as Mark A. Taylor and I go back to my C.P.A. practice days, and the Laguna Beach Treasurer, as Laura Parisi and I worked together during my County Treasurer days.

I can’t endorse every Republican, so I have a grading system. If I have endorsed the candidate, the name will be provided in bold. If there is a good second choice, or a tie (for example, two or more of the candidates are friends), the candidate(s) will be provided in italics (this may mean you’ll have to do more independent research on the candidates). If a Republican candidate is not familiar or not recommended by me, they will be in regular print.

Bold = Endorsement

Italics = Good second choice

Regular = On the ballot

** = Incumbent

CITY TREASURER
City of Brea City Treasurer RICK RIOS ** Rep
City of Brea City Treasurer GEORGE ULLRICH Rep
City of Huntington Beach City Treasurer ALISA CUTCHEN Rep
City of Laguna Beach City Treasurer LAURA PARISI ** NPP
City of Placentia City Treasurer SCOTT W. NELSON Rep
City of Placentia City Treasurer KEVIN A. LARSON ** Rep
City of San Clemente City Treasurer MARK A. TAYLOR Lib
CITY CLERK
City of Huntington Beach City Clerk KEVIN DONOVAN NPP
City of Huntington Beach City Clerk ROBIN ESTANISLAU ** NPP
City of Laguna Beach City Clerk LISETTE CHEL-WALKER ** Dem
City of San Clemente City Clerk JOANNE BAADE Rep

High-Profile Endorsements for Incumbent Treasurer

Editor,

At least one person has urged Lagunans to “vote locally so special interest groups don’t determine local elections,” and to vote to replace our incumbent city treasurer.

What the heck is that supposed to mean?

Laura Parisi, our current city treasurer, has earned the endorsement of many Laguna Beach community leaders including retired City Treasurer Susan Morse, who presumably knows a lot about Laguna’s finances since she served in that office for 18 years.

Laura Parisi has also been endorsed by the Orange County Auditor-Controller, superintendent of Orange County Schools Al Mijares Ph.D., former Orange County treasurer and current State Senator John Moorlach (who represents Laguna Beach), former California State Treasurer and Attorney General Bill Lockyer, all of whom were duly elected by voters including many in Laguna Beach. (http://lauraparisitreasurer.com/)

And Shari Freidenrich, a CPA and Orange County’s elected Treasurer-Tax Collector, recently wrote to the Laguna Beach City Council: “I have worked with your City Treasurer for the last 16 years in the public sector area. She is highly regarded by her peers and is known for her technical knowledge in a variety of areas, due to her CPA and prior work experience. She has represented the City of Laguna Beach very effectively … I believe that the City of Laguna Beach is lucky to have a CPA as their elected City Treasurer.”

If these are special interests, they’re special because they clearly have our best interests at heart. Laguna voters would be well-served to follow their lead and re-elect Laura Parisi as Laguna Beach City Treasurer.

Julie Sandler, Laguna Beach

Statewide ballot measures would increase taxes

By Kim Harris

Editor’s Note; This is the first in a series of articles exploring the various statewide ballot measures that will go before voters for approval Nov. 8. In this article, we will present Prop 55 and Prop 56, both will increase taxes for California residents.

Prop 55

The California Extension of the Proposition 30 Income Tax Increase Initiative, also known as Proposition 55, is on the Nov. 8, ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment. A “yes” vote supports extending the personal income tax increases on incomes over $250,000 approved in 2012 for 12 years in order to fund education and health care. A “no” vote opposes extending the personal income tax increases on incomes over $250,000 approved in 2012 for 12 years, allowing the tax increase to expire in 2019.

According to text found on ballotpedia.com, about 89 percent of revenues from the tax increase would go toward K-12 schools and 11 percent to state community colleges. An additional $2 billion would be allocated in certain years to Medi-Cal and other health programs.

Ballotpedia reports that Prop 30, approved in 2012, was an income tax that also had a sales tax component that Prop 55 would not extend. Without extension through approval of Prop 55 or another like it, the income tax approved under Prop 30 was designed to be phased out starting in 2018. Prop 30 raised about $6 billion per year since it was approved in 2012.

Prop 55 would continue the tax rates instituted by Prop 30 through 2030. The tax increase impacts the 1.5 percent of Californians with a single income filing of at least $263,000 or a joint income filing of at least $526,000.

In California, the income tax bracket applies to a filers portion of income within that bracket. The Official Voter Information Guide provides an example: “The amount of increased taxes paid by high-income taxpayers would depend upon their taxable income. For example, if this measure passes, a single person with taxable income of $300,000 would pay an extra 1 percent on their income between $263,000 and $300,000. This works out to a tax increase of $370 for this person.”

To date, supporters include the likes of Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, State Superintendent Tom Torlakson, and the California Democratic Party. Supporters say that Prop 55 would not raise taxes for anyone, would lower the sales tax, only affect the wealthiest Californians and provides strict accountability and transparency standards ensuring that money goes to local schools while preventing budget cuts and continue to restore funding lost during the recession.

Opponents include Senator John Moorlach, the California Republican Party and the California Chamber of Commerce. Opponents say that Prop 55 would extend a measure that was supposed to be temporary, amounting to a broken promise made by politicians, extend taxes during a time when higher taxes are not necessary, hurt small businesses and favor special interests and politicians.

Prop 56

The California Proposition 56, Tobacco Tax Increase (#15-0081A1) will be on the Nov. 8, ballot in California as acombined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute. A “yes” vote favors increasing the cigarette tax by $2 per pack, with equivalent increases on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes. A “no vote opposes increasing the cigarette tax by $2 per pack, with equivalent increases on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes.

According to ballotpedia.com, initiatives to increase taxes on tobacco products are also on the ballot in Coloradoas Amendment 73, Missouri as Proposition A and Amendment 3, and North Dakota as Measure 4 in 2016.

Ballotpedia reports that California currently has a tobacco excise tax of $0.87 per pack of cigarettes. The mean or average state tobacco tax is $1.65. Fourteen states have lower tobacco taxes than California, while 35 states and D.C. have higher taxes. The federal government levies a $1.01 tobacco tax in 2016.

Revenue from the current state tax on tobacco goes to the General Fund, tobacco prevention, health care services for low-income persons, environmental protection, breast cancer screenings and research, and early childhood development programs. Prop 56 would increase the tobacco tax by $2 bringing the total up to $2.87 per pack of cigarettes. The tax would also be levied on other tobacco products and e-cigarettes, too.

Revenue from the additional $2.00 tax would be allocated to physician training, prevention and treatment of dental diseases, Medi-Cal, tobacco-use prevention, research into cancer, heart and lung diseases, and other tobacco-related diseases, and school programs focusing on tobacco-use prevention and reduction. Proposition 56 does not change how the 87 cent tobacco tax is allocated.

Supporters include Secretary of State Alex Padilla, the California Democratic Party and California League of Conservation Voters. Supporters say Prop 56 would reduce tobacco-related health care costs and would help pay for those costs, prevent youth smoking and would also address tobacco marketing aimed at youth as a target customer. In addition, the proposition includes transparency and accountability safeguards for use of the tax revenue generated.

Opposition to Prop 56 include the California Republican Party, the California Taxpayers Association and the Inland Empire Taxpayers Association. Opponents say the proposition would fund insurance companies and special interests more than it would fund treatments for smoking related illnesses and youth smoking prevention, would not allocate funds for improving schools and would waste money on overhead and bureaucracy.

If you no longer wish to subscribe, just let me know by responding with the request to do so.

Advertisements