I think you should read this

 (reprinted and updated with the authors permission)

Part I

As is typical this time of year, lawmakers just returned to Sacramento from their annual paid vacation—the second of three vacations each year. Never mind that the state budget remained more than five weeks past-due, or that the worst of California’s crises are unsolved, including healthcare, prison overcrowding, workers compensation, and reliable clean water distribution.

During Easter lawmakers take a week off, during the summer they have one month off, and then after the Legislative Session ends (typically by September), they take the rest of the year off.For the honor of having them in office we pay each lawmaker a minimum of $116,208 per year, with an additional average $36,195 in tax-free per diem for living expenses, and of course a state car that comes complete with a state gas card. The ranking leaders of the majority and minority parties make a little more, for a combined annual lawmaker salary package of about $18.4 million (with cars or gas, add $1.6 M), excluding the nearly 1200 support staff (add $54M) in and around the Capitol.

Lawmakers will be the first to tell you that they work late hours, and they do, as well as work in the Districts though they seldom can be found in their District Offices. Included in those long days are off-site fundraising calls, special interest receptions, and honorable ceremonies mixed in with speaking engagements, as well as the highly coveted sponsored junkets to Brazil or Hawaii.California has legislative body of 120 lawmakers, comprised of 40 State Senators and 80 Assembly Members. Generally each Senate District has two Assembly Districts running through it. Yet California has only 58 counties.

In this age of technology, when neighborhood news is broadcast throughout regions, and worldwide understanding of local matters is available at the click of a mouse (button), do we really need multiple elected officials in the Capitol from each region? Or could we cut unnecessary expenses by reducing the size of the Legislature to a mere 58 representatives? From 120 to 58 would represent a 48.3% reduction or an immediate savings of at least $35.5 million each year.

California’s budget deficit is nearly $20 billion in the hole, and lawmakers are even considering unconstitutional legislation (AB 2914) to tax adult entertainment in order to offset that budget shortfall. Instead of pointing the finger at everyone else, perhaps the Legislature should look inward at ways it could save money in an effort to do their fair share.AB 2914, the proposed adult entertainment tax, was scheduled to come up for vote on August 4^th, in the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee that is chaired by the bill’s author, Assemblyman Chuck Calderon (D-Whittier). The measure was recently amended from a 25% to instead an 8.3% tax that is to be imposed upon each product between 3 to 5 times by the time it reaches consumers’ hands. With the budget shortfall weighing heavily on their minds, some lawmakers were wavering on whether or not to oppose AB 2914.

The adult entertainment industry represents more than 50,000 (motivated) Californians. Imagine the potential of that push-back on the Legislature…

Part II

The truth was trounced yesterday, August 4th, as California State lawmakers in the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee (Chaired by Calderon), caved to political pressures by labor unions to support yet another new tax measure.

AB 2914, which seeks to tax adult entertainment venues and products multiple times at 8.3%, passed by one vote. Opponents to the measure claim such a law would place all California adult entertainment businesses at a competitive disadvantage to out-of-state vendors. Meanwhile, other states (like Nevada), are opening their doors to California businesses who want to jump across the border and set up shop.

Leading up to the bill’s hearing, the industry presented a mountain of independent peer-reviewed and scientifically validated studies and other evidence which disprove the bill’s claims of negative secondary effects said to be caused by these businesses. But all of that was disregarded as lawmakers supported Mr. Calderon’s boastful claim at the bill’s first hearing, that “We are the California State Legislature. We can do what we want,” and to just ignore the evidence.

Mr. Calderon’s has been promising lawmakers that California is the only state which allows the production of adult videos. But as you can see from the attached three Las Vegas billboards, in Nevada businesses openly advertise for hiring new adult entertainment filmstars.

California adult entertainment venues account for more than $4-billion in the state, and provide more than 50,000 jobs to Californian’s. The attached pictures of the three billboards come as a result of representatives from the industry recently scouting new locations to setup shop when leave California. For many, AB 2914 is apparently the last straw in California’s hostile business climate.
AB 2914 illustrates the failure of our California Legislature to consider public policy based upon the merits of a proposal over the sphere of political influence. The next step in the process for AB 2914 is the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Unofficial Vote Tally:
Calderon (Chair) – support
DeVore (Vice Chair) – oppose
Adams – oppose
Arambula – support (Calderon declared in open committee, prior to Arambula’s attendance, that Arambula would support. Interestingly enough, Arambula’s only question in committee was “What is the Chair’s recommendation?”)
Eng – support
Feuer – support
Hayashi – support
Ma – oppose
Plescia – oppose