California Chamber

Re "A sick waste of money," Editorial, July 18 It's hard to imagine a worse time to support a new tax on hospitals, but The Times has managed to do just that. This new tax -- which The Times calls a fee -- will be passed through to patients with private health coverage or who pay out of pocket, and will exacerbate our already out-of-control healthcare costs. Less than six weeks ago, California voters sent a clear signal: no more taxes. The Times' ill-considered endorsement of a proposed hospital tax (AB 1383 by Assemblyman Dave Jones)

This March 26, everyone who cares about schools and students must vote yes on Prop. 203. That's what it will take for Prop. 203--the school construction bond--to pass. It's that simple. Prop. 203 is so important to the education community. If approved by voters, this bond issue will fund critical projects for school construction and repairs, classroom seismic safety and improved access to computers in pubic schools, community colleges and public universities. The education community is not alone in its support for Prop.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation Tuesday to increase California's minimum wage to $8 an hour over the next 15 months. Question: When does it take effect? Answer: A 75-cent-an-hour increase takes effect Jan. 1. It will raise California's minimum wage to $7.50 an hour from $6.75. On Jan. 1, 2008, there will be another increase, to $8 an hour, or $16,640 annually. Q: How many workers will get this raise? A: About 1 million workers of the state's 17.75 million workers.

Summary: The measure would restrict a person's right to sue under the Unfair Business Competition Law, known as 17200 after its section number in the business and professions code. The law allows anyone to sue a company, even if he or she wasn't directly affected by its conduct. If Proposition 64 passes, only people who have been injured or suffered losses could sue for unfair practices or false advertising. Claims on behalf of a larger group would have to meet stringent requirements for class-action status.

Re "Gov.'s staff exploring new taxes," May 2 The only proven solution to California's budget deficit is a sustained economic recovery. A sales tax on services would impede that recovery. Increasing the price of services in California by 8% would cause consumers to use less of those services. Many California businesses would face an immediate 8% competitive disadvantage to companies in other states. A services tax discriminates against small businesses. Although national companies would use their in-house legal and accounting services or those in other states, small businesses would be stuck with higher prices they couldn't afford.

Contrary to what Lenny Goldberg's commentary in The Times ("Bamboozled by Business Tax Breaks," June 2,) implied, tax incentives designed to attract new businesses and to retain existing businesses are an integral part of a state's overall economic plan. Surveys or studies cited by Goldberg are misleading and manipulated to understate California's tax burden. For example, they do not see total costs of doing business in California (such as the explosion of local taxes and fees)

The Oct. 7 Business section did something worthwhile for California by countering with facts the usual hype dispensed by the California Chamber of Commerce. James Flanigan also picked up on the subject and wrote one of his more cogent columns, "Hardly Lean, We Are No Longer Hungry." California has had it good for so long that it is only natural for chamber of commerce types to believe that the future will simply be more of the same. However, it should be observed that the federal government's willingness to spend a disproportionate amount of its budget in California accounted for much of the state's luster over the years.

The state Assembly is expected to vote on legislation today that would prohibit employers from recording--by video or audio--their employees in places such as restrooms and locker rooms where one might expect some privacy. The so-called anti-peeping bill, AB 2303, by Lancaster Republican Assemblyman George Runner, seeks to remedy the lack of a statute protecting workers' privacy.

A national business group is opening a statewide ad campaign lauding Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his agenda, without disclosing how much it is spending on the commercials or where the money is coming from. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, whose governing board includes major donors to Schwarzenegger's political campaigns, this week launched a 30-second television spot that coincides with Schwarzenegger's efforts to pass an ambitious public works plan and win a second term.