City Council member Scott Malsin came to the last School Board meeting to inform Board members about Measure W, the Utility Users Tax, coming up for voter approval on April 8.
Mr. Malsin read what seemed to be an official statement, saying that Measure W was needed and that it would only change and update the wording of the Utility Users’ Tax, that it would not increase taxes, and that the exemption for low-income seniors and the disabled would remain in place.
Sidestepping?
When School Board member Saundra Davis asked Mr. Malsin if the change in wording could lead to new, future taxation, he sidestepped her question, altogether.
As if on cue, like a pull-string puppet, he carefully re-read the official statement, syllable by syllable.
Later, when pressed by Ms. Davis during the Board’s recess, Mr. Malsin would not deviate from his opening statement.
He would not elaborate. He would only repeat the previous, carefully worded facts.
In what seems to be the start of a campaign of public half-truths and deception, proponents of Measure W seem willing to divulge only part of the truth about the real intended after-effects of Measure W.
They probably think they have cleverly devised a well-thought out plan to get the public to vote for the measure.
By being less than totally candid with voters, proponents seem to think it would be the best way to get voters to pass the measure.
Speaking of Transparency
Or are they thinking that it would be the best way to get Measure W past the voters?
Do the measure’s campaign proponents really think the public is stupid enough not to see that they are being manipulated with half-truths?
Did anyone on the Measure W’s campaign committee even give a second thought to the utter lack of ethics in their campaign?
It irks me to no end that our government officials seem to think they only have to tell us what they want us to know.
That’s all, folks. Nothing more.
Measure W’s campaign is shaping up to be a prime example of this self-convoluted practice. Their lack of candor is enough to make a citizen want to rebel and vote against the measure just for the sheer pleasure of seeing it go down to defeat.
All because of their lack of total candor with voters.
Should it pass?
Sure, it should pass.
All the new taxes raised would stay locally and benefits all of Culver City. But local city officials should give voters all the facts not just what they want them to know.
The City Attorney’s impartial analysis of Measure W states,
“This City Council-proposed Measure W would replace the city's existing Telephone and Video (i.e. Cable Television) Utility Users’ Tax with an updated Communications Users’ Tax, which would be applicable, at its existing rate, to current technology, as well as to emerging and future technologies.” Measure W would “not change current federal law which prohibits taxing the Internet. The federal prohibitions will remain in effect.”
Gee, I didn’t know that a local city government could pass ordinances that would supersede federal law.
And yet, earlier in the ballot arguments, it states,
“This measure would update the UUT ordinance by eliminating references to the federal law definitions and assuring that the UUT is applicable to emerging and future communications technologies.”
This sure sounds like a clever play on words, a work-a-round in bringing about new taxes. Not in actually taxing the Internet itself, due to the federal prohibition, but, instead, taxing the communications sent through the Internet.
Question: Will an email be taxable under Measure W’s new wording because it would be considered a form of communication?
It’s true, Measure W would not raise current taxes, but it would most certainly raise a slew of new taxes.
