California Special Election & Propositions - May 19, 2009

[Andrew]

The point of (that part of) Prop 13 was to avoid huge sudden raises in property tax to homeowners. Why it's also applied to commercial property is beyond me.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Andrew

The point of (that part of) Prop 13 was to avoid huge sudden raises in property tax to homeowners. Why it's also applied to commercial property is beyond me.

Because the logic of the idea, that people were being forced to sell and move away because they could no longer afford the property tax on their home applies just as well to businesses being forced to relocate because of increases on their property taxes (and when a big business does it they're likely to move out of state taking a lot of other revenues as well and when a small business does it they may very well just close shop altogether).

I'm not strongly opposed to the driving idea beyond the tax rollback and cap, though I think it was done in too brute-force a way. By far the most damaging part, in my view, is the 2/3 super majority.

Saying "you can't have these taxes, and you also can't have any other taxes, but everything else is going to make it incredibly easy to spend" is just a bad combination. Especially since state Republicans are no more anti-spending than state Democrats, they just don't agree on which things to spend money on and the general public is also allowed to directly spend money.

[scaeagles]

The issue with all government crap is that crap that doesn't matter is always sucking up money. Necessary social programs are great. We can all list stuff we don't think is important that should be cut.

I don't want government cuts to hurt anyone anymore than I want private sector cuts to hurt anyone. But the fact is that it's necessary and it does hurt in both.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

The issue with all government crap is that crap that doesn't matter is always sucking up money. Necessary social programs are great. We can all list stuff we don't think is important that should be cut.

I don't want government cuts to hurt anyone anymore than I want private sector cuts to hurt anyone. But the fact is that it's necessary and it does hurt in both.

Sometimes private sector cuts are competitively necessary. Sometimes they seem like ritual gestures to appease stock analysts.

Like FDR before me, I think it is a social good for people to have jobs. As I've said before, I reject the assumption that society's organizing privately to discharge certain supposedly necessary functions is superior to its organizing publicly to discharge certain supposedly necessary functions.

I'm just guessing, but I bet if you did the math, "crap that doesn't matter" sucks up tons of money that could be better spent. "Crap that doesn't matter" is actually a nice way of putting it when we're talking tobacco, assault rifles, 2000 calorie fast food burgers, Hummers, etc. Yet somehow, this (job-creating) waste of money is an exercise of our freedom, while debatable job-creating government programs are viewed as an abuse.

[Ghoulish Delight]

There's also the little matter of the fact that it's literally impossible to discern if passing any of these measures will accomplish what they say...or are intended to accomplish what they say...or accomplish what they say while screwing over something else they do or don't intend to.

Which side do you believe on 1D? The side that says that it's taking only from surplus funds that aren't being spent anyway, or the side that says that it will affect the operating costs of the programs that it's supposedly not taking away from? There is absolutely nowhere that says definitively which one is telling the truth...probably because they're both just guessing/basing their claim on the most extreme high and low estimates for projected budgets and revenues and we won't know until we know exactly how much tax money the state takes in over the course of that the bill is in effect.

What about 1C? Is balancing the budget important enough to give the state license to become and even bigger gambling house?

Not one of these measure solves a problem. They just temporarily shift money around while still leaving the amount of money needed unchanged.

[Alex]

Here's a listing of endorsements if you want to find how a preferred special interest group is voting (pretty solid evidence that a group gets money from the state in any significant quantity they support all of them).

The teaching union is a bit weird since they say no on everything but 1B. But 1B does not go into effect unless 1A passes (observation not original to me, but not anybody people here know).

[scaeagles]

If I earn the money, I should be able to spend it on whatever I want. If I come and take yours and spend it on whatever I want you might object or want a lot of input. We can all site examples of waste. I'm looking at a convertible mustang, which some people might call impractical or wasteful, but Ford might think it's pretty cool.

The fact is, when running a 1.4 trillion federal deficit this year, it might be time to scale back spending. For those that know my posting history, I have always been critical of Bush for his uncontrolled spending. It's a simple issue of fiscal responsibility, and sometimes that hurts.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I couldn't decide on 1A.

The state lottery mostly grosses me out, and there's no way I'd want it expanded (which is what "modernized" means). The lotto is just another tax on people who can't do math. Yes, I've bought a ticket before and will again. The lotto takes advantage of the habitual users, and I find that gross.

Yes, they should not be able to vote pay raises for themselves during tough times. Did you see the argument against, where one guy wrote it, and here's his credit: "PETE STAHL, Author, Pete Rates the Propositions". Seriously??

I voted yes on the other two. They seemed to have some provisions to make up for these lacks using other programs. I'm sure there will be some impact anyway, which is sad but we have to cut somewhere.

[Alex]

For the record, the state legislature can't vote themselves pay raises. Salaries for elected state officials and certain other offices are set by an independent commission, the California Citizens Compensation Commission.

Mostly the commission works to keep salaries adjusted for inflation and cost of living. 1F bars that commission from making upward adjustments in years with a projected deficit.

I think it is a mostly pointless Prop but I held my nose on that one as well.

[Alex]

Well, it looks like the voters rejected every single one of the props except for the one that definitely will have absolutely no significant budgetary impact.