Proposition Scorecard - Primary Elections 6/6/06


My scorecard and explanation of how I'll be voting in the elections tomorrow

As I try to do with every election (past examples), here is another post with my take on the propositions for this upcoming primary election (tomorrow - 6/6/06). This time I won't do a separate post on all the different measures - partially because I don't have much time, and partially because I think they are all so obvious that its not worth deep exposition. So first off, let's review the groundrules (explained in depth previously):

1. Default position is No.
2. Bond measures are held very suspect until proven absolutely necessary.
3. If any measure is similar to one that was passed in other elections, it is highly suspect.
4. No on anything that raises money for causes everyone agrees on, or vital services.

These rules help guide the decision making process and this year they will prove to be quite valuable. Both of the statewide propositions can pretty much be eliminated on groundrules alone. In fact, both come close to violating all four! If you aren't sure why I would use these rules to evaluate the props, please read the post linked to above. It has all the justification for why these make sense. Having laid the foundation, lets take a look at this elections ballot measures (though you can probably already guess my position):

Proposition 81: No
81 seeks to borrow money ($600 million) via bonds in order to improve public education reading programs and libraries. (Full text and arguments at State Voter Guide). This proposition, as I said above, nearly violates all of the 4 groundrules (though admittedly 1 is just the default position). It is a bond measure, which means high interest costs for the state because we didn't take the time to fund it in the budget. We will be paying nearly $1.2 Billion for the cost of this - twice what we will actually be getting in terms of reading improvement. It also means hidden costs for carrying the debt which are not part of our budget - plan on unbalancing our state budget by at least $40 million if you vote yes. It also bears resemblance to numerous other propositions aimed at helping our children become more literate. Way back in the year 2000, we approved a very similar proposition 14 (did anyone notice the gigantic uptick in literacy in CA?) Lastly, it aims at an issue with which few disagree - who doesn't want people to be more literate? However, if this were so important, it would be a part of the budget. Making it an expensively funded bond proposition means that politicians are spending the money they could put towards this project on some other pet project of theirs. Note that it was the legislature, not the people, who put this measure on the ballot - if they think so highly of libraries and reading programs, how come they chose to spend the money elsewhere? (The usual answer is they are spending the money on some less lovable cause).

But this is just the groundrule analysis - which conclusively moves us into the no camp. But if we wanted to take a closer look, we'd notice even more wrong with this proposition. For one, none of this money could be used to actually buy books (seriously... no joke... check the Voter's Guide). In addition, books have never been more accessible and yet less desired than in our age. For $100 and about $8 a month, you can get a computer with access to the internet and have access to pretty much every great book you could desire through the Gutenberg project. Not to mention the countless classics you can get for incredibly small amounts through reprints or other means - I have a copy of Shakespeare's works that I picked up for 50 cents. However, how many people are pursuing reading? How many are foregoing TV and films to pick up a book? Its simply asinine to think that we will reverse the cultural/historical/social forces at work by simply throwing some money at the problem.

Proposition 82: No
82 would amend our state's constitution to declare it a right for all preschool age children to attend preschool. In order to fund this, 82 would institute a 1.7% tax for individuals who make over 400k (or 800k for couples). Again, full text and arguments can be found at the State Voter's Guide.

This one, as it is not a bond measure, and can't quite be faulted on the other groundrules isn't immediately disqualified. Our default position is no, however, and so we need to dig a bit deeper. First off, we have to ask why is this measure on the ballot and who funded the barrage of advertising that appeared before it qualified. As Bill Bradley expertly uncovered (an example of tenacious journalism going after corruption - and actually winning), Rob Reiner used his job as chairman of the commission formed from his other pet project (Prop 10, in 1998) to fund advertising for his new pet project - prop 82. As President Bush would say, "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas,
probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." Last time we listened to this same man, we ended up giving him a job chairing a pile of money with little oversight for the sake of the children.

Even if we pass up its rather questionable beginnings, it is rather awful in its implementation as well. A non-partisan research firm found it will likely only increase actual preschool attendance 4%. A 4 percent bump that will be paid for by a $2 BILLION tax? That's 2 Billion dollars a year taken out of the CA economy via taxes.

I know that most people will counter by saying its only the rich people we are taxing but there are two major reasons why that is an awful argument. First, these are California rich people that have no obligation to stay in California. If they spend their money elsewhere, we not only lose tax money, but thats money that is not being spent in California. Rich people money is good for everyone because it buys what you and I are selling. If rich people don't spend their money, then none of us would have jobs (nor all the other great things we now have because rich people bought them first and then moved on to the next cool thing.... like this laptop I'm typing on right now, for instance). Second, it is pathetic to try and pass something that is punitive to a group you are not in. Injustice at the top breeds injustice at the bottom. Don't like paying your federal income taxes? Then you can thank everyone who amended the constitution in order to tax "only the rich". The argument at the time was that it would only tax the top 1% of incomes over $20,000 (nearly 300k in our dollars), or 7% over $500,000 (almost 7.5M in our dollars). So history tells us that we can't get away with only harming others through law.

In fact, this bill combines two of what I think are the most despicable political tactics - trotting out children to score political points, and class warfare. I hope the people of California are smart enough to see through the shell game.

Orange County Measure A: Yes
This measure aims to overturn the Supreme Court Kelo case on a local county level. Kelo granted governments the right to use eminent domain to take away property from private citizens and give it to another private entity. This law would bind Orange county's hands to only be able to take away property for public use.

Eminent domain is a serious threat to the average person's liberty. Ever since America's founding, property has been tied to liberty. In fact, "Life, Liberty and Property" was a slogan around the time of the Declaration of Independence, and it was almost there instead of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", but Jefferson decided, rightly, that property is not a right given by God.

If you don't believe that this is a major concern, imagine what you'd be willing to do if someone threatened to take away your home, or your church. Or, you could just study up on some cases that have already happened - such as the church I mentioned previously that has been threatened with losing their building.

This prop won't stop the abuse of eminent domain (they can still take things for public use), but at least it will put a stop to one of its most egregious abuses with no drawbacks or loopholes. That is enough to get a yes vote.


Update: My wife and I have already voted, have you? California Conservative is hosting an open thread for discussion on the people and propositions in this election.

Posted: Mon - June 5, 2006 at 08:40 PM | | | | | | |

©