Next Tuesday, I will vote in California for the first time since moving here from Michigan in the summer of 2005. I have been pretty clueless on all the ballot initiatives (there are tons; isn't this supposed to be a representative government?), so tonight I printed out the state voters guide and started wading my way through them with my wife.
Disclaimer: these decisions are tentative and are based on less than an hour of review. Don't hold it against me too much if it turns out years from now I was incredibly wrong! Also, the voting decisions posted are my own; my wife didn't necessarily agree with me on any of these :)
The first one we looked at was proposition 90, proposing restricting the powers of eminent domain. At first glance, it seems like who wouldn't like it? Who wants the government taking away their house by force and giving what they deem to be a fair price? But I also wondered, how often is this used, and for what purpose? Does the government low ball people? Don't most state governments have this power? For more insight on the matter I turned to Kevin Drum, a professional blogger who I've read on and off since he was just an amateur. Through a site restricted search , I found this post that provided some more context. It pointed out that, beyond preventing the government from seizing property, it allows property owners to claim compensation for any action the government takes that could decrease the value of their land. This puts it over the edge. Decision: no on prop 90.
Next, we checked out prop 87, which proposes four billion dollars in taxes on oil companies that extract oil in California to promote clean energy usage. Anything that would add more funding for clean energy usage sounds good. However, I don't agree with how it is funded. How ever rich oil companies may be, does it make sense to basically gang up on them and make them pay for something we all value? If we think it is so important, why can't we pay for clean energy promotion out of the general fund? Plus, what really is bad for the environment is energy consumption. I'd prefer a gas or carbon tax. Making Hummer drivers pay $100 to fill their tanks will make them think a little harder than seeing than some commercial where Leonardo DiCaprio claims his Prius rules. It may be true that a gas tax will never get passed, and this is the best option for a long while to get more funding for enviro stuff, but I gotta stick to my principles on this one. Decision: no on prop 87.
The last proposition we looked at was 86, proposing more cigarette taxes, funding health care. Currently, cigarettes cost about $4 a pack, about $0.87 of that going to the state. If 86 passes, an additional $2.60 would be taxed, adding up to a whopping $6.60 per pack. I know I just said I liked consumption based taxes in the case of energy, but come on! It certainly would stop some people from smoking, but I feel like the people worst off would be the poor. Someone who smokes a pack a day and can't quit would end up paying another 30 bucks a week, $1500 a year, on cigarettes, an amount that could seriously screw over someone making 20 grand a year. I would be for it if it were a more moderate increase. Decision: no on prop 86.
That's all I could stand to sift through in one sitting, stay tuned for updates on other decisions if I get around to blogging about it. It is still a week until the polls open; I'm open to hearing more on any of these props and maybe even changing my mind.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Another thing to consider on cigarette taxes: if you tax it too much, it can allow a thriving black market, in which criminals rather than the state get the revenue.
Good point. I had considered that there might be a black market, but didn't think about the fact that would actually take revenue from the state and give it to criminals; the state might not end up with as much money as they think they would be imposing the new tax!
Post a Comment