The Libertarian Party of California has taken a position I think is misguided on the May 19th ballot measures. They have opposed props 1D and 1E, but these are probably a good compromise to improve California's budget situation.
What 1D and 1E do is to move funding from two specially financed programs into the general fund. 1D would take tobacco tax money currently used for anti-tobacco initiatives (i.e. patronizing tv ads) and redirect it to the general fund to pay for what are presumably more useful programs. 1E would do the same with special mental health funds currently paid by a tax on the wealthiest Californians.
The only argument given against these is that it doesn't cut overall government spending. Is this the only measure of a law? We don't have the option on the ballot to cut taxes. It's not one of the questions being asked. Our options in this election are to spend the money on anti-smoking ads and expanded government provided mental health services, or use it to pay for other more useful services through the general fund.
For these reasons, I will be voting yes on prop 1D and 1E, and encourage you to do the same.
On the other measures, it's important to spread the message that while 1A is a tax increase, it also includes changes to how budgeting is done, which could reduce the hysteria in the future. Prop 1B on the other hand, is a complete gutting of the only beneficial effects of prop 1A. A reasonable person could conclude that prop 1A, though it is a tax increase, is a better option than what may come out of Sacramento if we force them to go back to the drawing board without approving it. I am undecided how I will vote on 1A at this time.
1C is a foolish borrowing against future lottery proceeds, and authorizes the state to increase marketing so that the poor and foolish can help pay off this enormous loan.
Prop 1F is a minor symbolic gesture, but definitely one to vote for. It would prevent law makers from raising their pay while running a deficit.
I welcome your comments.
What 1D and 1E do is to move funding from two specially financed programs into the general fund. 1D would take tobacco tax money currently used for anti-tobacco initiatives (i.e. patronizing tv ads) and redirect it to the general fund to pay for what are presumably more useful programs. 1E would do the same with special mental health funds currently paid by a tax on the wealthiest Californians.
The only argument given against these is that it doesn't cut overall government spending. Is this the only measure of a law? We don't have the option on the ballot to cut taxes. It's not one of the questions being asked. Our options in this election are to spend the money on anti-smoking ads and expanded government provided mental health services, or use it to pay for other more useful services through the general fund.
For these reasons, I will be voting yes on prop 1D and 1E, and encourage you to do the same.
On the other measures, it's important to spread the message that while 1A is a tax increase, it also includes changes to how budgeting is done, which could reduce the hysteria in the future. Prop 1B on the other hand, is a complete gutting of the only beneficial effects of prop 1A. A reasonable person could conclude that prop 1A, though it is a tax increase, is a better option than what may come out of Sacramento if we force them to go back to the drawing board without approving it. I am undecided how I will vote on 1A at this time.
1C is a foolish borrowing against future lottery proceeds, and authorizes the state to increase marketing so that the poor and foolish can help pay off this enormous loan.
Prop 1F is a minor symbolic gesture, but definitely one to vote for. It would prevent law makers from raising their pay while running a deficit.
I welcome your comments.
Edit: here's an interesting piece on prop 1A with a comment from Richard Rider also worth reading.
