Author: Redactor

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall tax policy

How to Raise Taxes

Times are tough; state revenues, down. So politicians have a choice: 1. Do the one thing economists definitely warn not to do, raise taxes; or 2. Do the one thing powerful lobbies say not to do, cut spending.

In Washington State, guess which one politicians are doing.

Washington’s governor and majorities in both houses are Democrats, and they’re looking to raise taxes. But they have (or had) one little problem: the voters.

In 2007, Evergreen State citizens had voted in a tax limitation measure, I‑960, requiring a public two-​thirds legislative vote to raise any tax. The Democrats are balking at this. By a simple majority vote they have in effect nullified the law made directly by their constituents.

This galls supporters of the citizen-​made law, especially so since I‑960 was the THIRD such initiative. Similar measures had passed earlier, in 1993 and 1998.

House Finance Committee Chairman Ross Hunter says that requiring a two-​thirds vote for tax increases makes the budget process “unworkable.” By this he means he can’t spend as much as he’d like. 

Tim Eyman, who worked to put the measure on the ballot, counters that this kind of attitude is “an admission that Olympia can’t function if it’s forced to obey the law.” Riffing on the theme, Eyman mocked legislators’ arguments as nothing more than “you peasants don’t understand, the rules don’t apply to us.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall

Badgering as Democracy in Action

The citizen initiative depends on a few habits and institutions. 

Free speech and free association, for instance. It does no good trying to gather signatures to put an issue to a public vote if one is badgered and beat down every time one tries. 

Fair play is another. If the government doesn’t allow time to petition, or takes any excuse to invalidate a petition, then the democratic part of the citizen initiative goes out the window.

In recent years we’ve seen a growing sense of hardball against the initiative process. Harassment has become all too common. Many states have begun to “crack down” on gathered petitions, finding the niggliest neutrinos of law to invalidate petitions for initiatives they don’t like.

And now, in Utah, politicians combine post-​signature unfairness with the harassing of signatories. State law already allows citizens to withdraw their signatures from a petition. But new legislation would exempt those seeking to remove signatures from the rules petitioners have to follow. The bill would also allow the political parties to call up signatories for a month after the petition is filed and harangue them with reasons why the iniative is a bad.

You guessed it, Utah has initiatives in the offing that politicians would like to off. One is an ethics measure that legislators especially despise. So they seek to twist the rules to scuttle the chance for an open, public vote.

Despicable, but all too common.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies

The Obama Approach

President Obama’s credo seems to be that if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. He’s “doubling down,” as the phrase goes. We’re going to get his killer dose of government-​controlled medicine whether we want it or not.

Scott Brown’s upset victory in the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race killed the Democrats’ filibuster-​proof 60-​vote advantage. So Obama is now in favor of “bipartisanship.” He’s pretending to listen to Republican doubts about strangling what’s left of freedom in the medical industry.

But Obama’s new health care bill seeks simply to reconcile the House Democrat plan with the Senate Democrat plan. It’s more bichambership than bipartisanship. Under the “new” plan, Americans would still be socked with lots of penalties and commandments.

One addition, though. Obama also wants to create a federal agency that can veto supposedly “unreasonable” increases in health insurance rates. So what happens when the only practical response to huge new costs under the vast panoply of new requirements is to raise rates … and government prohibits this? 

Might insurance companies be forced out of business? 

Might Washington be waiting in the wings, eager to finish the takeover and shove us all into a “public option”?

Obama is pretty relentless, trying to gulp up a huge sector of the economy despite growing and cogent opposition. Not, I think, a particularly admirable quality in this context.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall term limits

Taking the Initiative (and Referendum)

Maryland State Senator Joan Carter Conway dislikes a certain popular bill, so it probably won’t pass. Why not? Is she so charismatic that she can persuade most fellow lawmakers to vote down any bill she dislikes?

No. Conway chairs the Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee. Although most committee members support this particular bill, she can kill it just by declining to bring it up for a vote. Then it won’t matter what anybody else thinks — in the committee, the senate, or the whole state.

The bill in question would simply allow direct shipment of wine to Maryland. That’s it. Prohibition was repealed some time ago. But there are still many silly laws regulating how liquor may be distributed and sold, laws that have nothing to do with protecting the public.

Annapolis commentator Eric Hartley argues for legislative term limits, saying it would help break up Maryland’s undemocratic committee system. Yes, but voters need the right of citizen initiative even more — so they can GET the term limits, for one thing.

Maryland citizens do have referendum rights, the right to exercise the “People’s Veto.” But lawmakers have been making it very difficult lately to exercise that veto. Let’s hope the courts strike down those restrictions. And that voters find a way to pass liberty-​expanding ballot measures on their own even when their representatives won’t or can’t.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights national politics & policies too much government

Idealism or Brute Power Play?

Senator John McCain and other politicians advocate violating your right to contribute as much as you want to the political candidates you support. They also advocate violating your right to speak as much as you want, either positively or negatively, about a candidate.

Do they support these repressive doctrines out of misguided idealism, or misguided pragmatic politics? Doubtless the answer depends on the individual. But McCain certainly acts as if today’s confusing welter of campaign finance regulation best serves as a very convenient club to beat an upstart challenger over the head and shoulders.

McCain faces a tough primary. His conservative challenger, J.D. Hayworth, a former congressman, is also a radio talk show host. Or at least he was until buddies of the senator began yelping to the Federal Election Commission. See, Hayworth attacked McCain on his show, which supposedly makes his show a form of “political advertising.” As a result of this pressure, Hayworth and the station agreed to take the show off the air. 

Jason Rose, who works with Hayworth, calls what happened a “political mugging.” Sounds right to me.

McCain is on record endorsing what his friends did here. So … Hayworth can say anything he wants to — à la the First Amendment — unless it’s a criticism of McCain. 

Funny how the framers failed to stipulate this when they were putting together the Constitution and that First Amendment.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
too much government

Hope and Change in NJ

Spending sprees are fun. The responsible cut-​backs after such sprees? Not so much fun. 

Seems the recent gubernatorial election made a difference in New Jersey. There’s change there. Also hope.

Last November, running on a platform of fiscal sanity, Republican challenger Chris Christie defeated the Democratic Governor Jon Corzine. And it seems that, unlike a certain U.S. president, Christie has every intention of following through. 

In early February, Christie told lawmakers that the state’s finances remain a mess and that the budget passed eight months ago is full of “all of the same worn out tricks of the trade” that have driven New Jersey to the edge of bankruptcy.

He said that the legacy of “irresponsible budgeting of the past, coupled with failed tax policies which lie like a heavy, wet blanket suffocating tax revenues and job growth” require extraordinary steps to bring the budget back into balance.

So on his own initiative, Christie is freezing spending across an array of programs. For example, he is cutting the subsidy to New Jersey Transit and urging managers of public transportation to “improve efficiency … revisit its rich union contracts,” be more fiscally responsible and efficient. He’s also targeting bloated government pensions and education funding.

Can Governor Christie complete the pivot to fiscal common sense despite the hurricane of opposition he faces? Time will tell. But it would be hard to imagine a better start.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.