That's right. I dutifully filled out my absentee ballot and slipped it in the mail slot. Then I checked my mail only to find that the ballot I had just sent off was outdated--there was a new and improved ballot waiting for in the mail. Since I'd already sent the first ballot, I couldn't fill out and send in the new one. Oh well. At least the stuff I really cared about was the same on both.
Among those that I care about was one initiative that just makes my blood boil every time I think about it, Prop 63. Here's the way the voter guide describes it:
Mental Health Services Expansion, Funding. Tax on Personal Incomes Above $1 Million. Initiative Statute.
• Provides funds to counties to expand services and develop innovative programs and integrated service plans for mentally ill children, adults and seniors.
• Requires state to develop mental health service programs including prevention, early intervention, education and training programs.
• Creates commission to approve certain county mental health programs and expenditures.
• Imposes additional 1% tax on taxpayers’ taxable personal income above $1 million to provide dedicated funding for expansion of mental health services and programs.
• Prohibits state from decreasing funding levels for mental health services below current levels.
It's not that I don't care about my fellow citizens' mental health. In fact, for the sake of argument, whatever great cause this money is for is immaterial. What is important is that the measure allows me to vote to force other people to give up 1% of their income for this cause. All tax measures do that on some level, of course. If a tax measure passes, even people who voted against it will have to pay for it. Even graduated taxes, however, require almost everyone to dig into their own pockets, so every voter arguably has some personal stake in whether the measure passes or not. Every voter--in an ideal world at least--would have to ask himself, "Is the mental health of old people worth 1% of my income to me?" If it is, he'd vote in favor of the measure. If not, he would vote against it. The fact that those who vote "no" are also forced to pay the tax is an unfortunate but necessary part of democracy.
This measure, on the other hand, allows an overwhelming majority of people who have no financial stake in it whatsoever to force a minority of people to pay 1% of their income toward a cause they may or may not feel is the best use of their money. Even if every person in California who makes more than $1 million a year voted against it, the measure could still pass by a huge margin (and probably will). It's theft masquerading as charity. It says to the non-millionaire voter, "Come, vote for this measure. Feel good about yourself because you're helping the mentally ill even though the only thing you've given of yourself for the cause is a milliliter of ink from your pen."
The most sickening thing about the measure is that the very fact that it is set up as a tax only on the wealthy implies that, if the tax applied to everyone in the state, it would not pass. If its proponents thought it would pass as a tax on everyone, there would be no reason to propose it as a tax only on the wealthy. So, if the measure passes, it will simply demonstrate that a majority of Californians are willing to give up 1% of someone else's income for a cause for which they would not be willing to give up, oh, about .3% of their own, if that. Worse and worse.
If I were a millionaire, I would high-tail it out of California as soon as possible and take my money with me. Most of the smart ones probably already have. And when they do, after this initiative inevitably passes, we'll be stuck with a law on our hands that does not allow us to decrease spending on mental health. The state will have to raise taxes on everyone to pay for the programs set up by this initiative, and a few years down the road everyone who voted for it and others like it will be whining and complaining about taxes and the budget and a poor job market, wondering how we got into this mess.
*Sigh.* Does anyone else have a sudden urge to move to New Hampshire?
Posted by waltondammerung at October 17, 2004 7:15 PMWe think about heading north quite frequently. I've always liked New Hampshire!
Posted by: Rebecca at October 17, 2004 8:32 PMUp here in the "Live Free or Die" State, we would not look forward to a mass influx of folks from the Golden state of California. However, you and Josh are welcome.
Posted by: Uncle Lynn at October 17, 2004 11:11 PMYou're not rich, you will never be rich, so stop defending the rich.
Posted by: Kip at October 27, 2004 7:21 PMKip-Using your logic, you're not poor and mentally ill--godwilling you never will be--so why vote for this measure?
It's not even so much that I'm trying to defend the rich as it is that I'm angered by the hypocrisy of people who are willing to give someone else's money to a cause but not to invest anything in it themselves. How many of the people voting for this measure do you think actually volunteer or donate money to help people in need? Considering volunteerism has been experiencing a drastic decline over the last 50 years, I doubt even the majority of them are. Maybe a third. Maybe.
Posted by: Amy at October 27, 2004 11:55 PM