TO CONTINUE OUR discussion of the hurdle gambit:
Proposition 23:
The two-thirds rule makes budgets virtually impossible to pass on time, and the two-thirds rule for taxation makes it virtually impossible for our elected representatives to develop a sane tax strategy.
But two-thirds rules aren't the only way to set a hurdle impossibly high.
First, a little history.
The current situation is that Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), was passed by the legislature, and backed by Governor Schwarzenegger, to do two things:
-
To cut back on our production of green house gases, which harm the environment, and
-
To improve the quality of the air we breathe.
As an added bonus, it has the potential to help spur green energy advances in California, thus helping to make us leaders in the next big technological shift.
From the point of view of The Liberty Scale, AB 32 is a no-brainer.
It benefits the average citizen, and our children and grandchildren, by improving and protecting the environment we live in while, at the same time, providing potential jobs and a better economic environment for future generations.
And, by the way, all of those things benefit the wealthy as well—The Liberty Scale is not about pitting the rich against the poor, but about the corruption of democracy and the blindness created by wealth itself.
When democracy works, it works for everyone, when it's corrupted everyone, even the wealthy, pay the price.
The current situation, including AB 32, rates a +5.
Enter Prop. 23, which was designed by out of state oil companies—who have donated millions to insure that it is passed—to introduce the hurdle which will destroy AB 32.
Here's how their deception works:
-
Don't directly attack AB 32.
It's obvious that voters would reject a proposition that repealed the bill, since it was backed by liberals and conservatives alike.
So, word the proposition to say that it simply "suspends implementation" of AB 32 for what sounds like a good reason and what sounds like a reasonable time.
That way, it sounds very temporary. -
Play on the fact that everyone's worried about jobs at the moment.
In fact, there's no reason to believe that AB 32 would have any serious affect on jobs, and it's particularly unlikely that the out of state oil companies who wrote Prop. 23 care about jobs here, either.
Proposition 23 makes unemployment the "trigger" to end the suspension of AB 32 for just two reasons.
The first is that it's a good sales pitch, since it implies, in the subtext, that the proposition is somehow addressing unemployment.
The second reason has to do with the hurdle, which brings us to: -
Insert a hurdle that sounds reasonable, but isn't.
Say that the suspension of AB 32 is only until unemployment drops below 5.5%.
Sounds reasonable, yes?
But consider this:
Neat trick, huh?
That dotted line is the 5.5% mark, and you'll notice that its not an average for California, but rather a mark we rarely get under in the best of times.
Wealthy out of State Oil Companies put a proposition on our ballot to suspend a bipartisan law that holds them accountable for polluting our air "just until" something happens which has only happened three times in the last 40 years.
And they spend millions trying to sucker us into voting for their interests.
I give it a -5.
Which means the proposition, as a whole, rates a -10 on The Liberty Scale.
I'm voting no.
