Skip to main content

Proposition 16: the "Taxpayers Right to Vote" Proposition

Submitted by Ken Watts on Fri, 04/23/2010 - 19:24

THE FIRST MEASURE I rated on The Liberty Scale was historic—the Republican Tax Cuts during the Bush administration.

The rating looked like this:

LibertyScale4to-4

That is, they took a surplus that would have worked 80% in favor of the power and liberty of the common citizen—lowering the deficit, strengthening social security, funding the stimulus—and gave it to the already wealthy, increasing their power and wealth at the expense of the nation.

I intentionally called them the Republican tax cuts, as opposed to the Bush tax cuts, because they were completely in line with the ongoing policies of the Republican party.

George W. has a lot to answer for: measures and wars that a different Republican president might not have instigated.

But the tax cuts were pure Republican policy, and he shouldn't have the responsibility focused on him alone.

They were not sold to us as what they were—a shift of money and power to the wealthy—but as something they weren't—a lowering of taxes in general, and a stimulus to the economy.

There's a pattern here.

You can see the same kind of deceit surrounding proposition 16, which is on the June primary ballot in California.

This is a measure which would require a two-thirds voter approval before a local government could provide electric service to new customers, or establish a community choice program using public funds or bonds.

Supporters of Prop. 16 call it "The Taxpayers Right to Vote Proposition" and argue that "In tough economic times like these, taxpayers should have the final say in how government spends our money."

Sounds like "power to the people" doesn't it?

But let's look at the "before" and "after", like we did with the Republican tax cuts for the wealthy.

  1. Before the proposition goes into effect—now:
    1. Dozens of municipalities in California are currently planning to offer their communities energy choices, so that ordinary citizens and businesses will have the ability to choose who they buy their power from, and what kind of power they buy.
    2. They can do this because current state law says they can.
    3. The reason they are doing it is, in part, the history of abuses by PG&E in the past, taking consumers for all it can get.
    4. A few cities already have extremely successful power companies, which provide their citizens and businesses with both choice and reliable and efficient power, and which they expand to cover new customers as their city grows.
  2. After it goes into effect—if we get suckered into voting for it:
    1. Current power companies could not extend their services without a two-thirds voter approval, which history shows would be virtually impossible to get.
    2. The municipalities that are planning to offer their communities greater choice would not be able to, and for the same reason. Their citizens and businesses would be stuck, in most cases with PG&E.
    3. PG&E would not have any of these restrictions on its own ability to expand.
    4. The result would be that PG&E would have a virtual monopoly on all new power customers in California, and would retain its current monopoly in all those areas which will no longer be able to offer choices to their citizens.

It looks a little different in that light, doesn't it?

The movement of power turns out not to be from government to the voters, as advertised, but from the average citizen to PG&E.

Would it surprise you to know that Prop. 16 was funded by PG&E?

So the net effect is to move citizens from some choice to none, and to give that power to PG&E.

On the Liberty Scale:

LibertyScale2to-5

It takes a situation in which

  1. our elected representatives,
  2. on our behalf,
  3. can offer us greater choices, and thus
  4. increase our freedom,

and changes it to a situation in which

  1. many of us will be forced to buy our power
  2. from a single big corporation,
  3. giving that corporation a practical monopoly, and
  4. making sure—because a 2/3 majority is virtually impossible to get—that we can do nothing about it.

The deceptive advertising tries to trick us into thinking:

  1. that our local government is some kind of foreign invader, when it's actually just our elected representatives, working for us, and
  2. that by putting through a measure which effectively stops us from offering ourselves more options through our local government, we are somehow increasing our power.

They are trying to trick us into hobbling ourselves, and cutting our own choices at the same time.

The "Taxpayer's Right to Vote" Proposition.

Right.

You just can't trust these guys.

At least, that's what I think today.