Our
View: Prop. 57 a political cop-out
Almost
every time an interest group or editorial
page writer speaks out against a borrowing
or spending measure, you can bet on them
invoking the fate of the next generation
in their argument:
"Don't
saddle our children with debt," they
caution, effectively using the mental image
of hard-strapped and destitute youngsters
as an innocent little human shield against
all counterarguments.
This
norm is found most recently in the case
against Proposition 57, a $15 billion bond
measure that would be used to alleviate
California's deficit in the hope that future
economic recovery would allow repayment
of the debt incurred through the initiative.
We
oppose the proposition, but we oppose it
without recourse to such melodramatic and
misleading appeals. We know that virtually
everyone speaking against the issue will
still be alive during the time the bond
is paid off during the next decade. Any
toddlers or pre-teens alive right now are
unlikely to ever spend a dime financing
the measure.
That
said, there are plenty of other reasons
to vote no on March 2. State Sen. Tom McClintock's
so-called "13 percent plan" envisions
a 13 percent reduction in state spending
over the next 18 months, returning the budget
to year 2000 levels.
In
an interview with the On-line Forty-Niner,
McClintock's campaign manager John Huey
suggested that by contracting out state-run
services -- the telephone system, for example
-- to the most efficient bidder, California
would save big time.
Also,
Huey noted, selling unused state property
would create substantial revenue and thus
allow California to be back in the black
by January 2006 without hiking taxes or
eliminating important social services.
A
state assembly bill introduced by Wilma
Chan, D-Oakland, recommends raising taxes
for the wealthiest Californians. The top
two tax brackets -- single filers earning
$136,000 and $272,000 annually, and joint
filers making twice those amounts -- would
each see their tax rates rise less than
1 percent. The hike would cost the average
wealthy Californian anywhere from $1,000
to $4,000 a year, and would generate around
$3 billion annually for the state.
Each
of these proposals has drawbacks. Contracting
out state businesses could prove ineffectual
if not properly managed. Selling off aesthetically
and financially valuable land might be regrettable
in the long run. Taxing the rich might become
an unfair soaking of the rich.
With
that in mind, we recommend an Aristotelian
mean, a compromise between two extremes.
Contract out state operations that can most
easily and successfully be contracted out.
Sell only land that has proven to be of
little use to the state. Be judicious about
elevating the tax rate on the wealthy, and
install a sunset clause into such tax hikes.
The
problem with this proposal is, obviously,
that it asks everyone to sacrifice. Every
special interest -- we all have special
interests -- has something at stake and
will need to be reigned in.
The
good part about this proposal is also that
it asks everyone to sacrifice. What could
be more fair in such hard times?
Proposition
57 is all but a political cop-out by a governor
and a legislature that lacks the wherewithal
to make tough calls that might upset somebody.
That
is, unless you count raising university
fees by 50 percent or more. They have all
the gusto in the world when it comes to
really saddling the next generation with
debt.
|
