Contentious ballot issues

[DaveShack]

Don't know how controversial these are, but FWIW...

Prop 122: Allows the legislature or the voters to prohibit the use of state personnel or funding to enforce federal mandates that the state views as unconstitutional.

I tend towards yes on this one, as a 10th amendment supporter and based on a couple of issues it was crafted to address. For example, Tombstone has a water problem and the federal government is blocking the construction of pipelines to address that problem based on some questionable environmental rulings.

Prop 303 would allow terminally ill patients the right to choose "Phase 1" treatments outside the clinical study. Don't think it will be a close vote, early polling showed overwhelming support, but it does illustrate a states' rights issue since it would overrule FDA regulations.

The other one I won't bother to link, but can be found at the same site as the other two. It is controversial every election. State legislators make $24,000 per year for what could be as little as 2 months work or as much as 6 months. When employers require the legislator to go on unpaid leave (usually the case) this means that only already wealthy people can afford to be legislators. The proposal increases the salary to $35,000, still per year. Effectively it lowers the wealth requirement for being a legislator. Opponents say that the people who run are always wealthy anyway so why pay them more. I'd be in favor, but would prefer to pay by the week for actual service time. I'd run for a seat, if it paid enough that I could still put food on the table.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There is a misconception that higher income automatically means excess income. There are a lot of people out there who would be considered filthy rich by the measurement of income alone, but just barely making ends meet (or in some cases not making ends meet) if real expenses are taken into account.

If excess income could be targeted, then by all means target it.

The person driving to a crappy job should still have to pay something for the road. A totally progressive system would result in that person paying nothing but getting the same infrastructure benefit.

First off, 'progressive tax' doesn't mean 'sad little rich people have to pay it all', it means that the burden increases with wealth.

Sooooo... by people with high incomes who can 'barely make ends meet' are you referring to poor Biff and Muffy, who by the time they make the payments on their twelve bedroom house and their seven cars, and pay for little Biff Junior's friends that have to be rented since no one likes him, can barely put a steak in the dog's bowl? Because if that's who you mean I can certainly see why only 'excess' income should be targeted. Any dog that can put up with such people deserves better than canned food, and we know that would be where they would cut back.

 

[Tarquelne]

The person driving to a crappy job should still have to pay something for the road. A totally progressive system would result in that person paying nothing but getting the same infrastructure benefit.

Not quite the same benefit. The person with the "crappy job" is almost certainly a significant economic benefit to somebody driving an expensive car to a great job ... or enjoying early retirement. Mr. Crappy Job is, I hope, making a living wage. Mr. Early Retirement (let's make this as prejudicial as possible!), OTOH, is making a profit off him.

Perhaps even "excess income."

Employees say they work "for" someone else for good reason.

There's not necessarily anything wrong with Mr. Early Employment chipping in so that all of his Mr. Crappy Jobs can get to work. He may be making a lot of money off of them. They're getting - as you've formulated this - crap.

That's a long-winded way of pointing out that the people getting the most benefits from society - or at least the most money - are also making the most off of the basic infrastructure. Based on accumulated benefit, rather than millage, a progressive tax may be by far the most fair.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

For what it's worth, in my mind there is no question that progressive taxes are fair. Unfortunately people who can afford to buy politicians see it exactly the opposite way.

 

[Tarquelne]

I've long-ago lost the references, but there was a seminary student who demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the governor of Alabama, among other people, that progressive taxes aren't just fair, they're Christian.

It didn't ever make any sort of splash with the religious right. If you suspect they're generally more "right" than "religious," there's some more evidence.

EDIT:
Remembered enough for a successful search: Susan Pace Hamill is the seminary student. It was her master's thesis. She was a University of Alabama profession specializing in tax avoidance, of all things, and did the thesis at Beeson Divinity School, also in Alabama.

It looks like her conclusion may not be that progressive taxes are themselves the Christian answer, but instead - given that Christians should be doing a heck of a lot more to help the poor - they're part of what Christians should support toward the goal of helping the poor.

Apparently her thesis is very well grounded in the Bible itself. Her critics, according to one of the articles I just glanced at, respond that the Old Testament implies a flat tax is the way to go.

I always find it ironic when arch-Christians confine their biblical support to the Old Testament.

 

[Zelig]

If we want better laws, we vote for better politicians to represent us.

 

[bhsup]

These are ballot issues that we vote on directly. These are not statutes that the legislature will pass or not pass.

 

[warpus]

#1 sounds like a horrible idea. Regulations are important.

 

[Wrymouth3]

Meanwhile in Florida, we have set the standard back 213 years: http://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Prospective_Judicial_Vacancies,_Amendment_3_(2014)

 

[Zelig]

These are ballot issues that we vote on directly. These are not statutes that the legislature will pass or not pass.

Yeah, for the most part that's only a thing that municipalities do, and only as long as they don't contravene provincial/federal laws/regulations.

List of all the provincial/national plebiscites/referendums fits in about three pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_Canada (And still, a good chunk of those have been non-binding.)

 

[Wrymouth3]

Yeah, for the most part that's only a thing that municipalities do, and only as long as they don't contravene provincial/federal laws/regulations.

List of all the provincial/national plebiscites/referendums fits in about three pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_Canada (And still, a good chunk of those have been non-binding.)

Is the Rhinoceros Party still promising to declare war on Belgium these days?

 

[Gori the Grey]

Prop #1 sounds like an absolute Trojan Horse. The way to flush out who it's really intended to serve would be to start a campaign saying it's too narrow: it needs also to say, "the right of a Missouri citizen to earn a living as a pharmacist, a yoga instructor, an electrician, etc. shall not be infringed." When there was objection to spelling that all out, you'd see who these "farmers" are who need special protection from regulation.

 

[bhsup]

 

[Farm Boy]

If I'm reading that farm amendment thing correctly, in that restrictions on agricultural practices need to be done through constitutional amendment, that's really really stupid. I mean, it might help protect against the worst of urban thumb-up-ass meddling, but so not worth.

 

[Samson]

That is interesting. What is going on with those ones that have only one option? Is it that no-one gets the post if not enough people vote for them, or just that it has to go on even though it makes no difference what people do with it.

 

[bhsup]

Yeah, nobody ran against them in the primary, so they automatically get the party's nomination basically. It's just a formality to be on the ballot. They'll have their opponent from the other party(s) on the November ballot.

 

[DaveShack]

Meanwhile in Florida, we have set the standard back 213 years: http://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Prospective_Judicial_Vacancies,_Amendment_3_(2014)

The link is broken, so I fixed it in my quote.

Letting the current governor pre-select judges to replace people who will be forced to retire at the end of the current term (which is also end of the governor's term) sounds like a terrible idea. One party stacks the deck this time around, but the same thing may come back to bite them later. If the voters want power to swing, then it should swing. And if they don't want the balance of power to swing in the judiciary then don't set mandatory retirements.

BTW justices on the same "side" as the current governor could ensure their replacements are appointed by simply retiring early. Though they're not "supposed" to play political games like that.

 

[Phrossack]

If I'm reading that farm amendment thing correctly, in that restrictions on agricultural practices need to be done through constitutional amendment, that's really really stupid. I mean, it might help protect against the worst of urban thumb-up-ass meddling, but so not worth.

It seems to be a way to circumvent Missouri's recent law regulating puppy mills. Missouri had been America's puppy mill capital, and apparently a lot of people are upset that they have to treat puppies humanely now.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, that's kinda a dippy thing, but if regulations regarding anything that can be broadly categorized as "agriculture" require a state constitutional amendment to legislate that's a huge onus on getting even sensible regulations passed. That means they'll have to lean on federal guidelines to get anything done and while that's a bit tempting if it might galvanize media attention I trust activist New Yorkers even less with ag than I do day to day St. Louis-ers(plus their net is wide enough to catch Illinois too) so I can't image how this is a win for anyone except in terms of short-term profiteering.

 

[bhsup]

Eh, I really don't think the puppy mill thing is what they're aiming at here. The backers are the Missouri Farm Bureau (that's not a government entity) and agri-business interests for the most part. The opponents are making a lot more noise about how it would affect massive hog farms and whatnot, not puppy mills. Though, now you mention it, I think I did read one editorial letter that brought them up.