No on 26: No more taxes and slow government

By Julie Herman

Death and taxes are the only certainties in life, and California's Proposition 26 claims to give voters a slight reprieve from the latter.

Contrary to what proponents say, this seemingly beneficial proposition actually throws a wrench into the legislative process and hurts the government's ability to protect the people.

Currently, any legislation labeled as "taxation" requires approval by a two-thirds majority vote of the legislature, while those labeled as "fees" only require a simple majority.

Taxes are loosely defined as revenue bills that increase the burden on the majority of the population for the purpose of creating programs that have an over-arching public benefit, such as sales taxes paying for the education system.

Fees are charges placed on smaller groups to pay for more specific programs. Types of fees include user fees, such as state park entry tolls, and regulatory fees, which are levied upon companies that use hazardous chemicals or business practices and used to fund alleviation programs.

Prop. 26 proposes consolidation of most regulatory fees and some other kinds of fees under the heading of taxes.

Essentially, this means that any state-wide measure for collecting revenue will have to be approved by a two-thirds majority. Any local revenue measures would require voter approval.

The first problem with Prop. 26 occurs on the state level. California residents know by now that the legislature has difficulty with the simplest of tasks, and when it comes to approving budgets, California representatives sink to new levels of ineptitude.

Partisan bickering blocks a lot of legislation, and when a bill miraculously makes its way out of the legislative war zone, the executive branch often terminates it.

With Prop. 26 in effect, business special interests looking to avoid penalty taxes could easily break down any bipartisan coalition, and without a bipartisan push, no taxes would ever pass.

Economically, this means that corporations that cause serious harm, such as those that funnel tons of carbon into the atmosphere, could not easily have retaliatory fees levied upon them.

Since the state loses significant regulatory powers through the passing of Prop. 26, such blatant abuses to the environment and public health would only become more common.

In addition, according to the fiscal analysis done for the state of California's voter guide, passing Prop. 26 will cause an "unknown potential decrease in state revenues."

Even discounting the hazards of allowing corporations to run unchecked, it is irresponsible to reduce cash flow into the state's treasury by possibly quite large amounts in a time of economic downturn and deficit.

Although some might claim that rolling back taxation would encourage consumers to spend, the only groups benefitting from Prop. 26 would be those who are currently deterred from harming the general population only by the fees they are forced to pay.

At the local level, Prop. 26 would further damage civic processes.

The regular elections required to approve revenue measures would not only cost more money for the county or the city implementing them, but they would also cause voter apathy.

Around 50% of registered voters cast ballots in presidential elections; less vote in off-years.

Local elections garner the smallest turnout, and Prop. 26 would force these elections to happen so often as to weary voters of their occurrence, mitigating even the small claims that this initiative would increase the spread of democracy.

The core positive ideas of reducing taxation and returning power to the people embodied in Prop. 26 are exactly that - ideas.

Unfortunately, the associated disorder, danger and apathy this proposition would cause force the "yes" voter to exchange the health of the state for personal gain. This is simply unacceptable.

So vote no on Prop. 26: put off death, not taxes.

Julie Herman is a freshman undeclared major.