Prop 26 reconsidered
Proposition 26 Reconsidered 102010
At the Board of Supervisor’s meeting on Tuesday 19 Oct 2010 Chairperson Goicoechea lobbied for Prop 26.
The Prospect did a light analysis of Prop 26, and concluded that, in the long run, having citizens vote on every fee wasn’t a great idea. It would encumber government, and for a few election cycles, make it hard to get the business of government done.
At the break, the Prospect confronted Supervisor Goicoechea, and in a nutshell, it went like this:
Prospect: You support Prop 26.
SG: That’s right.
Prospect: We did an analysis and determined it would be difficult to raise fees if it passes.
SG: That’s right.
Prospect: It would be the end of the world as we know it.
SG: That’s right.
And, there it was, suddenly the realization that the end of nanny government as we know it might be possible, and that we, at the Prospect, were against it, instead of leading the charge, as we should!
Suddenly, I saw before me not a staid and moderate county supervisor fighting tractor seat spread, but a vital young revolutionary, Dave Guevara, ready to lead us to a new, freer life.
The effect lasted until I had something to eat.
Are you nutz, Dave? Of course we’re all sick of too much regulation, and too much government intrusion, and the stupidly high cost of doing anything. It’s become the strangulation of a generation, there’s no doubt about it.
But, this bill will result in the state making LOCAL governments pay for everything. It doesn’t prevent state agencies from simply passing the cost to county government, as they’ve recently learned to do.
In fact, it doesn’t keep the state from passing costs on to taxpayers at all. If polluters don’t have to pay fees, then clean up costs come from the general fund. Prop 26 doesn’t address the underlying problems with California government, it just shifts the cost.
There’s no way Prop 26 would be good for Sierra County, never mind the $1 billion dollars it would add to the state’s debt, and never mind the proposition is bankrolled by the worst corporate exploiters in the game. It’s bad because it will make being a good county supervisor harder.
Read your Prospect, Goicoechea!
Still, thanks for the rush of hopeful enthusiasm and youthful rebellion. For a little while there I felt like voting for McGovern, again.
Read what the Prospect-wannabe has to say about it, the Sacto Bee.
At the Board of Supervisor’s meeting on Tuesday 19 Oct 2010 Chairperson Goicoechea lobbied for Prop 26.
The Prospect did a light analysis of Prop 26, and concluded that, in the long run, having citizens vote on every fee wasn’t a great idea. It would encumber government, and for a few election cycles, make it hard to get the business of government done.
At the break, the Prospect confronted Supervisor Goicoechea, and in a nutshell, it went like this:
Prospect: You support Prop 26.
SG: That’s right.
Prospect: We did an analysis and determined it would be difficult to raise fees if it passes.
SG: That’s right.
Prospect: It would be the end of the world as we know it.
SG: That’s right.
And, there it was, suddenly the realization that the end of nanny government as we know it might be possible, and that we, at the Prospect, were against it, instead of leading the charge, as we should!
Suddenly, I saw before me not a staid and moderate county supervisor fighting tractor seat spread, but a vital young revolutionary, Dave Guevara, ready to lead us to a new, freer life.
The effect lasted until I had something to eat.
Are you nutz, Dave? Of course we’re all sick of too much regulation, and too much government intrusion, and the stupidly high cost of doing anything. It’s become the strangulation of a generation, there’s no doubt about it.
But, this bill will result in the state making LOCAL governments pay for everything. It doesn’t prevent state agencies from simply passing the cost to county government, as they’ve recently learned to do.
In fact, it doesn’t keep the state from passing costs on to taxpayers at all. If polluters don’t have to pay fees, then clean up costs come from the general fund. Prop 26 doesn’t address the underlying problems with California government, it just shifts the cost.
There’s no way Prop 26 would be good for Sierra County, never mind the $1 billion dollars it would add to the state’s debt, and never mind the proposition is bankrolled by the worst corporate exploiters in the game. It’s bad because it will make being a good county supervisor harder.
Read your Prospect, Goicoechea!
Still, thanks for the rush of hopeful enthusiasm and youthful rebellion. For a little while there I felt like voting for McGovern, again.
Read what the Prospect-wannabe has to say about it, the Sacto Bee.
