The Stanford Daily

Opinions





Comments about "Op-Ed: Prop. 89 would raise taxes and limit personal freedom"


<< Back to Op-Ed: Prop. 89 would raise taxes and limit personal freedom

5 Comments on this article:

Report as: spam offensive James Saxon on 10/31/06 at 3am

The article innacurately describes Proposition 89 and incorrectly predicts the outcome of Prop 89.
For a mind blowing experience, see the list of endorsers: http://www.89now.org/endorsers/ The opponents are Big business, Big oil, Big Pharma, Big Unions, Big Insurance.
This is David versus Golaith. Golaith is the money. We all know the system must change.
Proposition 89 gives voters back their democracy.
Corporations and special interests have gamed the sysetem for too long as shown by the massive increase in the cost of having a campaign, to the point were perfectly decent reasonable candidates just won't, or can't run.
Proposition 89 gives voters and politicians their voice back by limiting contributions, having strong discolsure rules, having strong enforcement and penalties, and setting up Clean Money, Public Financing of campaigns.
Together these policies will give all candidates a chance to have their message heard. It makes ALL campaigns about ideas, not money.
Proposition 89 is working successfully in Arizona and Maine and it is making fundamental changes to their states, where districts are finally getting politicians in office that truly represent the district's interests and the constituent's interests, not special interests from another district or state.
Prop 89 restricts NO person or entity from independantly spending their own money to make political statements.
A Yes vote on 89 will end the status quo and give the people back their government.

Report as: spam offensive Paul W. on 10/31/06 at 7am

So James, increasing my taxes "gives voters back their democracy?" BIG GOVERNMENT steals more of my money and I have less to spend on myself and my family? Sounds like a loss of freedom to me. The number one reason I left California is that taxes were getting out of control.

Report as: spam offensive BadgerNation on 10/31/06 at 9am

Why the railing against "Big business, Big oil, Big Pharma, Big Unions, Big Insurance"? These industries move a lot of capital and employ a lot of people. I don't see why businesses operated by private citizens shouldn't have the same right to lobby the government as individuals.

Report as: spam offensive Diana Wendling on 10/31/06 at 9am

Megan says "Businesses and consumers will have no say over where their tax dollars go." How does this differ from how taxes are paid and allocated today? If CA citizens pass Prop 89, businesses and consumers will, in fact, know that a 0.2% increase in corporate profits (which is the same rate paid before a 1996 decrease) will go into a fund to support candidates supported by thousands of individual $5 contributors, rather than the candidate's own deep pockets and/or the pockets of cronies. Also, many small corporations will incur no tax increase at all. As for contribution limits, caps on individual and small committees exist today. Prop 89 will lower the ceiling on these caps so that more citizens may feel inclined to participate with their dollars. In other words, the individual cap to a state gov campaign is $22,300. I can't give $22,300 and I find it discouraging that those who do can influence the outcome of the election (and possibly policy decisions, post-election) in ways I cannot. If the cap is reduced to $1,000 more people can participate in the election process - and that's what democracy is about, isn't it? I agree that "any time there is a law [that] limits personal freedom, we should step back..." -- too bad most of our elected officials did exactly that when the Patriot Act was passed and habeus corpus was put on ice. But I digress. Prop 89's contribution limits would give this voter more personal freedom. I would know that I have the same voting and buying power as our wealthiest citizens and I would, consequently, feel greater freedom to engage with my voting and buying power. That's personal freedom. And finally, the exemption clause for nonprofits refers only to qualified NPs that meet multiple criteria, which include having "no persons who are offered or who receive any benefit that is a disincentive for them to disassociate themselves with the corporation on the basis of the corporation's position on a political issue."

Report as: spam offensive James Saxon on 10/31/06 at 1pm

Paul: "Increasing Taxes" of .2% on corporate profit is only $200M a year (a pittance compared to some other Props!).
Also, it's only .15% of California's budget. If you take the other 99.85% of California's budget and hand it to representatives who have the benefit of true objectivity to focus on their constituents, the tax savings for the state will be much greater than that .15% don't you think? When our legislators are not influenced by whether or not they will be able to run another campaign, they can make solid policy answering both public and business needs in an equitable way for California.
Badger: Business in California is great and very important. But Government is not business. And money overpowering votes is wrong. I business, the currency is dollars, but in government, the currency is supposed to be votes, right? Or am I somehow mistaken about what democracy is? This is "equality" of all points of view. And it allows for lobbyists just fine; lobbyists by constituency, not by dollars. We have gotten away balance specifically because of the severe lack of structure in this area. It is only because of the advances we have in our modern society (technology etc) that we can finally take on fairness mechanisms of disclosure, tracking, and Clean Money (public finance allowing candidates to run from all walks of life as long as they are credible candidates, proven by a volume of consitituent supporters).
A YES on 89 will save taxpayers millions with unbiased politicians and our representation will start to look more like our state. It will take a long time as the government adjusts to the new structure, but what you will see is a more population driven state, more involved, more careful, and more informed. This is what we were taught in school.
For details www.89now.org.




(Comments are meant to provide a constructive way for users to interact online. Please keep discussion civil, and refrain from using profanity, personal attacks, potentially libelous language, or hate speech. The Stanford Daily is not responsible for any content that appears in the comment section of its Web site. The Daily is not responsible for monitoring the board or removing comments that could be in violation of the policy. The editors of the non-profit newspaper support a free exchange of ideas, even if beliefs expressed are controversial, but The Stanford Daily Publishing Corporation claims all rights and sole discretion to delete or not delete any post for any reason at any time. If something is posted in the comment section of the Web site, the expressed view should not be understood as an endorsement by The Daily or any of its agents. All comments must comply with the “Terms and Conditions For Use” as set out in the “About us” section of the Web site, or they may be removed. By posting a comment, you attest that the material is not copyrighted and that you are fully relinquishing all rights of ownership to said content exclusively to The Daily while maintaining full responsibility for what you write.)