30 May 2012
Propositions 28 and 29 on June 5th CA Ballot
Next Tuesday, California will vote on two propositions that seek to change the term limits for state government elected officials and to impose a tax on cigarettes for additional state revenue to support cancer research. These are Propositions 28 and 29 respectively.
I don't like defined term limits for elected officials. California has had them for several years and I think our legislative process suffers by limiting Assembly, Senate and Gubernatorial terms to two consecutive terms. The first problem I have with term limits is that they erase institutional memory for representatives of my district. Secondly, in their first terms, our representatives spend an inordinate amount of time getting re-elected for a second term. Thirdly, in the second term there is no incentive to be responsive to the voters, just the ability to reward their financial sponsors. Fourthly, I am prevented from re-electing my preferred person to represent me in elected office. How can this be constitutional?
Radio and television ads against changing the term limits say that Proposition 28 will, in effect, enable politicians to serve an additional two years before term limits apply. To me, this tactic represents yet another way for California voters to put into place an automatic process rather than voting in every election on the merits of the incumbent's performance or the aspirants' potential. Automatic term limits are no substitute for the ballot box accountability to constituents in every election.
If one looks closely at the television ads against Proposition 29, the greyed-out sponsors are the tobacco companies, the (Luddite) California Chamber of Commerce and the (Lyndon LaRouche) California Taxpayers Association. These three proponents value private greed over government addressing a dangerous, public health threat.
Anyone who knows how prices affect consumption in our economy has seen how a combination of local ordinances prohibiting smoking and use taxes have lowered the number of smokers and have raised significant revenues for sponsoring health care research and other general welfare programs. Second-hand smoke's lethal effects on other people's health are significantly lower than when cigarettes cost less than a dollar per pack.
The tobacco companies see their sales numbers down and corporate income threatened. The Chamber of Commerce and CTA do not care about their own or other persons' health enough to use government's ability to use product price increases, not by increasing income or sales taxes, but by taxing smokers for a revenue source with a direct causal link from cigarette smoking to a major public health problem affecting us all.
For these reasons, I will vote "Yes" on these two propositions.
<< Home
