In general I'm undecided on ballot initiatives. I think politicians are no more intelligent and generally have motives inferior to those of the average American, and deep down I like the idea of telling them how we want to be governed. There are two ballot initiatives in Massachusetts that will get me off the couch this year. However, I distinctly remember using a ballot initiative proposing a zero tax bracket and extreme benefits for the 50 + x % at the expense of increased taxation on the 50 - x % as a rhetorical device to illustrate the danger of entrusting the majority with protecting the rights of the individual.
If Paul McCauley gets his way, we can see how outrageous that hypothetical was. Today California Secretary of State Debra Brown announced a new ballot initiative which will be on the ballot in 2010 if McCauley can collect 700,000 signatures by the end of the year. Without further ado:
WEALTH TAX. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
Imposes one-time tax of at least 55% on property exceeding $20 million of a California resident or held in California by nonresident. Imposes one-time tax (between 36.5% - 54.3%) on income exceeding $10 million when resident dies or leaves California. Imposes additional 17.5% tax on total incomes of taxpayers with income exceeding $150,000 if single, $250,000 if married; 35% if incomes exceed $350,000 if single, $500,000 if married.
I can't help but have an Eddie Willers moment here. I am relatively confident that even if it passed this would be struck down, but I am totally unqualified to judge that. However, I am not at all confident that Californians wouldn't vote for this if it were to make the ballot. The current obsession with windfall profit taxes, the rich paying their fair share, and the like, represents a deeper class conflict, fueled by economic slowdown and a politician who promises to help us forget our differences but uses divisive politics when it comes to "the rich". Consider the proposal's finding:
I could hear this coming out of Lou Dobbs just as easily as I could hear it coming out of Senator Obama (with the exception of the environment stuff). Also, there is the pragmatic argument: for voters observing budget gridlock this may seem like an expedient, if unpalatable option.
Rather than merely funding several hundred billion dollars worth of additional inferior government services and waste, McCauley has something a little more Hugo Chavez in mind:
If your vexed by why McCauley would like the state to own these particular multinational corporations, the subsection (f)(1) he mentions explains:
While all of this is unthinkable to me and others who understand the unintended consequences of such measures, I'm afraid even this deep into the lunacy, Mr. McCauley hasn't lost as many supporters as I would have hoped. The melding of protectionist labor concerns with environmental issues, focused through the lens of resentment for large finance and oil corporations strikes all the right points to snap up much of if not the entirety of the economically illiterate vote.
While I worry for the people of California if they attempt to pillage their engines of growth to attempt to "preserve and to rehabilitate the global climate, the global ecosystem,the oceans and the sea life within the ocean", this doesn't threaten me all that much. What is more worrisome is the idea that given a filibuster proof majority and Democratic president, sentiments and policies in this vein may be on the agenda for next year.
