| All you really need to see to understand what's at stake with the ballot proposals is to read the comments on yesterday's editorial in the Freep. The editorial is a good one, pointing out how dumb an idea is the two-thirds vote for changes in taxation. Why? We'd never, ever be able to raise money to fix roads, because you'd never, ever get two-thirds of state senators to agree to it. The underlying nature of the ballot proposal is that representative democracy simply doesn't work. If you read the comments, there isn't a single coherent, intelligent reasons offered for why to vote for it. I haven't see a single coherent, intelligent reason anywhere for why to vote for it. The comments mostly amount to, "If the Free Press is against it, we should be for it," and some of the people who left comments -- and these are people whose actual, real world identities are revealed to the world -- appear to believe that there is an actual tax hike on the line. If this isn't defeated, taxes will be raised. And, there appear to be a number of people who believe that if you vote for this, you're also voting against the pro-union proposals. Or something. It leaves you scratching your head that we've been able to self-govern for 200 years. It's refreshing to see this sort of editorial. Of all the ballot questions this year, this is by far the worst. It's a terrible idea, and it has no place in the state constitution. I have reservations about everything else (except the bridge proposal, which is only less stupid because the horrible damage it would cause it confined to a very narrow range of things), most especially since I really don't think the constitution is the right place for what are otherwise sound, good ideas. This, however, is just terrible through and through. |
