Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-ean.CDN
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!ubc-vision!ubc-ean!robinson
From: robinson@ubc-ean.CDN (Jim Robinson)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Referendums and Initiatives (again)
Message-ID: <861@ubc-ean.CDN>
Date: Wed, 31-Oct-84 00:14:01 EST
Article-I.D.: ubc-ean.861
Posted: Wed Oct 31 00:14:01 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 31-Oct-84 18:39:35 EST
Organization: UBC EAN, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 140

>  
>  ===============
>  It seems that basically all this boils down to the fact that
>  you consider the average person much too stupid to be able to
>  properly ........... 
>                                                 J.B. Robinson
>  ===============
>  There is a difference between thinking of people as stupid and
>  recognizing that they are uninformed.

True. However you said that "... I have yet to meet one [a politician]
who was as stupid as the average person". This, to me, is an 
implication that you  think that the average person is indeed
stupid.

>  ......................................................
>  My philosophy is one of balance.  I abhore the removal of liberty
>  from individuals in matters that have little impact outside the
>  immediate friendship/family circle of that individual.  I equally
>  abhore the imposition on all individuals of the need to become expert
>  in every matter that concerns them.  I believe in trust, in delegation
>  of responsibility and authority, and THAT is what responsible
>  government is about.

Does this mean that you do not abhor the removal of say the freedom
of assembly, of free speech, of political dissent? These are all 
liberties/freedoms that do not impact "the immediate friendship/family
circle of the individual", yet are just a few of the liberties that 
separate us from the Guatamalas and Russias of the world.

Trust! Trust? The Canadian people trusted the Liberals when they 
said "NO" to wage and price controls and they trusted them when they
said "NO" to a gas tax hike. We all know what happened there.
Trudeau *blatantly* betrayed that same trust with his 200+  
patronage appointments. And it looks like Mulroney may just 
betray the trust put in him when he said that there will be
no cuts to social programs.

I do not believe in mindlessly transferring my trust to whatever
group is presently controlling the country/province/city. To me,
trust is something that is to be **earned**, and not something 
that  automatically comes  with  the job .  

>  ===============
>  By the time the campaign is going, the questions have been settled.
>  Do you think the framers of initiative questions will be any less
>  self-serving than politicians who have to answer to the electorate
>  for their failures?
>                         MT

Sure, the question will have been settled, but that still leaves the
answers to be worked on. At least the framer's of initiative questions 
do not have to worry about winning a popularity contest every 4 or 5
years. If the initiative is silly then it won't be able to get enough
signatures to make it to the ballot. If it does make it, then at least
we know that the outcome will be decided by factors other than 
political expediency or because our MPs are kowtowing to the
whims of the PM from whom they hope to get a patronage appointment.

>  * * * * * * * * *
>  You complained about my example of a referendum to (i) cut taxes,
>  (ii) reduce the civil service, and (iii) improve government services.
>  You say that any electorate handed that would know the wool was being
>  pulled over their eyes.  But didn't California voters get exactly
>  that guff in the Proposition 13 campaign, and didn't they approve it?
>  Granted the three conditions were not all in the wording of the
>  proposal, but they sure voted their pocketbooks in violation of
>  common sense.  Look at Ray Simard's ravings in net.politics
>  ("fuzzy-headed liberals").  All he cares about is that he stands
>  to gain $50/week this year if Reagan wins, and to hell with whoever
>  has to pay for those deficits.

First off, how about a little tolerance towards people who don't
think like you do. Isn't that what you were saying in your net.politics
article that questioned why the US seemed to think that it is always
right and any other country that didn't agree with it wrong. Yet, that
is precisely what you are doing now by saying that the people of
California voted in "violation of common sense".

And yes, you're right, the three conditions were not all in prop 13.
I lived in Southern California from the summer of 1981 to the 
summer of 1983 and from my conversations with the "natives" it sounds
like the only thing prop 13 was supposed to do was *lower property taxes*.

The lowering of property taxes got on ballot because at that time 
California's property taxes were just about the highest in the country.
What aggravated the situation even more was that California also
was running quite a large surplus.  The citizens had apparently been
asking their politicians for some kind of relief for years, but 
to no avail. The rest is history. 

I would also like to point out that California has had numerous
opportunities to reverse prop 13 in other election years, but hasn't.
Conclusion: the majority of the citizens are happy with the results.

Also, I believe that Howard Jarvis, the original instigator of
prop 13, sponsored another initiative subsequent to prop 13 which
wanted to cut state income taxes in half. It *failed*.
Conclusion: Californians were happy with the level of social services 
they were receiving and did not want to see them cut. ( They sure  
didn't vote their pocketbooks in that one )

Let's try and put Ray Simard's ravings into perspective. $50/week
is $2600/year. That is not a small amount. That is $900 *more*
than I paid for my 2nd hand Dodge Dart 3 years ago. It also helps
to realize that the Federal Gov't of the US relies more on income
tax for its revenues than its Canadian counterpart. There is *no*
federal sales tax in the US, and the top *marginal* tax rate is 50%,
and kicks in about where Canada's does, in the $50,000 range.
( Canada's *combined* top federal *and* provincial income tax rate 
is 50% )

When I was working in the US, I was making less than $30,000, yet my
*marginal* tax rates were - federal: 34%,  state: 11% . Add to that
social security deductions which were a flat 6.?% and voila,
I was paying over 50 cents of each additional dollar I was earning
to the gov't.  And you wonder why Ray Simard is mad that Mondale
wants to  raise *income* taxes? ( Note that the standard deduction 
in the US is $1000, not the almost $4000 it is in Canada, and  
at present there is no indexation for inflation. Indexation is 
supposed to start next year, but I believe Fritz said he'd axe that
if he got in. Also note that all US tax rates given are for 1983,
i.e. **after** Reagan's 25% across-the-board federal tax cut had
fully come into effect. )

Yes, the US has to raise taxes in 1985. But not income taxes on
"high" income earners ( >$25,000/year ) , as Fritz desires.

I've got a lot more I could say, but since this is already too 
long I'll leave you with one last thought. Many states in US
presently hold referendums and initiatives; California, Oregon,
Washington, and Massachusetts are four that immediately come to 
mind. These states seem to be none the worse for this, and 
are, in my opinion, benefiting from this experience. Surely 
Canadians, who generally tend to think of themselves as
more sophisticated and caring than Americans ( and thus by 
implication more likely to make the "right" decisions ),
would also benefit.

                                     J.B. Robinson