• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Governor: Arnold Schwarzenegger. Regardless of whether Phil Angelides or Arnold Schwarzenegger wins the governor’s race, a Democrat wins. Schwarzenegger has recently been taking stances often championed by the Democrats on issues such as minimum wage law and global warming. Angelides has been left with his thumb in his mouth. In fact, Angelides has made the bulk of his campaign linking Schwarzenegger to President Bush. This campaign appeals to voters even less than Kerry’s “anyone but Bush” campaign, as Angelides’ current poll numbers show. Angelides portrays himself as a crusader for the middle class, maintaining that he would increase taxes on the rich, while granting tax cuts to the middle class. But, as Schwarzenegger pointed out, Angelides has supported taxes affecting the middle and lower classes, such as the vehicle license fee hike that the governor repealed. While Schwarzenegger thinks twice before taxing (and then passes deficit-delaying bond measures), Angelides’ first inclination is to tax. Let’s all shy away from Angelides’ socialist taxing and let him join John Kerry in insignificance.

Proposition 87: No. Want higher oil prices? Then vote yes on Proposition 87. Regardless of what it asserts, the tax levied on oil producers will ultimately be passed on to consumers. Oil producers would choose to produce less oil as a result of the production tax, and consumer prices will inevitably go up. This inevitable result is dictated by the most widely-known law of economics – the law of supply and demand, which this proposition would not reverse. Currently, gasoline is a more cost-efficient means of energy than the alternatives. Were alternative sources of energy cheaper, they would already be the dominant energy sources. Supporters of the proposition would like to raise gas prices in order to artificially reduce the use of gasoline, ostensibly for environmental reasons. Through technological innovation, the amount of air pollution has declined 70 percent over the past 39 years, even in the face of increasing gasoline use, according to a 2000 Environmental Protection Agency study. Faced with these trade-offs, the average consumer would prefer to pick the lower gasoline price, if given the choice. A vote against Proposition 87 is a vote against a senseless economic policy.

Proposition 89: No. Some ideas and candidates draw more support and, hence, more money. Nothing is fundamentally unfair about that. What is unfair, though, is forcing a citizen to pay for the political campaign of a candidate he doesn’t support, something the tax-funded public finance would entail. Arguments for campaign finance “reform” on the basis that some individuals have disproportionate power are unfounded; the wealthy already have great influence. In fact, the argument can be made that journalists give free advertisement to campaigns, using established media resources to weigh in on the side of candidates they support. Allowing private campaign contributions, mostly used to purchase advertisement, is a way of increasing the information available to the public. Supporters of campaign finance “reform” allege that special interests contribute to both political parties. If this is the case, why is such a proposition necessary? Just as citizens ought to be able to support and advocate for their candidates of choice, they should be able to finance whichever candidates they choose. Our founding fathers believed that free expression is at the heart of a free society. But Proposition 89 attacks this notion.