First, let's state this clearly: Prop 26 goes where even Prop 13 dare not tread. The measure moves any regulatory fee which doesn't exclusively benefit those being charged the fee out of the realm of majority votes at the state and local level to the 2/3 super-majority, right up there with the rest of our broken system. And as Jean Ross points out in CalBuzz today, it protects polluters:
The court found that such fees were regulatory fees - not taxes - and could be imposed by a majority vote. Sinclair built on the logic of a prior appellate court ruling that ruled that, "A reasonable way to achieve Proposition 13's goal of tax relief is to shift the costs of controlling stationary sources of pollution from the tax-paying public to the pollution-causing industries themselves."
 Conversely, if the state can't impose the fees on "pollution-causing industries" to recoup the cost of environmental monitoring and remediation, those costs will be shifted to taxpayers as a whole. Or, in an era where budget crises have become the status quo, programs that enforce environmental, food safety and other laws will be scaled back, if not eliminated. Which may be the true goal of the backers of Proposition 26. (CalBuzz)
While Prop 23 is getting all of the attention, Prop 26 is just as, if not more pernicious. If it passes, it makes the implementation of any new environmental legislation difficult if not impossible. Local environmental innovation will be stifled, and the polluters, through their Republican cronies, will be able to block any fee. Sounds great, doesn't it.
But like Billy Mays used to say (RIP, Billy), "But wait, there's more." Prop 26 would also kill the so-called "tax swap". As it stands now, if the state takes in no additional revenues, and just adjust taxes to make the system more equitable, there is no supermajority requirment. As Jean Ross points out, we could close some corporate tax loopholes to reduce the personal income tax on the middle class without a 2/3 vote in the legislature. That would be ok if and only if, under Prop 13, we net no additional revenue. It's not really an overwhelmingly powerful budget balancing tool, but it does allow some additional flexibility.
However, Prop 26 requires a 2/3 vote for any measure that increases tax for any taxpayer in the state. So, if it reduces taxes for 3 million people, but raises taxes on one dude? Yup, 2/3 vote. It's an unwieldy system to say the least.
It is just one more step on the road to totally break our state, and while Prop 23's defeat is critical, it is hard to argue that Prop 26 is any less important. The reach would be enormous and long standing, and could throw our system into further chaos. |
