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governor repealed.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.