We will be faced with four questions on the ballot in the November election. I urge a "NO" vote on Questions 1, 2, and 4, and "YES" on Question 3.
Question 1 provides for a constitutional amendment to set the compensation for the state legislators. Not only are legislative salaries ridiculously high at present, but legislators should face the heat whenever they want to raise them. Our existing initiative petition system, weak as it is, gives us a theoretical possibility of returning to a citizen legislature, receiving a small honorarium for performing their civic duty. A constitutional amendment would enshrine a professional legislature, forever beyond our control. Please vote NO on #1.
Question 2 purports to limit the influence of money on elections, but all it could limit is the influence of open contributions. People with millions of dollars at stake, in the exercise of government power, will find ways to influence elections. The proper solution is to reduce the scope of government power. Contribution limits make it more difficult to overcome the already overwhelming name recognition advantage of incumbents. They magnify the power of the media, which cannot always be counted on to be impartial, to decide our elections. Most important, they limit free speech, as they prevent us from giving as much as we want to people we support, while forcing us to fund those with whom we disagree. Please defeat #2.
Question 3 would return the tax rate on interest and dividends to the same rate as the tax on wages and salaries. The rates are too high, of course, and any reduction is a welcome step to reducing the size and intrusiveness of government. But beyond that, there is no justification for the current distinction. It discriminates against those who save for retirement, and then have to pay an extra penalty for having done so. I urge a "YES" vote on #3.
Question 4 would approve the legislature-enacted restructuring of the electric utility industry, including a provision that "lets a utility recover, from customers, previously incurred costs related to generating plants and contracts that have become uneconomical under competition," or so-called "stranded costs." To the extent these costs were incurred from unwise decisions by the utility, such costs should be borne by the stockholders and not by the consumers. Of course, as is typical when the government gets involved, many unwise investments have been mandated by regulatory agencies. Ideally, the regulators should be held responsible, but of course the taxpayers will be held responsible instead. Still, until such distinctions between mandated misjudgments and self-imposed misjudgments are made, this restructuring is a sweetheart deal for the industry and should be rejected.