Debbie Schum: Yes on 60, 61, 101
September 11, 2010
Morgan Liddick wrote that constitutional amendments should be limited. Amendment 60 is limited to property tax; Amendment 61 is limited to government borrowing. Each is only half a page long, as is Proposition 101.
He called the provision that real property owners get to vote on their property taxes “ambivalent.” He meant “ambiguous.”
He falsely says Amendment 60 covers homeowner associations, which are not governments and don’t impose property taxes.
He omits the fact that the school property tax relief is over 10 years and is fully replaced by state aid under current law and Amendment 60 language.
The tax saving is 60 percent of his inflated figure, and requires only 0.6 percent of state spending per year. State spending has soared 476 percent since 1984. With $20 billion in annual spending this year, the state is hardly “essentially broke.”
He suggests governments borrow money for decades in order to fill potholes. That doesn’t happen. Local borrowing is still allowed under Amendment 61 by voter approval, but should be only for construction projects, not routine operating expenses. Governments with yearly deficit spending need to defer spending until later in the fiscal year, when they have the money; they then won’t have a loan to repay, or a deficit in future years.
Recommended Stories For You
Proposition 101 does not mention the “alternative minimum tax,” so Liddick obviously hasn’t read the proposal. He says $10 car registration is too low. Fact: The state now pays county clerks only $4 for that processing action. With five million cars, Prop. 101 allows $50 million for acts which mostly consist of pressing a computer button to enter “No change.” The state charges $10 for registering a corporation online; why should a car cost more?
Liddick raised no valid criticism. Having read http://www.COtaxreforms.com (unlike Liddick), I’m voting YES on all three – 60, 61 and 101.