This is a really bad idea

Proposition A, Missouri 2010.
Full text
Ballotpedia entry
KansasCity.com article

Last night I caught part of a TV spot claiming that allowing an earnings tax to continue without being constantly reauthorized is a "loophole." No, that's not a loophole; that's how government works.

This proposition as written would take away the ability of voters to add such a tax, while "graciously" permitting them to keep any such tax so long as they keep reauthorizing it every five years, forever. That's unbalanced.

If it were balanced, it would look like this: [NOTE THAT THE FOLLOWING IS NOT WHAT IT SAYS AT ALL] Cities without earnings taxes would have to vote not to have an earnings tax every five years to get one; & cities with earnings taxes would have to vote whether to keep it, raise it, or lower it. See how that works? If you want to move it down, you have to be prepared to move it back up later. ( Read more... )

Yeah, that's how stupid I think this is. So, in short: One-way limits on the power to tax: bad. Voting for this: good way to drive foolsguinea to a life of armed rebellion against the civic order.

(no subject)

OK, so my last post was a little overwrought.

I'm in a weird place in my politico-philosophical evolution; where I've gone from being a democrat who deplored that people seem to want to be ruled by kings, to thinking that that is in fact what they need. An king is an electorate of one; if he goes the wrong way he can be more easily corrected, or if necessary can be replaced with less horror, than can an electorate which is the populace itself.

But in a monarchy, who replaces the king? Who is the super-electorate? Argh.

I suppose the real trick is not to try to overthrow the republic, but to learn to subvert it through careful demagoguery within the democratic paradigm. So until I figure that out perhaps I'll try to keep public ranting about streets filled with blood to a minimum.

But I really hate weaselly referenda. Still.