PROP 70
PROPOSITION 70: VOTE REQUIREMENT TO USE CAP-AND-TRADE REVENUE AMENDMENT
June 2018 ballot
This one's interesting.
First I'll describe what it's about, then I'll explain why it's on the ballot.
You might be surprised. I know I was.
There are two basic approaches a government can take in order to mitigate carbon emissions:
- Command and control is the more traditional method: the government sets standards and firms who fail to meet those standards are fined.
- Cap and trade treats air pollution as a commodity that can be owned. The government sets an upper limit for emissions; the ability to produce additional emissions must be purchased from others who do not use their full allowance.
The idea behind cap and trade is that market forces can be used to limit carbon emissions. If my company pollutes less, I not only avoid fines—I profit.
The legitimately cynical view of this is that it's easier to convince the aristocracy to go along with something that benefits the public good if you give them a way to profit from it. I say: whatever works.
Anyway, that is how Governor Brown and the Democratic majority convinced some Republicans in the state senate to go along with cap and trade as a way for California to lead the nation in the fight against climate change.
In 2017 the legislature passed a package that includes air pollution regulations, an extension of cap and trade out to 2030, and Prop 70, a constitutional amendment that must be approved by the voters.
Prop 70 is about the money collected by the state's Air Resources Board, which is set to auction greenhouse gas allowances starting in 2024. The question is: who should decide how the money is spent?
YES means you think 2/3 of the state legislature should have to approve how the money is spent. Otherwise it sits there and accumulates. AND, between January 1, 2024, and the supermajority passage of a spending bill, manufacturers (polluters) would be exempt from sales taxes.
NO means you think a simple majority of the state legislature should decide how the money is spent. Manufacturers would see no suspension of sales tax.
What the heck is going on here?
Understanding the significance of Prop 70 means understanding the players and who stands to gain.
Our very own Chad Mayes (R-42) from here in the Coachella Valley was the primary architect behind Prop 70. The smartest man in the room, Governor Jerry Brown, also publicly supports Prop 70.
Most of the Democratic Party, an array of environmental organizations, and three major newspaper editorial boards: the San Francisco Chronicle, the Los Angeles Times, and the Sacramento Bee, stand in opposition to Prop 70.
The YES folks argue that a two-thirds majority would result in more responsible spending of the money. That is most certainly a lie: back when Democrats did not own a supermajority in the legislature and needed it to pass a budget, individual Republican members had to be bribed with pork (earmarks for special pet projects). This would be no different.
Furthermore, since a polluter's best friend in Sacramento is a Republican—almost without exception—a two-thirds requirement would probably allow polluters to have a say in how the money is spent, since they could simply tell individual Republican lawmakers what to demand in exchange for their "yes" vote on the bill.
This is not meant to demonize Republicans. Industrial manufacturers comprise a constituency seeking to be heard, just like any other.
It's not corrupt. It's politics in a representative democracy.
As for that sales tax exemption ("suspension"), that's simply a way to further pressure Democrats into making concessions, rather than simply letting the money accumulate and sit there. The longer it sits there, the longer polluters are off the hook for sales taxes. They can afford to wait until they get a sweet enough deal.
Sounds like liberals ought to oppose it, right?
Except: why does the governor—the smartest man in the room, in my opinion—why the heck would he support this?
Well according to the newspaper editorial boards, he did this as part of a compromise to get the whole package passed. Now they're banking on his stated support as their only hope of getting this passed.
Well played, Senator Mayes.
Not only do I generally oppose any constitutional amendment that tries to straitjacket the legislature's budget process, I oppose this one with enthusiasm.
It is vile.
#NoOn70 #NoOnProp70
