Against All Ballot Amendments
I have already discussed why we should vote "no" on the falsely-named "right to hunt" amendment. I would like to also share with you why I am voting against the other two as well.
Amendment 2 purports to be about lifting interest rates in Arkansas. With inflation revving up again, that by itself might not be a bad idea. If we artificially cap interest rates, money and credit may leave the state like it did in 1980. The question then was "why would Arkansas bankers make a home loan in Arkansas for 10% when they could take that money to a bordering state and get 17%-21% for it?" Fact was they didn't. People just could not get home loans in the state until rates came down.
But that's not really what this bill is about. It's about doing an end-run around a vote of the people before the legislature can put them in debt. Most of the actual language of the bill is not even about removing caps on interest rates, its about allowing the legislature to issue a new class of debt based on energy efficiency without bothering to OK it with us first. For that reason, it must be opposed. Green Fascism has gone to far. Politicians love to buy goodies using the next generation's money. Thankfully, our constitution kept these impulses under control. Over time though, they are luring people into casting off those protections. I say its a mistake.
Of course, that leads me to oppose amendment 3 as well. While they got permission to indebt us without a vote for big projects, they did not get permission to do so for the more numerous smaller projects. That is well. I am in favor of a government which produces a generally friendly climate for the businesses that we already have over one who taxes those businesses in order to subsidize a newcomer to the state. The out of state money pits states against each other, and so the politicians who get the project are the ones who overpaid the most for it.
If these were conservative amendments, I should think that the courts would ban two of them for deceptive titles. Since liberal bills don't seem to get the same amount of scrutiny, its up to us to inform each other.
Amendment 2 purports to be about lifting interest rates in Arkansas. With inflation revving up again, that by itself might not be a bad idea. If we artificially cap interest rates, money and credit may leave the state like it did in 1980. The question then was "why would Arkansas bankers make a home loan in Arkansas for 10% when they could take that money to a bordering state and get 17%-21% for it?" Fact was they didn't. People just could not get home loans in the state until rates came down.
But that's not really what this bill is about. It's about doing an end-run around a vote of the people before the legislature can put them in debt. Most of the actual language of the bill is not even about removing caps on interest rates, its about allowing the legislature to issue a new class of debt based on energy efficiency without bothering to OK it with us first. For that reason, it must be opposed. Green Fascism has gone to far. Politicians love to buy goodies using the next generation's money. Thankfully, our constitution kept these impulses under control. Over time though, they are luring people into casting off those protections. I say its a mistake.
Of course, that leads me to oppose amendment 3 as well. While they got permission to indebt us without a vote for big projects, they did not get permission to do so for the more numerous smaller projects. That is well. I am in favor of a government which produces a generally friendly climate for the businesses that we already have over one who taxes those businesses in order to subsidize a newcomer to the state. The out of state money pits states against each other, and so the politicians who get the project are the ones who overpaid the most for it.
If these were conservative amendments, I should think that the courts would ban two of them for deceptive titles. Since liberal bills don't seem to get the same amount of scrutiny, its up to us to inform each other.
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Wednesday, October 20, 2010
1 Comments:
None of the amendments on the ballot this time have received much attention - and I don't know why. The skeptic in me thinks they might be trying to slip them in under the radar, as they have done in the past with others (lottery, annual legislative sessions, et al). My feeling is to vote 'no' on any you don't fully understand. If it's not written in plain, understandable language, vote 'no'.
Post a Comment
<< Home