[extropy-chat] polls again

[J. Andrew Rogers]

On Nov 2, 2006, at 11:15 PM, Al Brooks wrote:
> Does anyone understand the tax propositions on
> ballots? don't you have to be an accountant to grasp
> them? Why doesn't a state empanel twelve economists as
> a jury to arbitrate decisions on taxes rather than let
> less educated or uneducated voters do so?
> That's why I like gay issues; sex-related issues
> aren't really important, but at least anyone can
> comprehend them.


Some states have good proxies for tax policy, and a few states  
essentially have no tax policy to speak of.  It is a regional issue.

In California, one of the sanest voices with respect to tax  
propositions is Tom McClintock.  Also one of the most respected and  
liked politicians in California, perhaps ironically because he is  
basically an old school conservative in a liberal state but is  
arguably one of the most intelligent and well-educated politicians  
out there when it comes to fiscal policy.  If I'm lazy, I assume  
McClintock has a rational perspective of tax propositions, regardless  
of what I think of his other policy positions.

I would note that he is not reflexively anti-tax despite being of the  
small government persuasion.  He will grudgingly support new tax  
initiatives if they are clearly efficient or the only way to  
accomplish something critical (i.e. the existing problem does not  
stem from gross waste and corruption in the use of current funds).   
His position is always sufficiently nuanced and thoughtful that it is  
hard to criticize it without being overtly ideological.


There are a number of tax foundations throughout the country.  Places  
like taxfoundation.org are among the best, covering both Federal and  
State issues and having no obvious party bent.

Cheers,

J. Andrew Rogers