[ExI] Gödel's Loophole

[spike at rainier66.com]

...
> Amending Article 5 requires not just control of Congress but control of the legislatures of 75% of the states.
>
> However, adding new states requires only majority control of Congress and the president. A corrupt Congress that lacked control of 75% of the states could pass a bill that creates 150 new "dummy states" under the control of the corrupt Congress and then they can thwart the Article 5 requirement for consent of the States.
>
> So Godel likely also recognized the flaw in Article 5...
>
> Jason



Ja.  The obvious question Jason is that if this is a real vulnerability, why didn't it happen?  A Constitutional Convention under article V must meet the 75% of states criterion, which has never happened and will not.  Three quarters of state legislatures cannot agree on the color of snow.

Here's a fun aside for Californian among us.  Back in the olden days, when the electronics jobs were coming in the SF Bay area, a new and highly profitable industry was driving real estate costs above the point were ordinary people could afford to pay real estate taxes.  In 1978, a popular governor Jerry Brown (also known as Mr. Linda Ronstadt) influenced the legislature to pass Prop 13, which limited property tax to 1% of the sales price of the property, with a modest maximum increase after that (it takes about 35 years for the tax bill on a property to double, regardless of the value of the property, which typically goes up by about a factor of 5 in that time span (or more (in some fortunate cases much more.)))

Recognizing the risk that greedy future legislators would try to undo that provision in order to collect more tax, Prop 13 was encoded into the California constitution, requiring a 2/3 vote of legislators to change the property tax structure.  Even in a single-party dominated legislation, 2/3 of the legislators will not agree on the color of snow there either.  The modest property tax rate, originally designed to help long-time homeowners has become an onerous impediment to the California state government, which has made repeated efforts to repeal or modify it, efforts which show up on nearly every ballot. 

I can pass along my tax structure to the next generation.  This is the aspect of Prop 13 which has come under the most heavy direct fire, for it was originally designed to protect agricultural property, which no longer exists in the area, but applies to residential property as well.  This has resulted in people inheriting homes worth 2 million dollars or more, while they get by on minimum wage.  I know of several local examples.  One of my neighbors is single.  She lives in an inherited home she grew up in, whose value is over 50 years of her gross salary.  

The most intense effort in the kill-Prop13 industry is a repeal of the 2/3 vote requirement.  However, repealing that requirement requires a 2/3 vote as well (by design.)  Repealing the 2/3 requirement to repeal the 2/3 requirement also requires a 2/3 vote (and so on (by careful design (thanks Governor Ronstadt.)))  Result: in spite of persistent efforts by the California legislature, Prop 13 is alive and well.  The kill-P13 industry appears to be in decline.  We will be celebrating (many cursing) the 50th anniversary of that brilliant legislation in less than two years.

Prop 13 has its consequences.  Homeowners can get helplessly trapped in their original homes which they bought when they were young and poor.  My neighbor's house is the same model on the same size lot in similar condition to mine.  He bought it about a year ago, whereas I have been helplessly trapped in mine for 32 years.  His property tax bill is more than triple mine, almost closer to a factor of 4.  I can't move, not if I want to stay in the area (I do (there are many advantages to life in the fast lane (even after one is retired (lotsa cool stuff happens around here.))))  I can't leave this house: my property tax bill would go up too much.

The consequences are many, and most of them are good.  If people are trapped in their own homes by Prop 13, if they prosper (as many locals do) they are more likely to improve the homes they live in, rather than move to a nicer area.  Result: the area they live in becomes a nicer area.  Rich people move in (from India (rich people!  (from India!  (we always heard that India was poor (all the local rich people are Indian (they have really nice houses (and they carry the state with their property taxes.)))))))  Second consequence: affordable housing shortage.  

The existing limited local housing is already occupied by rich people (from India (which has a lot of people (which implies a lot of rich people.)))  This isn't going to change.  Result: locals who grow up here cannot afford homes in their own neighborhoods.  Result: our second most valuable local export (behind electric cars) is well-educated children.  It will likely get worse.  Prop 13 converted the area to a retirement community for geezers who stayed put, then used their resources to doll up existing homes rather than move.  Result: a lot of ordinary homes have really nice stuff in them.  Well OK then.  It's all good.

spike