Please Note: Democratic Candidates May Have Lost, But Progressive Issues Won

— by David Morris (reposted from CommonDreams)

Ballot initiatives more accurately take the ideological pulse of the people because debates over issues are not disrupted by the personality politics and subterfuge that dominate candidate races. (Photo: Susy Morris/flickr/cc)

On November 4th Democrats lost big when they ran a candidate but won big when they ran an issue.

In 42 states about 150 initiatives were on the ballot. The vast majority did not address issues dividing the two parties (e.g. raising the mandatory retirement age for judges, salary increases for state legislators, bond issues supporting a range of projects).  But scores of initiatives did involve hot button issues.  And on these American voters proved astonishingly liberal.

Quote01Voters approved every initiative to legalize or significantly reduce the penalties for marijuana possession (Alaska, California, Oregon, Washington, Washington, D.C.)  It is true that a Florida measure to legalize medical marijuana lost but 57 percent voted in favor (60 percent was required).

Voters approved every initiative to raise the minimum wage (Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska, South Dakota). Voters in San Francisco and Oakland approved initiatives to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2018.  The good citizens of Oakland and Massachusetts overwhelmingly approved more generous paid sick leave.

Both Colorado and North Dakota voters rejected measures that would have given the fertilized egg personhood under their criminal codes.

Washington state voters approved background checks for all gun sales and transfers, including private transactions.

By a wide margin Missourians rejected a constitutional amendment to require teachers to be evaluated based on test results and fired or demoted virtually at will.

By a 59-41 margin North Dakotans voted to keep their unique statute outlawing absentee owned pharmacies despite Walmart outspending independent pharmacist supporters at least ten to one.

The vote in Colorado offers a good example of the disparity between how Americans vote on candidates and how we vote on issues.  A few years ago the Colorado legislature stripped cities and counties of the right to build their own telecommunications networks but it allowed them to reclaim that authority if they put it to a vote of their citizens.  On Tuesday 8 cities and counties did just that. Residents in every community voted by a very wide margin to permit government owned networks even while they were voting by an equally wide margin for Republican candidates who vigorously oppose government ownership of anything.

Republicans did gain a number of important victories. Most of these dealt with taxes. For example, Georgia voters by a wide margin supported a constitutional amendment prohibiting the state legislature from raising the maximum state income tax rate. Massachusetts’ voters narrowly voted to overturn a law indexing the state gasoline tax to the consumer price increase.

What did Tuesday tell us?  When given the choice between a Republican and a Democrat candidate the majority of voters chose the Republican.  When given a choice between a Republican and a Democrat position on an issue they chose the Democrat.  I’ll leave it up to others to debate the reasons behind this apparent contradiction.  My own opinion is that ballot initiatives more accurately take the ideological pulse of the people because debates over issues must focus on issues, not personality, temperament or looks.  Those on both sides of the issue can exaggerate, distort and just plain lie but they must do so in reference to the question on the ballot.  No ballot initiative ever lost because one of its main backers attended a strip club 16 years earlier.

I am buoyed by the empirical evidence: Americans even in deeply red regions are liberal on many key issues. And I am saddened that these same voters have voted to enhance the power of a party at odds with the values these voters have expressed.  The challenge, and in an age where billions of dollars in negative sound-bites define a candidate it is a daunting one, is how to make the next election on issues, not personalities.

  This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

David Morris is Vice President and director of the New Rules Project at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, which is based in Minneapolis and Washington, D.C. focusing on local economic and social development.
Advertisements

The Margin Tax a Hot Potato for Democrats

— by Rich Dunn, NVRDC 2nd Vice Chair

Last week Nevada Appeal columnist Bo Statham presented the progressive case against this year’s education initiative, an issue that’s dividing Democrats in a year when party unity has never been more important.

Those divisions were plain to see at January’s state central committee meeting, where a resolution supporting the initiative passed 92-78 overall, but was voted down in the north by a 51-3 margin after members heard from construction union representatives that the proposed law would cost jobs in their industry. In the south, a large turnout of teachers put reform of education funding top of mind, so the resolution passed.

All Democrats I know agree that Nevada needs a higher level of funding for public education, unlike many Republicans, who want to divert existing public funding from district schools to private and charter schools. But this is a question of priorities, and the only way to get this state’s priorities straight is to elect more Democrats.

That’s something about which we should all be able to agree, yet in 2010, when we had a chance to elect a governor who made education his top priority, we didn’t see the level of commitment needed to make it happen. Instead we ended up with a Republican governor who allows his party’s tax aversion to trump adequate education funding. Sadly, it appears that our party is now giving him a pass for reelection, which brings to mind the oft-repeated political adage: Elections have consequences.

Margin tax not the answer for state education

— by Bo Statham

The Education Initiative, better known as the Gross Margin Tax proposal, will be on the 2014 ballot for voter consideration. Supported passionately by those who believe Nevada’s public school system requires higher funding, the tax would raise an estimated $800 million a year dedicated to that purpose. The business community vigorously opposes the proposed tax.

This column will not please either supporters or opponents. Instead, it focuses on the need to restructure Nevada’s tax system to more equitably provide required funding for all public needs.

It seems beyond question that K-12 education is in need of greater financial resources, but a gross margin tax on a segment of the business sector would be neither fair nor a good component of Nevada fiscal policy.

Sponsored by the Education Initiative Political Action Committee, formed primarily by teachers and school groups, the margin tax would be a new levy of 2 percent on businesses with annual incomes of at least $1 million. Gaming revenue is exempt. A company could deduct from total income certain expenses or alternatively chose to deduct 30 percent of total income, whichever results in a lower tax.

It is important to understand this would not be an income tax, which is based on a company’s profit. The proposed margin tax would be assessed even if a company made no profit.

The Nevada Policy Research Institute described the margin tax as “one of the most hare-brained schemes ever to come before state lawmakers.” The independent Tax Foundation calls gross-receipts taxes “distortive and destructive.”

Underlying opposition to the tax is the fear it will make Nevada less competitive. But let’s look at the facts.

The Tax Foundation ranks Nevada, one of nine states without corporate and personal income tax, third overall in its 2014 Business Tax Climate index but 36th in Best States for Business and Careers. Forbes concludes, “While Nevada scores well in business costs, it does not score well in factors such as labor supply, economic climate, and quality of life.” CNBC’s 2013 business ratings found Nevada ranked “well in business friendliness and cost of living, but did not rank well in areas such as the economy and education.”

A fair interpretation of these ratings is that Nevada’s fiscal policy results in a very attractive tax burden for businesses and residents but a poor environment for economic development. The state fails to foster skilled labor, education, economic climate and quality of life that are valued by business.

According to a 2011 U.S. Census Bureau report, Nevada’s state revenue per capita of $3,848 was the second-lowest of all states, and state spending per capita of $4,848 was the fourth-lowest. This “low taxes-low public funding” tradition reflects an anti-government mentality that does not serve Nevada well.

Increased financial support is one vital component of improving public education in Nevada, but a gross margin tax is not the way to fund it. The proposed tax would only add to an already-failed fiscal policy that is misguided, inequitable and regressive.

Bo Statham is a retired lawyer, congressional aide and businessman. He lives in Gardnerville and can be reached at bostatham@me.com.