I enjoyed the article, and in general, I agree with the general philosophy of government behind it - a conservative, small government mindset that is practical enough to see a positive role for the state.
One thing it missed, in my opinion, is the extremely negative consequences of prop 13. Proponents of Prop 13 often argue that it lowered property taxes. As a recent home(owner/debtor), I assure you that it really did not. My taxes are extremely high. And when I move to a more expensive house (all part of that upward mobility), they will adjust upward once again.
Very wealthy individuals and corporations who bought a long time ago and never move pay extremely low property taxes. Young families and new businesses pay extremely high property taxes. To me, this is the most loathsome outcome of prop 13 - a low tax aristocracy of established wealth that keeps its own taxes low but enjoys a bloated state paid for on the backs of young families and new businesses.
I have no idea why principled small government conservatives can't see this problem with prop 13. You'd think that someone who wrote an article like this would be opposed to putting young families and new businesses at a tax disadvantage.
Aside from this (in my opinion) glaring omission that doesn't reflect well on self-declared fiscal conservatives, I think it was a good analysis. It's a shame, because while the article is measured in tone, it clearly does show a (deserved, I think) distain for the big government liberals who created a bloated state. C'mon, dude, hypocritical, fake "small government" conservatives who create a low tax aristocracy are also to blame here.
On the bright side, hey, my parents bought an expensive house in SF and an expensive vacation house in the wine country long ago, so their property taxes are far lower total then what I pay for a small 2br house in an unfashionable district of SF. If I inherit these houses some day, I'll also inherit their low taxes, too. Aren't aristocracies wonderful?
One thing it missed, in my opinion, is the extremely negative consequences of prop 13. Proponents of Prop 13 often argue that it lowered property taxes. As a recent home(owner/debtor), I assure you that it really did not. My taxes are extremely high. And when I move to a more expensive house (all part of that upward mobility), they will adjust upward once again.
Very wealthy individuals and corporations who bought a long time ago and never move pay extremely low property taxes. Young families and new businesses pay extremely high property taxes. To me, this is the most loathsome outcome of prop 13 - a low tax aristocracy of established wealth that keeps its own taxes low but enjoys a bloated state paid for on the backs of young families and new businesses.
I have no idea why principled small government conservatives can't see this problem with prop 13. You'd think that someone who wrote an article like this would be opposed to putting young families and new businesses at a tax disadvantage.
Aside from this (in my opinion) glaring omission that doesn't reflect well on self-declared fiscal conservatives, I think it was a good analysis. It's a shame, because while the article is measured in tone, it clearly does show a (deserved, I think) distain for the big government liberals who created a bloated state. C'mon, dude, hypocritical, fake "small government" conservatives who create a low tax aristocracy are also to blame here.
On the bright side, hey, my parents bought an expensive house in SF and an expensive vacation house in the wine country long ago, so their property taxes are far lower total then what I pay for a small 2br house in an unfashionable district of SF. If I inherit these houses some day, I'll also inherit their low taxes, too. Aren't aristocracies wonderful?