Proposition 37. Fees. Voter Requirements. Taxes.

You know, the Proposition titles are not very informative. This one is about fees that act like taxes. A tax is a way of getting funds for the general treasury. A fee is much like a tax but it's only supposed to be used for a particular service or program benefitting individuals or businesses. Typical fees are state park entrance fees and garbage fees, which go to pay those particular programs. There are also regulator fees placed on businesses which pay for the government that oversees those businesses, such as various licenses to operate a business.

Fees are easier to pass in the state Congress, only requiring a majority vote, whereas taxes require a 2/3ths vote (in general, local measure differ a bit). This Proposition addresses fees wherein the funds are used to benefit the general public rather than the fee payer, such as a fee placed on tobacco companies where the money is used to help lung cancer patients. Arguably the fee doesn't help the tobacco company or its industry directly or indirectly. It doesn't pay for regulatory bodies and it has no other requirements behind it. There is also something about a fee usually having other rules attached to it, so not only does a business pay an environmental cleanup fee, they have to abide by rules such that they have to cut back on pollution.

What this Proposition does is make imposed fees that don't have requirments attached to them to be declared as taxes instead, and to have to be passed by 2/3rds Congressional vote like normal taxes. This only applies to new fees passed and only for the fees where the money goes to help "societal or economic" concerns rather than helping the fee payer. These fees are really taxes and should be treated as such. The Legislative Analyst notes that Congress can get around this by imposing requirements along with the fees, although that would make it more complicated.

The Pro argument uses way to many allcap sentences and exclamation points. But in essence their argument is that politicians use fees as a way to impose taxes without the hurdles of imposing real taxes. We all know how politicians like to tax us so they can get money for their pet projects. We pay enough taxes in California and if this Prop doesn't pass we could be paying taxes for the following list: (ommitted because it's a fanciful and inane list). The rebuttal is that oil, tobacco, and alcohol companies are behind this Prop and they want taxpayers to pay for their damages; also the Pro examples of new taxes are stupid and not even up for consideration in Congress.

The Con argument is that oil, tobacco, and alcohol corporations have backed this Proposition, which is aimed at preventing fees laid on them that are used to benefit their victims and clean up the environment from the damage they cause. Those big companies know they can get 1/3rd of the legislature to vote no on any tax they want. Someone has to pay for the pollution and the pain and suffering caused by oil, tobacco and alcohol and it might as well be the companies responsible rather than taxpayers. They then end with a lits of fees that would be banned if Prop 37 passes. The rebuttal is that the Cons want to make this a pollution issue, it's a tax issue. Taxpayers should have a say in these hidden taxes, since the cost of fees are passed on to consumers in any case. Voters voted twice to make sure the Legislature can't tax us unfairly, this Proposition closes a loop hole.

Once again I don't have much of an opinion one way or the other. Although I can agree with the high-ground that the Pros have taken, the Cons have a good point in that the price of this high-ground is rather high for taxpayers. In general I think that the Legislature would continue to find ways around this even if Prop 37 is passed, especially since the Legislative Analyst pointed out a simple way to do it. With that in mind I would not vote for Prop 37.