The promise.
The reality.
Is it too much to hope that this will encourage those employees to seek productive employment in the private sector? We have air conditioning.
7 March, 2008
Prop 98 Lives
Continuing the tiny signs of hope in California is this decision.
Sacramento, CA – Today, proponents of Proposition 98 announced a major court victory for California property owners. The Honorable Timothy Frawley of the Superior Court of California rejected a lawsuit by a coalition of politicians and developers against the State of California contending that Proposition 98’s ballot title and summary is misleading. The court ruled with the State that the “chief” purpose of Prop. 98 is to reform eminent domain abuse and other related procedural and compensation reforms that protect property owners.
“The court rejected the attempt by opponents of Proposition 98 to characterize the initiative as merely a ‘rent control’ measure. Finding their claims to be ‘without merit,’ the court went on to hold that the ‘chief’ purpose of this measure is to constrain government’s authority to take property by eminent domain. It naturally follows that much of the statement of the measure’s purpose should relate to eminent domain,” said Prop. 98 legal counsel Thomas W. Hiltachk.
“The judge also rejected the attempt by opponents to include a false claim that Proposition 98 would have ‘far reaching’ impacts on land use regulations, finding their arguments to be unpersuasive,” said Hiltachk. “Interestingly, opponents of Proposition 98 did not attempt to assert the prior false claims they have made publicly regarding water storage and conveyance projects.”
So there’s be something to vote for in June.
June? You mean we have to vote three times this year?
Don’t Call It Insurance
Charlie Martin is exactly right, and lays it out in clear language. Health Insurance ain’t health insurance.
It’s exactly the same situation as if we charge a 25-year-old the same amount for a year’s term life insurance as we charge his 75-year-old grandfather: it may make the insurance more affordable for Granddad, but it does so by overcharging young Elmo. Add in the “mandate,” so Elmo can’t opt out, and we have a universal care plan that forces Elmo to pay for services he doesn’t get so that Granddad can pay less for the services he gets. But it’s “voluntary” — you get to pick your insurance plan to some extent — and it’s not “tax-supported” because you are just paying the insurance company directly.
And Megan McArdle points out why it’s wrong to force people to pay for something to “protect them from themselves“.
We force everyone to pay into fire departments because fires have very bad negative externalities: if your house catches on fire, unless you live on a rural farm, there’s a good chance that your neighbor’s house will burn down too. Fire prevention is a genuine public good; most health care, with the exception of things meant to stop the spread of infectious disease, simply isn’t.
(A commenter at her site points out that even forcing payments to fire departments isn’t historically necessary.)
Home Schooling NOT Imperilled in California
An important correction via the Ace of Spades:
The short version: The LA Times got it wrong in the first sentence of their article. Parents without teaching credentials can still educate their children at home under the various exemptions to mandatory public school enrollment provided in § 48220 et seq. of the Cal. Ed. Code. The parents in this case lost because they claimed that the students were enrolled in a charter school and that with minimal supervision from the school, the children were free to skip classes so the mother could teach them at home. There is no basis in law for that argument. If only the parents had attempted to homeschool their kids in one of the statutorily prescribed methods, they would have prevailed.
So the California Despair-O-Meter drops back down to a mere 7. And we all get a slap on the wrist for trusting the LA Times.
