Privilege for All! Or Maybe "Privilege" is the Wrong Word...

You have likely seen arguments like this: "Hey, Congress gets 100 days off a year and a pension!  That's not fair - I only get two weeks off and no pension, so Congress should only get two weeks off and no pension, too!"  I understand the envy, but I don't like the argument, which essentially boils down to:  "Since I have been fucked over, others should be similarly fucked over, too."  I prefer the reverse approach of unfucking everyone: "Hey, if Congress gets 100 days off and a pension I should get that, too!" That would be better for everyone.

There is a somewhat similar dynamic around the term "white privilege," which I think makes it harder for white people to accept the legitimacy of the idea.

I saw a description of white privilege as encompassing things like being able to go jogging without being shot or walk into a store without having security follow you around; not getting arrested for trying to open the front door of your own house or driving a nice car; being able to have a barbecue or dance in the street without someone calling the police. But these are things that everyone should have. In other words, if these are "privileges," everyone should have them.

But the word "privilege" tends to connote something that you did not do anything to earn - it just comes to you. When you hear that someone comes from a "privileged" background you understand that their family was wealthy. You do not have to work to become privileged, and in fact the word indicates that you did not work for your privilege.  With white privilege this is true - you get it just by being born white. That's it: if you are white, you have white privilege.

The status of being white is different than having a privileged background - there are plenty of white people who are poor, or who live in dangerous places or are subject to violence. So even though they have white privilege, they understandably do not think of themselves as "privileged," and hearing themselves described as having privilege feels jarring and unfair.

Adding to that, the American ideal of the self-made individual relies upon the story: "I am responsible for my success; I worked hard to get here."  In other words, success is earned. You can see the darker side of this ideal with the denigration of welfare recipients: "Hey, I worked hard for my money, but they get money for just sitting around, doing nothing. They don't deserve that." But white privilege is not earned - it is just conferred.

So if you put together the idea that privileges, such as material wealth or living in a nice neighborhood should be earned, with the fact that white privilege is not earned, the resulting implication is that white people do not deserve their privileges.  This can trigger a visceral response in some white people, as an accusation of having white privilege sounds like someone wants to take away their white privilege. (Just like some people want to take away vacations and pensions from Congress.)

But that is not the desired goal. Rather than fucking over white people to the same extent as black people, the better solution is to make everyday life for black people just as easy and safe as it is for white people. It is preferable for everyone if we unfuck black people rather than fuck over white people. In other words, everyone should have the same privilege as white people - privilege for all. 

But privilege for all is an odd construct, given the meaning of the word privilege, which is exclusive. Not everyone has privilege. Which is why I think "privilege" may not be the best word to use to describe what white people have. Because it is not that white people have something that they don't deserve, and that should be taken from them, but rather they have something that everyone deserves.

Maybe instead of white privilege we should call it "white normal," or better yet, just "normal." It shouldn't be something special, and it isn't something that you don't deserve or that should be taken from you - it is just normal. But it should be normal not just for whites, but for everyone. When everyone gets there it is just normal. For everyone. I think that would be nice.

Propositions! November 2018

Proposition 1 – Yes, with minor reservations. This one would authorize issuance of $4 billion in general obligation bonds to pay for low-income and veteran’s housing programs.  General obligation bonds are paid back through taxes, and I have concerns about California’s overall debt levels, so that gives me some concern about adding to California’s debt. 

That said, housing affordability is a serious problem in California, and I think it is a societal problem (see my discussion of Proposition 10 below), so I think it is appropriate for California as a state to do something about it.  In addition, this proposition looks to be relatively well crafted to accomplish its goals, so on balance I think it is worth a yes vote.

Proposition 2 – Yes, I think. This one is weird and pretty technical.  As best I can figure out, this proposition would allow the state to use county mental health funds to pay off bonds used to pay for housing for mentally ill people who are homeless or at risk of being homeless. (And there is a pending court case and a previously-passed law involved.)

I think the bottom line is whether you want the money at issue to be used by counties for mental health treatment and services, or if it should be used by the state to pay for housing for the mentally ill. I don’t have a strong opinion on this one, but am somewhat leaning toward yes.  

Proposition 3 – No. This is another bond proposition, which would authorize $8.9 billion in general obligation bonds to pay for water and water-related projects.  So again, this triggers concern about debt (this one would cost about $430 million per year for about 40 years to pay off). 

While some of the water projects that this would fund seem worthwhile, others are pretty questionable. The worst one to me is funding of repairs to the Madera and Friant-Kern Canals.  These are federally-owned canals, primarily serving large agriculture, and a lot of why they need repair is earth subsidence due to over-pumping groundwater by the same agribusinesses that use the canals. Since these are federal canals, it seems like the federal government (and taxpayers) should pay for their upkeep, not just state taxpayers. And maybe their users (and the people who helped create the need for repairs) should pay for their upkeep.  So while this proposition is not all bad, I think what they did was load a bunch of pretty good stuff on top of their self-interested pork so overall it doesn’t look too bad (and makes their pork look small).  But I think the price tag is too high, so I recommend voting no.

Proposition 4 – No. Proposition 4 would authorize issuance of $1.5 billion in general obligation bonds to pay for “construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing, equipping, financing, or refinancing” of certain hospitals that treat children.  Again, issuing more general obligation bonds adds to California’s debt, and would need to be paid for through taxes.

Under this proposition, 72% of the money raised would go to private non-profit hospitals, 18% would go to five UC hospitals, and 10% would go to a variety of private and public hospitals. I have a serious problem with public bonds and tax funds being used to support private hospitals. This is a straight subsidy, designed to play on our sympathies for sick children (and it throws some money at public hospitals to make it a bit more palatable).  And the money – that you would be paying back via taxes - could be used for things like remodeling the lobby or refinancing a previous loan. If we want to spend tax money on hospitals, they should be public hospitals, not private ones. Vote no.

Proposition 5 – No, but not a strong no. This is another tweak to the weirdness that is Proposition 13, which commonly results in properties’ taxable value being significantly less than their market value. (For example, your house might be worth $900,000, but it could be taxed on a value of $60,000.) Under existing law, if you sell your house and buy a new house also worth $900,000, your property taxes will now be based on a value of $900,000.  This creates a serious disincentive to move, even if moving makes sense. 

Existing law has an exception to this – if you are over 55 or disabled and move to a house in the same county (or certain other counties, but not all counties) that has a market value that is less than your current home’s value, you can take your reduced Prop. 13 tax value with you, but you can only do this once.  The idea behind this is that older people may want to downsize, but would avoid doing so because of the tax hit.

Proposition 5 loosens the requirements for taking your tax value with you.  First, the good things: 1) It allows you to move anywhere in the state, rather than only certain counties. The fact that you could only take your tax value to some counties but not others always struck me as arbitrary and unfair, so I think this makes sense (and makes things simpler). 2) You can use it more than once. You may want or need to move again, to be closer to children or medical care, or to a more accessible home. There is no reason to create a disincentive to that – it does not reduce tax revenue.

But there are some not-so-good things: 1) If you move to a less expensive home, your tax value actually goes down. So if you move from the $900,000 house to a $450,000 house, the taxable value would go from $60,000 down to $30,000. (It is reduced by a proportionate percentage.) C’mon already – getting to pay taxes on $60,000 for a house worth $450,000 is already a major subsidy. We already have problems resulting from getting too little revenue from property taxes, and this would make those worse for no good reason. 2) You can move to more expensive home and still get most of the tax break. Example: You sell the $900,000 home and buy a $1 million home. Your tax value would go from $60,000 to $160,000. (The increase in market value is added to the tax value.)  This is not such a subsidy or a big deal, but it seems inconsistent with the idea of downsizing.  In addition, when combined with the ability to use the exemption more than once, it would appear to most benefit relatively wealthy homeowners.

Overall, I would be inclined to vote no, mostly because it would reduce tax revenue while exacerbating the weird subsidies caused by Proposition 13.

Proposition 6 – NO, NO, NO! This proposition would repeal recently enacted fuel and vehicle taxes that are paying for road and highway repair and mass transit, and would require any future fuel and vehicle taxes be approved by the voters, not just the legislature.

In case you had not noticed, California could benefit from road and highway repair and better mass transit.  Infrastructure is worth spending money on, and it is appropriate to be paid for via taxes.  Since it is for road and highway and transit purposes, it is also reasonable for it to be paid for by vehicle users.  This proposition is just another greedy, selfish, short-sighted move by the anti-tax people. Vote NO.

Proposition 7 – Yes. This one makes it possible for California to go to year-round daylight savings time or standard time (but does not actually make it happen – that would require a 2/3 vote of the legislature and maybe some other stuff). I think changing the time back and forth is annoying, and doesn’t really make sense.  Most discussions (both pro and con) seem to think it would be a step toward year-round daylight savings time rather than year-round standard time, but I’m not clear exactly why, and I don’t have enough interest to dig that deeply.  But I like daylight savings time, as it stays light later. So even though this doesn’t do much, I think yes. 

Proposition 8 – No position. This proposition would regulate the costs charged for dialysis. I know firsthand that for this type of regulation, the devil is in the details, and I haven’t dug that deeply into it. Sorry.

Proposition 9 – Removed from ballot.

Proposition 10 – No (but it is complicated, and if you believe all landlords are evil you should vote yes). This proposition would repeal a state law (known as Costa-Hawkins) that placed limits on local rent control ordinances.  If you live in a city without rent control (and unlikely to enact rent control), this proposition will have no effect on you, whether you are a tenant or a landlord. (Full disclosure: we live in Berkeley, and are landlords, so we would be directly impacted by this proposition.)

First, as a general matter, housing affordability is a major problem in many parts of California.  As I mentioned in my discussion of Proposition 1, it is a societal problem.  Rent control is a band-aid on that problem that does not really address it, and essentially tries to privatize a non-solution by regulating the behavior of landlords, rather than taking on the actual causes of unaffordable housing.  That said, moderate rent control can mitigate the worst abuses of greedy and unethical landlords, and protects some (but typically not all) tenants from excessive rent increases. (If coupled with eviction protections, as most rent control regimes are, it can also protect tenants against unfair or arbitrary evictions.)  In some situations, however, more aggressive rent control can actually make the overall housing problem worse.

The existing Costa-Hawkins law allows for local rent control that caps the rent increases for an existing tenant, but it also requires “vacancy decontrol,” which means when a tenant moves out, the landlord can raise the rent to a market level.  For example, under current law, if a tenant is paying $700 a month, and the market rate for that unit is $1200 a month, when that tenant moves out, the landlord could set the rent for the next tenant at $1200. In Berkeley, if Proposition 10 passes, the landlord would most likely be required to rent to a new tenant at $700 a month. This will make it increasingly uneconomic to be a landlord, particularly for smaller landlords with only a few units. (The economics are different for large developers of new units.) Berkeley’s rent control regime has already caused problems with rental housing supply, with many small landlords either taking their units off the market or renting them short-term via Air BnB, and Proposition 10 will exacerbate this problem.

If you think all landlords are evil and greedy, vote yes. If you are a strong believer in property rights, vote no. Looking at it from self-interest perspective: If you think you may be a tenant in a city with rent control or that might enact rent control, vote yes (if you think you might get a unit with low rent) or no (if you think it will make it harder to find housing). If you are a landlord (or may become a landlord) in a city with rent control or that might enact rent control, vote no. If you are a tenant or a landlord in a city without rent control, you don’t have a dog in this fight. 

If I didn’t live in Berkeley (or hadn’t read their rent control ordinance), I might feel differently, but if you don’t otherwise have a strong opinion, I would suggest voting no.

Proposition 11 – Yes. This proposition would make it clear that privately-employed paramedics and EMTs (typically under contract to local government) would remain available and on-call when taking meal breaks. Under a recent court decision (re security guards), it is possible that paramedics and EMTs would have to take uninterruptable meal breaks. So if an emergency happened and the paramedics were right around the corner eating a burrito, they would not respond. This proposition would maintain the existing system, where they would put down the burrito and respond. Seems like a good idea to me. Vote yes.

Proposition 12 – Yes. This proposition would set forth some minimum square footage requirements for confinement of farm animals, such as veal calves, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens. The square footage required is pretty modest, and some provisions don’t kick in for several years, but it looks like an improvement, and should not be too hard or expensive to implement, so on balance I would vote yes.

Propositions! 65 and 67

The Battle of the Bags! (In reverse order.)

Prop 67 - Yes. If it passes, Prop 67 would enact a statewide ban on single-use plastic bags (like some of us are already used to due to local ordinances), with a minimum 10-cent charge for paper or reusable bags. The money charged for the bags would go to the store. (I actually reused "single-use" bags, so I never quite understood why thicker bags or paper bags are that much better, but that is just me.) Please note that Berkeley and Patagonia and Gov. Brown and Trout Unlimited support Prop 67, while Dow Chemical and the plastic bag manufacturers oppose it. Enough said, vote yes.

Prop 65 - NO. This measure was put on the ballot by the plastic bag manufacturers to counter Prop 67.  It does not require or implement a ban on plastic bags or a fee for bags, but if there is a fee charged, this proposition would require the money to go to a new state environmental fund, rather than to the store.  While that sounds okay, I think this is just a move to get retailers to oppose bag fees. (Especially since this is sponsored by the plastic bag manufacturers.)  This is yet another bullshit proposition that should not be on the ballot, and whose only purpose is to confuse and mislead voters.  Fuck that, vote NO on 65.

Propositions! 61, 63, 64

Another batch of propositions - now we get to drugs, guns, and pot!

Prop 61 - Yes?  Maybe - it is kind of weird. The state of California buys drugs, generally for MediCal and CalPERS.  This proposition would prohibit state agencies from purchasing prescription drugs at prices higher than the price paid by the VA, which tends to be able to negotiate low prices.  That sounds good, except for a few things: 1) This proposition doesn't order to drug companies to sell at the lower price, but only orders the state agencies to buy at the lower price.  What if the drug company refuses to sell at the lower price? Then the state agency has the quandary of either not buying the drug or violating the law (or the other likely option of being paralyzed).  Not good options. 2)  The state agencies have generally been able to negotiate decent prices, so it is not clear how much this will save. 3) This gives the drug companies an incentive to raise prices to the VA, which would not be a good thing. 4) Why is the price paid by the VA the only criteria?  Seems like that could cause some problems or anomalies. On the other hand, the drug companies are spending massive amounts of money to defeat this, which must mean they think it would cost them even more.  That by itself tends to indicate that this might save the state some money.  So while I have some reservations, on balance I think maybe a yes vote would be okay.

Prop 63 - No. (Surprise!)  This proposition would require permits to buy or sell ammunition and ban large-capacity ammunition magazines, along with some other tweaks to California's gun control laws.  Most of the provisions are well intended, although it is not clear how effective they will be.  The problem with this proposition is that it largely duplicates legislation that was just passed into law this year - despite that, Gavin Newsom kept pushing ahead with this initiative.  I think this do-little proposition is just Newsom grandstanding in preparation for his run for governor - not a great reason for a proposition to be on the ballot.  And because this would be enacted by popular vote, if problems show up or adjustments need to be made (which is common - laws rarely work exactly as intended), any attempt to fix it would require another popular vote - the legislature couldn't do it.  As I read more propositions, I am getting tired of shit being on the ballot that does not need to be there (like Prop 59 asking you how you feel about Citizens United, and Prop 60 requiring condoms for porn actors).  Maybe I am just getting cranky about seeing even more of that in this election, and I don't want the NRA to think I agree with their extreme position, but I am still inclined to vote no on this one.  But if you want to vote yes just to say "fuck you" to the NRA, I won't mind.  Your call.

Update on 63 - I talked to a friend who knows more about the legislative maneuvering on this one, and that person's take was that the legislature was playing more games than Newsom, and that Newsom had legitimate reasons to continue to push this initiative (i.e. he was not just grandstanding).  Still considering what this means for my vote; you decide what you want yours to be.

Prop 64 - Yes! Please!  This proposition would legalize marijuana for recreational use under California law. (It would still be illegal under federal law.)  Prohibition of marijuana has been a dismal failure that has done little but drive up the profits of drug traffickers and the growth of violent cartels, and result in environmental degradation from illegal grows.  Alcohol prohibition gave rise to organized crime, and marijuana prohibition has done more of the same. (Duh.)  This proposition would legalize, tax and regulate recreational marijuana.  The arguments against Prop 64 from the right are the same old prohibitionist scare tactics that gave us the expensive-in-every-way "war on drugs;"  there are some arguments against it from the left, but they are also pretty weak.  It is important to push the feds to legalize marijuana, and California voting to do so would be a good push.  Please vote yes.

Propositions! 58, 59, 60

I am getting tired, so this fourth installment may be a bit shorter in the descriptions.

Prop 58 - Yes. This would allow for bilingual education in schools, repealing the "English only" Proposition 227 from 1998.  Having the state mandate "English only" for all schools never seemed like a good idea to me - it always felt like it was intended to be more punitive than educational.  Vote Yes.

Prop 59 - Yeah, I guess so, but whatever.  This one doesn't really do anything. Do you want to tell California that it should work to reverse the Citizens United decision?  You can vote yes to do so.  But it seems kind of wasteful to put things like this on the ballot.  And some potential fixes (via constitutional amendment) could cause serious problems, if done wrong. So overall I guess voting yes (assuming you don't like Citizens United) is okay.  Or you could just skip voting on this one.

Prop 60 - No.  This one would require adult film actors to wear condoms during vaginal or anal sex.  Is it just me, or this just a weird thing to have on the ballot?  I found some of the opponents' arguments pretty compelling; I tried to verify some of them by looking at the text of the proposition itself, but it is really detailed and long, and I didn't have the patience to wade through it, but it seems to set up a complicated (and expensive) regulatory and enforcement scheme.  I don't think this is worth doing that for, and I think it has the potential to cause unforeseen problems. And my guess is that it would drive a lot of commercial porn producers out of California, among other things.  Vote no.

Propositions! 55, 56, 57

Here is the third installment in this series re the state propositions.

Prop 55 - Yes.  This would extend for 12 years the existing additional income tax on high earners (over $250,000 for individuals, over $500,000 for couples) that was put in place by Prop 30 in 2012. Most of the money would go to education.  The proposition does not extend the additional sales tax added by Prop 30 - that will expire.  If the bill does not pass, the income tax on high earners would also expire, and go back down to what it was before Prop 30.  This proposition is not an ideal fix, mostly because our tax system in California is fairly messed up.  California gets a large part of its budget from income taxes on high earners; while this may feel fair, it also makes budgeting extremely hard, because high earners tend to have large variations in income from year to year.  Property taxes are generally more stable and predictable, but Proposition 13 has made them a smaller piece of the pie.  That said, until there is a comprehensive overhaul of our tax system, Prop 55 is not an unreasonable stopgap measure.  Vote yes on 55.

Prop 56 - Yes, but without much enthusiasm.  This would increase the tax on cigarettes from 87 cents per pack to $2.87 per pack, and would tax e-cigarettes like tobacco cigarettes (they are not taxed like tobacco cigarettes now).  The money would continue to fund various health and smoking-related programs.  I like that it ups the tax on e-cigarettes; I have some concern about the size of the tax increase, though.  A lot of poor people smoke cigarettes, and this just makes cigarettes a larger expense for them.  If the increase is big enough, it would encourage a black market in cigarettes, which would undercut the purpose of the tax increase. (I don't know how much of a black market there already may be in California.)  I would vote for it for the tax on e-cigarettes, but otherwise I think it may be a bit of an overreach. So I guess it overall it is a yes on 56.

Prop 57 - Yes, definitely.  Proposition 57 would allow more prisoners convicted of non-violent felonies to be eligible for parole, and would provide credits for good behavior and educational activities.  They would still be subject to a public safety screening and a parole hearing - they would not just be released. This is a good thing for a couple reasons.  One, the prisons are overcrowded (and are expensive), and this would help relieve that.  Two, strict sentencing laws (like "three strikes") removed incentives for prisoners to behave well or to get more education, resulting in discipline problems in prisons and high recidivism rates.  This would hopefully change that pattern.  In addition, the bill would change who determines if a juvenile should be tried as an adult - it takes that determination from the prosecutor and gives it to the judge.  It is not clear how much of a difference that will make in practice, but in theory it is fine.  So reducing costs, reducing the number of people locked up in state prison, providing incentives for good behavior, and hopefully reducing recidivism, all at minimal risk to the public seems like a good trade-off to me. So vote yes on 57.

Propositions! 62 and 66

Continuing with two that are important:

Prop 62 - Yes! Yes! Yes! This proposition would repeal the death penalty, and replace it with life in prison without possibility of parole.  It is impossible to get the balance right on the death penalty - you either try to be careful not to execute anyone innocent (because you can't go back and fix it if you do), but then it takes a long time (dragging out resolution for everyone) and is very expensive (like we don't have better things to spend our money on than lawyer hours).  Or you try to do it quick and cheap, but then you increase the risk of killing someone who did not deserve to die (often someone poor and not white). And if you believe in limiting the power of government, stopping them from killing people would be a good start.  Save money, save lives, and speed up justice. Vote YES on 62.

Prop 66 - No! No! No!  This is a countermeasure to 62 by those who want to keep the death penalty.  It would go for the faster, cheaper, kill-more-people-sooner approach.  Revenge is not justice, and having the state kill someone (no matter how heinous the crime) does not fix anything - it just makes the state a killer as well. And by speeding up the process, this proposition makes it more likely that innocent people will be killed at the hands of the state.  Do not support that. Vote NO on 66.