Let's See...Do I Vote to Pay More Taxes?

Do I want to give more of my money to the state of California? Do I want to play in traffic?

If I'm not right upstairs, the answer to both questions would be yes.

Yet that is what the voters of California will decide come November. Four--count 'em, four propositions--are on the November ballot. Each one of them proposes to take more money out of my pocket and into the hands of the California legislators.

You've probably heard the saying about giving money to legislators. It's like giving whiskey and car keys to teenagers: it's a disaster waiting to happen (no disrespect to teenagers intended).

What are the noble causes the California legislators want to fund by raising taxes? Let's take a look:

• Proposition 86--this one wants to slap an additional $2.60-per-pack tax on cigarettes to fund such noble causes as hospitals, smoking prevention plans, and cigarette regulation. Now I don't smoke; never have, never will. But have you ever tried to trail where all the tax money collected on cigarettes over all these years have gone? It was supposed to have gone to hospitals, smoking prevention plans, and cigarette regulation. Last time I checked, emergency rooms were closing in San Diego county. Last time I checked, there are still plenty of people smoking. Last time I checked, cigarettes are still being sold (but not to minors). Yeah, that's fixing the problems caused by cigarette smoking. Something tells me that tax money hasn't really gone for smoking-related health issues. Why would I want to give the government more money from cigarettes?
• Proposition 87--This one's a beauty! An additional tax on producers of oil extracted in California to fund a $4 billion program to reduce petroleum consumption by 25 percent and to help produce "alternative fuels." Even though gas prices are "down" (I still think they're too high), don't you remember watching those numbers spin on the gas pump this summer when you filled up? Why are prices down? Simple economics: there's more gas available for sale now than there was this summer. More supply means lower prices. Do you think oil companies are going to keep producing gasoline and pay a higher tax to do so? Neither do I. That would mean less gasoline available for sale. When the supply is lower, guess what? Prices go higher. I for one do not want to pay more money for gas.
• Proposition 88--Every time our education system is mentioned, our heartstrings are pulled upon. We all want better schools. Yet California ranks at the top in money spent per student, but at the bottom in test scores. But that doesn't stop our legislature. They still think the answer is more money. So they want to slap an additional $50 on your property taxes. Doesn't sound like much, does it? But if this passes, where will the tax increases stop? What will all the money be used for? I can tell you what it won't be used for: improving the California public education system.
• Propositon 89--This one will slap a 2 percent income tax increase on corporations and financial institutions to fund political campaigns. Sounds good: tax those rich corporations. But those corporations also include the small business owners, the Mom and Pop businesses; they will have to pay an additional 2 percent tax on the money they make. How many businesses will leave the state if this tax passes? If you think the business climate in California is bad now, watch how bad it gets if this proposition passes.

The Bible tells me that I'm supposed to be a good steward of what God gives me. Taking money and giving it to people who waste more money in one year than I will ever make in my lifetime doesn't qualify as good stewardship. I'm voting "no."

Peace.

Election California '06: Bonds are Bad

Twenty years ago, the average American spent 110 percent of his/her income. The primary culprit? Credit cards, plain and simple. Why wait until you can afford to buy something when you can have it now and pay it later, taking as much time to pay for it as you want?

Today, the average American now spends 120 percent of his/her income.

What's my point? That's pretty much how bonds work. The government sells bonds to investors who will buy them with a promise that the government will pay them back along with additional interest. Need money? Sell more bonds. That means cash on hand, and you can pay it back in smaller amounts over a period of time.

California government is worse than the average American. Much worse.

Between 2000 and 2004, California voters have approved bond initiatives totaling over $57 billion. That means the California government borrowed $57 billion over four years, and is paying that back to the bond buyers with interest. So when you have that state income tax withheld from your paycheck, a bigger part of that money is going to pay the interest for those bonds. Ouch.

Next month, California voters are going to be looking at a series of bond initiatives that promise to make our highways safer, our roads less crowded, our air cleaner, our ports more secure, homes cheaper to buy, our classrooms less crowded, our water systems rebuilt, and our waters cleaner. And we can have it now. All we need to do is sell an additional $42 billion in bonds, and all of that will be ours. Sounds nice, doesn't it?

I see two problems with this sale, and both of them are huge.

Problem one: there's no guarantee that the government will ever, ever do what they say they will do with the money they want. For example, do you know one reason why gasoline in California is so expensive? Gas tax. California pays the third highest tax per gallon of gasoline in the country. Where is that money supposed to go? Improving the state's highways. Yet despite the third highest gas tax in the nation, California ranks 43rd in per capita spending on highways.

Still trust the California government to use the money the way they say they will?

Problem two: the debt load on the California taxpayer will almost double because of the additional bond load. That means our children and grandchildren will be saddled with the load of paying off this bond debt.

See why bonds are bad?

That's why I will be voting "no" on any initiative that has the word "bond" in it.

Peace.

Political Pastors?

With the November elections registering on the respective radar of an increasing number of people, I observe many pastors avoid political issues, or what they think are political issues. Fears of losing tax-exempt status, of alienating church guests, of appearing to be "off message," of being the next target of 60 Minutes, and the list goes on. Some are good reasons; some are simple fears that need to be dismisses; still others are based on misinformation. Whatever the case, a great many pastors are completely disengaged from anything that appears to be political.

As a result, many pastors have no clue what the voters in their respective states will be deciding come November. What's really sad, though, is that many of those pastors don't care. They have too many other obligations and "important issues" that command their attention. As a pastor, I can understand that.

But at the same time those pastors are shrugging their shoulders and saying, "I don't care; the process is corrupt, and it doesn't really affect me," the people in their churches are adopting the same attitude. As a result, the "I-don't-care-because-the-whole-process-is-corrupt" attitude becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The process stays corrupt because people who could change it won't get involved.

I think part of the problem lies with a definition of terms. There is a huge difference between an issue and politics.

The sanctity of human life is an issue. That involves when life begins, what defines life, and who should end life. As a result, abortion, embryonic stem-cell research (yes, there is a huge distinction), and euthanasia are all issues coming out of the main issue of whether or not human life is sacred and precious.

The family unit is an issue. That involves who makes up a family, what defines a marriage, and who should be the main caregiver for children. As a result, same-sex "marriages," same-sex civil unions, parental notification laws, government programs for child care are all issues coming out of the main issue of the makeup of the family unit.

Stewardship of resources is an issue. That involves making the best use of the resources made available to us. As a result, taxes, bonds, spending, cutting expenses are all issues coming out of the main issue of stewardship.

Does that sound like politics to you?

It doesn't to me.

As a pastor, all of that lines up with what I am trying to do: to help people to discover God's will and to do it. What does God have to say about these things?

In the next few blogs, I'll give you my take on issues we are facing in the state of California this November.

Peace.