San Diego Union Tribune, November 8, 2006

Fiscal conservatives dismayed by the defeat of Tom McClintock for lieutenant governor can take heart in the fact that state voters once again showed their disdain for higher taxes. K. Lloyd Billingsley of the Pacific Research Institute takes a closer look at the proposition results:

The common thread [in the rejection of Props. 86, 87, 88 and 89] should be obvious: taxes. Income, property and sales taxes are already high, but the acolytes of taxolatry want them to be higher. For their part, voters don't want higher taxes and more government. ...

Californians work hard for their money. To allow them to keep more of what they earn is not a gift from government that someone needs to pay for. Neither does the desire of a worker to keep more of what she earns constitute "greed." Greed takes place when some people want to grab more of what other people earn, without supplying much of anything in return. And when a government agency gets a 10-percent budget increase instead of 15 percent, that is not a "budget cut," as it is known in Washington and Sacramento.

California voters can see through that kind of doublespeak and have good reason to celebrate. Yesterday they became policy makers, and they took full advantage. By rejecting Propositions 86, 87, 88, and 89, they turned aside bad policies, checked government expansion, and blocked the hand of government from digging yet deeper into their pockets.

On the other hand, state voters once again showed they don't understand that bond money isn't free money by adding $43 billion in new debt via Props 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E and 84. But at least the worst of the bonds (1C, 1D and 84) got much less support than the best.

Posted by Chris Reed at November 8, 2006 04:33 PM