On May 19, California will be having a special election with only budget-related ballot propositions, in response to the ongoing budget trouble in that state. The Peace and Freedom Party has come out against all six propositions.
From the California Chronicle:
The first proposition, 1-A, had already been opposed by the State Central Committee at the end of February.
“We decided that 1-B, which is dependent on approval of 1-A, was just a sugar-coating for the poison in 1-A that would force cuts in social programs and hurt the neediest Californians. It would re-pay some education money taken earlier, but there is nothing to stop the legislature from repaying this money at any time even without 1-B,” said Williams.
“I-C, 1-D and 1-E would each take tax money from places the people decided to put it – education, child and family programs, and mental health – and let the legislature spend it for other things. In each case, the programs the people still need the money. An there are other problems, in some cases big problems, with each of these propositions,” she said.
“In the case of 1-F, the proposed salary freeze does nothing to help with the real problem, the undemocratic two-thirds vote requirement,” stated Williams. “This pay freeze would tend to force legislators to approve any budget, including a very bad budget, against their better judgment. And some of the state officials affected have nothing to do with the budget process. 1-F is a red herring, and not at all helpful.”
I favor strategic alliances in favor of limiting government. An alliance with the Peace & Freedom Party would be pointless because they are too small to matter, and they are too clearly identified with socialist and communist viewpoints.
An alliance with the PFP would undermine our outreach not only to conservatives, but to liberals who are not in favor of socialism.
I have experience with this. I was one of the founders of the Libertarian Caucus in the Peace & Freedom Party in 1974. We nominated libertarians for Governor and State Controller in the primary. We did get publicity for libertarianism, and found allies among Libertarian Party activists, JBS members and others.
But we had to quit the PFP as the leadership became more explicitly in favor of socialism. Otherwise our pro-American opposition to the Vietnam War would be misinterpreted as being pro-Communist.
Gene, the changes of spending in 1-A would be supportable had they not come with so many blasted strings.
Until California gets a strong TABOR, that’s always gonna be the case. That means never, because this state hasn’t figured it out that far yet, and all signs indicate they never will.
That’s why I have been pushing for a modern revival of the pre-WW II Hitler-Stalin pact.
SSave our SStatism
The enemy of my enemey is my friend.
I agree.
Strategic cooperation is not an alliance. Even when fundamental philosophies are at odds, no one should shoot himself in the foot just to avoid agreeing on a particular matter. Just as here in NC (as well as other states), the LP and the Greens are working together for ballot reform, if we can advance liberty on a particular issue, we should. Ending the drug war comes to mind as another issue where cooperation is easy and productive.
Is there anything fuller from the LPC on these than the voter guide on the website?
“do your reasons for opposing it really matter if your mission is simply to defeat it?”
Yes, in this case they do.
The California budget will continue to be an issue for years, because the left-liberals and the special interest groups have passed many laws and even constitutional amendments which require spending money. Unless these laws are repealed, California will never have a balanced budget again.
Allying with groups that support the expansion of the welfare state indicates that we don’t care about fiscal responsibility.
Indeed, Prop. 1-A makes some changes in mandated spending that should be supported by libertarians and conservatives. Libertarians oppose it because it extends recent tax hikes for two years beyond their expiration date, not because it takes money from mandated programs.
Look at the PFP arguments, and you will see they have the opposite reason for opposing 1-A.
“Align us with a group even less respectable than we are” – I love it!
Question, though: do your reasons for opposing it really matter if your mission is simply to defeat it?
Paulie,
Since the Peace & Freedom Party is explicitly in favor of socialism, and they oppose these measures because they see them as a threat to the welfare state, it would make no sense for Libertarians to make common cause with the PFP in opposing these measures.
It would muddy our message, and align us with a group even less respectable than we are.
(disclaimer:the state Chair of the Peace & Freedom Party is a friend of mine since high school. Nothing personal, Kevin)
Keep at it Michael.
Not surprising the two parties wouldn’t always agree, but good to see such a high level of agreement (5 of 6). Perhaps they could work together on those.
P&F has a logic error in opposing 1-F. There is no such thing as a “good” California budget as long as the D/R machine creates it.
FYI, LPCA opposes 1-A through 1-E and endorses 1-F.
http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/04/01/peace-freedom-party-in-california-special-senate-run-off-election/