A woman today (politician or not), was quoted on network radio hours ago, as addressing the public with her stated justification for wanting to undermine state law, in connection with Proposition 13 specifically. Bear in mind, raising taxes anywhere within our state law, is a legislative concern voiced by the public voting block; and not in the interest except of a rogue and malicious (or ignorant neophyte) state politician. The statement on radio, on the 10th of June, was: “Proposition 13 was designed ages ago to protect grandma from losing her home”. And in simliar words but exact case in point: “that it is no longer a modern need”. What this woman was saying, due to lack of sound argumentation, is that in premise “we can afford tax hikes today, unlike old grandma years ago”, and that “there is no justification for protecting today’s public, through laws like Proposition 13”, [from arbitrary and malicious tax hikes to supply state legislation easy street]. Her premise is totally misguided and deceives young or ignorant listeners, who have maybe not investigated the relevancy of Proposition 13 for their own present and future, even today is it continue to protect their interest during and after their parents’ lives. Proposition 13 was, and is still designed, to protect “grandma” today, as it was to protect her own children, and everyone’s “grandma” years ago as it did them then. Are opponents, who support the attack on Proposition 13, somehow expecting us to believe that we have fewer grandmas and grandpas today, than we did back then? Or, that somehow their children will not have mounting and escalating private costs of care for them? Here’s a fact: The “baby boom” generation in sheer numbers alone, is proof that there are huge numbers of seniors now. That is one reason why so many families say “Hands off! There are limits to what we can tolerate!”They/we are affected by sustained economic downturn of the latest century’s dawn. Is this radio interviewee, suggesting that there are fewer numbers today, than there were when Prop. 13 came to law? She needs to fact check her statement and intentions. Are opponents of our law ready to defend the false premise, that there are and will be fewer poor elderly in their family homes now than there were then? Moreover, are opponents of the law, like her, retorting that somehow age matters when it comes to who pays taxes? That would be highly discriminatory and misaligned. No wonder her view is so unpopular.
Proposition 13, my readers, was crafted as a law to protect against tyrannical government. It spares us from a whole spectrum of unpopular taxes that trickle down to every consumer. Ontop of the sufficient taxation we already abide by, some wish for them to keep on going up and up, subsidizing government… punishing family inheritances (and everyone else), despite an already darkly-motivated related law on the federal level: the death tax (which by the way is also being proposed to go up and up if the current president has success of his intent); never mind that alone! Opposing Proposition 13, focuses government and bureaucratic power against all of us who own or rent property, because for the government, amending it [Pro. 13], would take control away from you, and would ingratiate government, with further privilege over you. These opponents’ target, includes everyone who lives under a roof in California. And, by the way, punishing small businesses in the process, might make you think you’re not affected. Think again, it is the small businesses along with private homeowners, who benefit from Proposition 13 in many ways – ask Proposition 13’s local office “how so?”, for more details. They’ll be able to tell you a list of reasons if you only ask, especially if you take time to get on their mailing list. That protection, includes safety for everyone who isn’t hell-bent on tearing down one of the last great institutions that protect private citizens, from government overreach.
So to re-cap and summarize: Proposition 13 protects us from arbitrary and devious financial gouging, by increasing voter control and safety valves anytime a vote increase is requested by the rogues in state power. And, it [Prop. 13] remains as important (maybe even more so today) now, a protection, as it always has been. Just because the law is “old”, does not in any way suggest that it should be thrown away or even amended. Some of the oldest inventions and laws ever made, remain the most fundamentally relevant and needed ones, for ages to come and pass.
So again, in closing, 1.  We have just as many (more) “grandmas” and “grandpas” today who need Proposition 13, some of whom can’t even get to vote on any ballot – and we need our united voice of all ages, to sustain in helping them and us of all age group. The argument that somehow Proposition 13 is not relevant? That’s a bunch of rubbish, a lie. That supposition is just an attempt to undermine quality governance, in order to please an ill tempered minority, that expressly lack compassion or understanding for the law’s fundamental reason for existing. Gouging, under the threats to lack to public service or any other scare tactic, is immoral. A better government will more carefully consider what expenditures it even permit to be voted on by our ballot. 2. The public already has high rates of tax collections; and they need to be better spent, and not spent on bloated or corrupt dealings. The dollars, must be allocated for the “boring” needs that we always have had – all the way up to the priority agenda, as voted on by ballot each cycle. Along with the conservative voting block, we say: “Hands off our houses”. And, “Stop taxing death”. We vote down superfluous laws. So, hands off of our prop 13! And finally, to quote a rap singer out of Barbados: “B**** better have my money!” We’re not talking hundreds of collective dollars; no, were talking a much bigger sum. The roofs over our heads that we have. And if you think I’m overstating the significance of this, on behalf of multitudes of people in the “golden state”, and beyond, think again.