Medical Rights, or States Rights? City taxes too

The big news of the day are the arguments in front of the Supreme Court regarding medical marijuana. Proponents of it are using the California law on medical use to try and overturn decades long federal law. The interesting approach this time for me is the states right argument: That marijuana is not an issue the Federal government should be involved in. The argument against this is the now classic Interstate Commerce Clause, which at times seems to expand to cover me pissing on a bush out in the middle of the desert.

Normally, I favor the states right’s argument, at least in the past 80 years. The amount of powers assumed by the Federal government since 1930 has been remarkable, and probably unthought of even 40 years before that. On a modern front, allowing states a wide variety of laws and powers, allowing them to differentiate themselves from their neighbors. one state with high taxes, and socialism, and over the river, pure capitalism, low taxes and staying the hell out of it’s citizen’s way. Ok, so I exaggerate on both means, but considering the way California is going, I can see real reasons for living in Jean, NV, or across the river from Needles, in Arizona, and commuting into this state to work. The long commute across the desert isn’t fun, but is usually fast.

We can use this same argument in cities as well. On the March ballot for my home town of South Gate is a question: should the city pass a 5% utility tax? Tax on which utilities? Just about everything, except the city authorized cable monopoly. This includes your gas, water, electricity, sewer, trash, phone, cell phone, satellite dish. Though, how they propose to collect off of the last two I don’t know. What if I have a PO Box, to mail my bills to? Would I get charged then?

This is to make up the lack of funds in the city budget from the shenanigans of the past 5 years. But the city isn’t broke, and is just barely making money. To build up the reserve is a great idea, but I think it will end up driving out businesses, lowering revenues. I already know of a few business who have each pledged up to $50,000 to fight this. That’s big money, but considering the amount of electricity used, probably not even 25% of what they will pay if this passes. The was put on the ballot by the city council, by a vote of 4-0, 1 abstained. My father abstained from voting on putting it on the ballot, saying that he has a larger stake in this issue than the other council members. Hector originally wanted a 10% tax, but was talked down on it. My dad’s position is firmly against it, but was trying to use the argument: by rushing this at the last moment, and you lose, you hurt the chance of passing this when it could have a chance, once the arguments are heard.

Wait, you say, December to March is 3 months of campaigning. True, but the time to get arguments on the ballot is over within two weeks, or less. The city is pushing this measure, but is forbidden from campaigning for it (or at least spending city dollars on it). So we shall see who says the pro and con arguments.

I’ll write more on this subject later.