By Kenneth Miller | Publisher
Having served almost 50 years covering government has taught me to question the fine print in ballot initiatives.
That is the perspective I bring to Proposition 40.
I understand the frustration that has brought us to this point. California faces serious health care funding challenges, and the idea of asking billionaires to contribute more has understandable appeal. I don’t believe anyone should be exempt from paying their fair share simply because they have accumulated enormous wealth.
But covering government for four decades has also taught me to pay attention to the details, particularly when a proposal promises a major financial solution without fully resolving questions about its long-term consequences.
What concerns me about Proposition 40 is not simply who would pay the tax. It is what happens afterward.
Consider the disagreement within the health care community itself. Some organizations support the measure, while others representing physicians, hospitals, and providers oppose it.
These are organizations that understand the challenges of delivering health care in California. Their differences should tell us that this proposal deserves more examination, not less.
Then there is Governor Gavin Newsom.
For nearly eight years, his administration has been responsible for putting together California’s state budgets, navigating revenue fluctuations, and making difficult decisions about what government can afford.
I have covered enough governors to know that they don’t always get it right. But I also know that the person responsible for managing the state’s finances has access to information and experience that should carry weight in a discussion of this magnitude.
When the sitting governor raises objections, and candidates seeking to succeed him also express opposition, I pay attention.
That doesn’t mean they are automatically correct. It means their concerns deserve to be examined rather than dismissed as political maneuvering.
The potential unintended consequences are what trouble me most.
California depends heavily on income taxes, including revenues from its highest earners. We should understand how a major change in tax policy might affect that revenue base, investment decisions, and the state’s ability to fund ongoing obligations.
We should also distinguish between raising a substantial amount of money once and creating a dependable source of funding for services that must be delivered year after year.
Those are different challenges, and they require different solutions.
What I find particularly troubling is the way this debate has been framed. Too often, Californians are presented with a choice between standing up for working families and protecting billionaires.
I don’t accept that those are our only options.
We can support fair taxation, recognize the urgency of health care funding, and still question whether Proposition 40 is the right mechanism.
I would rather see California bring the affected stakeholders back to the table. Let the health care community, labor, business, local governments, fiscal experts, and community representatives examine the options together.
That process may not produce the quickest political victory. It may require compromise. But complicated problems rarely become simpler because we put them on a ballot.
I have seen too many public policies sold on their immediate benefits without sufficient attention to what happens five or ten years down the road.
The people who depend on government services cannot afford for us to overlook those questions.
My concern is not about sparing billionaires. It is about making sure that an effort to solve one serious problem does not create others that California will struggle to manage.
I believe we need to come back to the table, bring stakeholders along, and develop a more durable solution.
That is why, for now, I am a No on Proposition 40.
Not because I oppose asking the wealthy to contribute more, but because after 40 years of watching government make decisions, I have learned that the consequences matter just as much as the intentions.
California needs to get this right.
