What 63 really should be is something like: Increase taxes on those making more than $1,000,000 by 1% which yields a projected revenue of X. In a completely unrelated note fund mental health expenditures at a level of X for in the next n fiscal years, where n is a small number. That gets the thing done, funds it by making the tax code slightly more progressive, guarantees the funding does not move away immediately, does not stupidly lock funding to something in a way that can only be undone by another voter initiative, and guarantees atomic execution (if it a major cost you don’t want to setup it up without a funding source, even if you are trying to avoid locking the funding source to it). The atomicity bit is sucky bit, because if you don’t specifically allocate the funds it could be ruled unrelated and split into two initiatives, and if only one passes things are really shitty.

60A I agree with in principle but I think I am voting no, because this is the sort of stupid thing the legislature should deal with on its own, and they have to learn that they can’t just pass things that people will just find inconsequential enough to vote for as a way to avoid floor debates.

Your right 60, is just a reaction to 62. 60 merely codifies the way things currently work. I am still debating whether to vote yes or no on it, though I am voting no on 62. Putting 60 on the ballot is exactly the wrong thing to do. If people were worried about 62 they should have campaigned against 62, not put a conflicting initiative on the ballet. What if they both pass (which is, admittedly, unlikely)?

Anyway that is my semi-annual rant on the stupidity of ballet initiatives.

Louis