Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dougjn who wrote (4680)	9/22/1998 1:59:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

<OT> dougjn, I know this is a topic not related to Clinton and I apologize, but it is an interesting study in the motivations of voters, and party lines etc. Prop 13 was a law passed in 1978, that said once you bought a house in Ca, the property taxes on that house could only rise 1% a year (I think). Well you know whats happened. Theres whole neighborhoods full of people over 50 - they never move. They pay no taxes, why should they? This is an entitlement! The republicans should oppose this! But they dont - because its a sweet deal for their constituency. This would be an unconstitutional law on the basis of age discrimination a Stanford lawyer friend told me. But the last time it came up in court, they didnt argue that, instead they made some other case and lost - the judge was a controversial conservative. If a busiess would file suit, they would win (and Macys thought about it) but they are afraid of the backlash because its a very popular law for the huge number of voters that benefit from it. Just like Social Security or Medicare etc. The interesting thing is watching so called "fiscal conservatives" claim that this law is somehow just, etc. Give me a break. If ever a politician takes on prop 13 in Ca, I will vote for that person, but it will take a lot of courage. Michelle