California Referendum Puts Voters In Control Of Time

While much of the country will be watching the results of the House and Senate battles tomorrow night, some Americans will be closely eyeing a race that could split the country on a topic that can be even more divisive than support for Donald Trump. For Americans who abhor the dreaded ritual of springing forward and falling back, California voters may lead the way with a rebellion against the biannual resetting of the clocks.

California is the king of voter referendums. Many of the ballot measures that the state’s voters consider range from strange wastes of time to the absurd. In the past, the state’s voters have been asked to weigh in on such proposals as making politicians wear NASCAR-style corporate logos, legalizing “the possession, importation and transportation of pet ferrets,” and summarily executing homosexuals. Incidentally, the “Sodomite Suppression Act” was ruled “patently unconstitutional” by a California judge before it made it to the ballot.

Now, however, California may have stumbled onto something big. To paraphrase Charles Dudley Warner, who was famously quoted by Mark Twain, “Everybody complains about Daylight Saving Time, but nobody does anything about it.”

Well, by cracky, Californians are doing something about it! A referendum that will be presented to California voters this Tuesday proposes that the state institute permanent Daylight Saving Time and eliminate the twice-yearly clock-resetting ritual.

Can I get an amen?

Supporters of the measure cite medical studies that “show that the risk of heart attacks and strokes increases during the days following a time change” and claim “changing clocks twice a year increases our use of electricity by four percent, increases the amount of fuel used by cars and costs $434 million.” Opponents argue that the US tried year-round Daylight-Saving Time in 1974 and “people hated getting up in the dark in the morning.” Opponents also argue that energy-savings from the measure would be unproven.

The Sacramento Bee, which helpfully points out that the proper term is “Daylight Saving Time,” not Daylight Savings Time,” notes that the effect on electricity use from the change would probably be nil. People would turn on lights later but would use their air conditioning more. The Bee also claims that the Air Transport Association estimates that synchronizing California time with the rest of the world would cost about $147 million.

If you ask me, $147 million is a small price for someone else to pay to prevent an interruption to my sleep schedule. The ATA estimate seems likely to be a one-time cost since much of the world, as well as the states of Arizona and Hawaii, already don’t celebrate the clock-resetting ritual. Likewise, if I have the choice between getting up when it’s dark and coming home to a dark afternoon, I’ll take the former.

Left unsaid is how much time and effort will be saved by not adjusting clocks. Sure, mobile phones and computers can update their own clocks, but what about all the other clocks in your house? These days nearly every appliance comes with a clock. In my kitchen alone, we have clocks on the microwave, the oven, the coffee maker, and the clock, which is mostly decorative since we have about half a dozen other ways to determine the time there if you include phones and iPads.

The clocks on our car radios alone can take upwards of a week to figure out how to reset. Until then, I experience moments of panic when I glance at the radio and suddenly think that I’m an hour late for work. Suddenly those reports about time-change induced heart attacks don’t seem so farfetched.

Aside from having to adjust our body clocks twice a year, the real problem of the time changes is that days are getting shorter as we head into winter. Benjamin Franklin, the scientific genius among the Founding Fathers, published a paper in 1784 that would have resolved this fundamental problem, proposing that an “immense sum” could be saved each year “by the economy of using sunshine instead of candles.”

Some take Franklin’s proposal to be satirical, but I believe that his idea is totally serious and sensible. It makes perfect sense to adjust our working habits to coincide with the daylight in winter. During the coldest months of the year, what better place to spend the dark hours than snug in your bed, preferably with someone you love to keep you warm? Is the economy really so dependent on dark-side-of-clock activities that we can’t afford to spend 12 hours or so under the covers?

Unfortunately for Californians, even if this eminently sensible and not-crazy-even-by-California-standards ballot measure is approved by the voters, it won’t go into effect immediately. The referendum would have to be affirmed by a two-thirds vote of the California legislature and approved by Congress. The Uniform Time Act of 1966 expanded the reach of Big Government to control even the time that we set on our own personal clocks in our individual states!

Proposition Seven is a rare case of California coming up with a sensible idea. I’ll bet that stopping the time-changes and settling on Daylight Saving Time is an issue that could unite the majority of Americans in a common cause. Hands off our clocks! It’s an idea whose time has come. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Ga. charter school ballot measure sparks controversy

The presidential race isn’t the only reason to go to the polls over the next few weeks. One big reason in Georgia is the charter schools referendum. In Georgia, this ballot measure has generated almost as much confusion and controversy as the election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

Charter schools are public schools that receive public money, but are exempt from many normal rules in exchange for being more accountable. Charter schools cannot charge tuition and often have waiting lists for admissions. In some cases admissions are assigned by lottery. Although politically popular, charter school results are mixed. Some studies have indicated that they do not perform better than traditional public schools, while others paint a better picture.

According to Ballotpedia, the proposed text of the amendment is: “Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended to allow state or local approval of public charter schools upon the request of local communities?” According to the Georgia Department of Education, Georgia already has a number of charter schools; however these are run by local school districts. In 2011, the state Supreme Court struck down a state commission that could approve charter schools over the objections of local school boards.

What the amendment would actually do would reinstate the State Charter Commission according to the Augusta Chronicle. The commission could override local denials for charter school applications. These local charter schools would be financed by local money. The amendment would also allow the commission to set up state charter schools with a statewide “attendance zone.” These schools would be financed with money appropriated by the General Assembly, not local tax money.

Opponents of the measure see the amendment as a threat to local control of schools and tax money. The measure is opposed by many school boards, administrators, and teacher groups around the state. The NAACP has also announced its opposition to the measure, telling the Augusta Chronicle that the “amendment is not about fixing the schools and school systems, but is designed to decide who gets to spend our hard earned tax dollars for ‘special schools,’ which are not under the control of local school boards.”

In a letter to the Monroe Patch, state School Superintendent John Barge also states his reasons for opposition to the amendment. Barge says that he favors charter schools, but wants to preserve local control. He also says, “Until all of our public school students are in school for a full 180-day school year, until essential services like student transportation and student support can return to effective levels, and until teachers regain jobs with full pay for a full school year, we should not redirect one more dollar away from Georgia’s local school districts.”

Proponents argue that the amendment is not about tax money or control of schools, but school choice. In the Columbus Ledger-Inquirer, Rep. Richard Smith (R-Columbus) says, “There are some school districts around the state who will not even talk to people in their area about setting up a charter school.”

Maureen Downey wrote in the Atlanta Journal about the concern that charter schools would attract for-profit school operators to the state. Downey references a Reuters article that points out a federal program called EB-5 allows foreign investors to essentially buy visas by investing in certain projects. Over the past few years, charter schools have become a popular investment choice for wealthy would-be immigrants. Reuters notes that the program benefits both schools and investors since schools in general and charter schools in particular often face financial pressures.

The outside funding for charter schools may make up for the discrepancy between funding for local schools and state charter schools. Downey notes in the AJC that the state has confirmed that under the law, more money per student would be sent to state charter schools than local schools.

In an op-ed in the Savannah Morning News, Senator Buddy Carter (R-Savannah), one of the senators who drafted the amendment, explained its purpose. According to Carter, “special” schools were authorized and defined in Georgia’s 1966 constitution. When the constitution was changed in 1983, the General Assembly was authorized to create special schools, but the term was not defined. Carter says the lack of a definition led to the ruling against the Georgia Charter Schools Commission.

Carter further notes that local control is preserved because the first step to creating a charter school is to apply to the local school board. These local charter schools would receive money from the local school district.

If the applicant feels that the local school board has unfairly denied the charter application, the next step would be to appeal to the state. Carter says, “Not a single dollar will be taken out of the traditional public school system” because state charter schools will be funded by money appropriated by the General Assembly. “Voting in favor of this amendment will give the ultimate local control — it will give parents more options and allow them to be more involved in the decision-making process in public education,” according to Carter.

Given the current state of the economy and cuts to the state budget, there is some question about where the additional money for state charter schools would be found, but supporters like Carter are adamant that it would not be redirected from existing public schools. This might mean cuts in other areas of the state budget, higher taxes, or donations and investments from private individuals and businesses.

While the amendment is very controversial, polling shows that voters are in favor. The most recent poll, a September poll by Sand Mountain Communications, found 50 percent of voters favored the amendment with 25 percent against. Another 25 percent of voters are undecided. A last minute blitz of opposition ads by groups like Vote Smart Georgia could easily sway voters on such a convoluted issue.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/charter-school-ballot-measure-sparks-confusion-and-controversy

Elections 2012: Georgia T-SPLOST referendum

On July 31, Georgia voters will go to the polls to decide on T-SPLOST, a transportation special purpose local option sales tax. The election will decide whether voters will approve a one cent sales tax to fund statewide transportation projects. Although Election Day is July 31, early voting has already started.

Details about T-SPLOST can be found on the Investing in Tomorrow’s Transportation Today (IT3) page of the Georgia Department of Transportation website. The T-SPLOST referendum was authorized by the Transportation Investment Act of 2010. The Statewide Strategic Transportation Plan (SSTP) was approved by Gov. Sonny Perdue and the State Transportation Board in 2010.

According to the SSTP, Georgia is currently below average on state transportation funding. This threatens Georgia’s ability to receive federal matching funds. The planners predict that Atlanta’s congestion costs will double over the next 20 years and that the number of workers available within 45 minutes of metro Atlanta will actually shrink by a third due to increased congestion. Congestion in Georgia’s medium-sized cities is forecast to rise to level comparable with Atlanta and Charlotte.

The solution, according to the plan, is three-pronged. First, the plan calls for $15 billion in improvements to Georgia’s freight transportation system including new bypasses, rail capability, and relieving bottlenecks and gaps.

Second, the Atlanta area would receive $29-36 billion, including $8-11 billion from tolls or user fees, for a variety of work. There would be more “managed” (toll) lanes on major routes. The plan would focus on these and other “dual-purpose investments” that can be used by private vehicles as well as mass transit. Atlanta would also have funding for rail transit. The initial plan would maintain the current system and expand short-haul rail lines that connect to the core system. Later, long-haul rail to the suburbs and other cities would be considered.

Finally, new capacity and safety needs for the remainder of the state are estimated at $14 billion over the next 20 years. Much of the spending outside Atlanta involves managing traffic patterns and coordinating transportation growth with developing areas.

Total cost for the program is estimated at $65 billion over the next 20-30 years. The SSTP estimates that the plan will generate 425,000 new jobs and $480 billion in economic benefit for the state. The expansion and upgrade of Georgia’s transportation system is intended to make Georgia more attractive to new business and make its existing businesses more competitive.

T-SPLOST supporters may have an uphill battle. Tax increases are often unpopular and the current economic and political climate is unlikely to help matters. The Georgia Tea Party Patriots is hosting an online petition against the measure, calling it “the largest single tax increase in Georgia history.” The group charges that T-SPLOST funds will be used to bail out MARTA, which is in financial trouble. The GTPP also says that the T-SPLOST will tax food and medicine and points out that the tax is likely to be renewed in 10 years to cover maintenance for the new projects. The group is also concerned about “regional appointed quasi-governments” that are not elected and therefore unaccountable to taxpayers.

Many Georgia businesses favor the T-SPLOST. In an AJC blog, Sadie Fields, former chairwoman of the Christian Coalition of Georgia, alleges that many employees of Atlanta-area businesses feel that their employers are pressuring them to vote for the measure. A rebuttal by John Brock, CEO of Coca-Cola Enterprises, points out that Atlanta traffic is limiting growth and that T-SPLOST is needed to turn things around.

The Georgia Public Policy Foundation issued a report on the vote that lists several pros and cons. Among the reasons to vote for the bill is the fact that Georgia is 49^th in transportation funding and there are improvements that are genuinely needed. In regions where the tax is rejected, local governments will be responsible for an increased percentage of the cost of maintaining local roads. This may lead to higher local taxes. The next chance to vote on transportation improvements will be in 2014.

On the con side, the GPPF notes that a sales tax is not linked to transportation usage. A one cent increase in the gas tax might be better suited to transportation. Much of the money is slated to be spent in Atlanta and too much of Atlanta’s money will be spent on rail transit. Only three percent of commuters use MARTA, but public and rail transit gets almost half of Atlanta’s funds. Finally, the foundation notes that spending is political rather than based on need and there is no long term plan.

The GPPF recommends that voters examine the list of proposed projects for their region when deciding how to vote on the issue. T-SPLOST.com lists the projects by region. The website is a pro-T-SPLOST site paid for Yancey Brothers, a Caterpillar heavy equipment dealer.

The AJC Political Insider blog reports that the T-SPLOST is indeed in trouble. The column quotes a Rosetta Stone poll that shows public opinion is against the new tax by a margin of 37-48 percent. Support is strongest in the Democratic strongholds of DeKalb and Fulton counties where the measure is supported 49-32 percent. Democrats favor the plan 57-24 percent while Republicans oppose it 19-68 percent. The Political Insider also reported that Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers is likely to oppose the plan.

In an election year that is centered around the struggle against government spending and higher taxes, it is ironic that Georgia’s Republicans find themselves advancing a huge tax and spend bill. It is even more ironic that Georgia’s Democrats are the biggest supporters of a measure advanced by Gov. Deal. The down side for Gov. Deal is that Georgia has far fewer Democrats than it did just a few years ago.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/two-sides-to-t-splost