Non-representation should mean non-taxes

by CalWatchdog Staff | January 22, 2013 8:32 am

[1]Jan. 22, 2013

By John Seiler

The American Revolution was about “taxation without representation.” The colonists weren’t represented in the British Parliament when their taxes were raised. So they revolted and ended the taxes.

Now this[2]:

“SACRAMENTO — Many state senators will serve constituents outside their official districts for the next two years to address a quirk caused by the redrawing of political boundaries in 2011.

“When the legislative district maps were remade, some new districts overlapped old ones. Voters in only half of the 40 state Senate districts chose representatives last year. Some communities in the old districts were moved into new ones that will not have elections until 2014.

“That has left nearly 4 million Californians without an elected representative in the Senate for the next two years, while others temporarily have two senators.”

If that’s the case, then those 4 million Californians should not have to pay any state taxes at all the next four year. After all, they have no say in the California Senate about how their money is spent. That’s truly “taxation without representation.”

There’s this:

“Lawmakers last week approved a plan to have many senators temporarily provide constituent services for voters who would otherwise be unrepresented in California’s upper house.”

But those “temporary” representatives were not voted into office by the 4 million. The senators’ “representation” is arbitrarily assigned to them, as in some banana republic. It’s unfair, undemocratic and unAmerican.

Taxation with representation is onerous enough, but without representation it’s dictatorship.

 

Source URL: https://calwatchdog.com/2013/01/22/does-non-representation-mean-non-taxes/

---