I don't know how familiar you are with Prop C (the subject here) and California governance, so please pardon me if I belabor something you already know in an ef

I don't know how familiar you are with Prop C (the subject here) and California governance, so please pardon me if I belabor something you already know in an effort to clarify. I'm not talking about candidates. We're literally talking about tax policy set and enacted via plebiscite. Elected officials don't get to tinker with it. As slow and complex as it is to change policies via representative democracy, it's far worse when you have to hold another plebiscite to fix glaring issues. Which has happened more than once in California political history. That's what's at hand here. Tax policy enacted via a means that elected politicians don't actually get to work with. The issue you so correctly and wisely point to is messy enough - just imagine how much worse this particular Californian mess is. For all that you're completely right about the apparently insane way tax policy is treated in American discourse, I think it might be worth considering that it could be encoded wisdom. Political attention spans tends to be short, inertia is real, and any policy creates winners who want to preserve it. Never mind questions of actually being reasonably sure about effects. With all that in mind, treating tax policy as something you might not get to reform in a reasonable timeframe might not be the silliest of ideas. There's a good chance that it might be closer to the truth than expecting a calm, collected, non-partisan, informed debate aimed at making the policy work as intended once it's been shown to be in need of improvement.