Props For California
It's circus time in California. The Carly / Boxer catfight is getting nasty, but every once in awhile someone trips over an actual issue. Meanwhile the Brown / Whitman slug-fest is setting new lows of campaign behavior as the candidates punch themselves in their own face repeatedly. TPP does not endorse candidates (thank God this time...) but we are always examining issues.
California is the land of Propositions. For those of you out in the rest of America, a proposition is a ballot initiative brought by petition to either take action that the legislature will not, or to over rule the legislature and the Governor. Prop 8 outlawing gay marriage is one of the more famous ones lately.
There are a slew of Propositions set to be voted on in this election cycle. As it is so hard to cut through the propaganda of the 24 / 7 dueling ad campaigns, we decided to sift through the sludge ourselves as a public service to our subscribers in California. The rest of you can just enjoy the silliness. This will be our first voter guide to the Propositions. It is all Common Sense.
Prop 19 - This is the one getting the most attention in California, and will have the least impact. In it California seeks to legalize pot - specifically the possession, sale, and growth of plants in personal use amounts (up to 6 plants, or possession of up to 1 oz cured for smoking). Possession of these amounts was recently downgraded from a misdemeanor to an infraction. What that means is that you get a ticket for these amounts and pay a fine, if the cop feels like doing the paperwork. Or the prosecutor feels like pursuing it. Or the judge feels like sentencing. Of course the lab guys get stuck with processing the evidence anyway, but it's mostly a waste of time. This would do away with the waste of time.
It is being hailed as a revenue measure and a way to balance the sinking ship of state. It is not. It specifically makes provision that local governments may regulate and tax commercial operations, but provides no mechanism or guidelines for doing so. It does shift the costs of prosecution to the Feds though. Attorney General Eric Holder has already stated that Federal law will trump this ballot initiative and he will prosecute under those statutes. It's good to know that he has his priorities straight. For a deeper study of the pros and cons see: This Buds For You
As nothing will change in any meaningful way, we are not taking a position on Prop 19.
Prop 20 covers the redistricting of federal congressional districts. It would transfer authority to redistrict from the legislature to a 14 member redistricting commission. The commission would consist of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 4 not affiliated. It would require any redistricting changes to be approved by 9 members of the commission - 3 Democrat, 3 Republican and 3 unaffiliated.
Currently the state legislature does the redistricting for our federal elected officials. As we have alluded to here in our conversations about California, the state legislature is your typical pit of snakes. They have driven California off the cliff in a spending orgy befitting the governments of corrupt third world countries. The Congressional districts are too important to trust to the untrustworthy.
TPP supports and recommends a YES vote on Prop 20.
Prop 21 establishes an $18 surcharge on vehicles to fund State Parks. Surcharged vehicles then receive free admission to state parks. This sounds good in principle until one understands that California is the most highly taxed and surcharged state in the nation. Most revenues go to service questionably run programs mired in deficit spending, and not our Park Service.
The Parks Service makes up a tiny fraction of the state budget. Current projected operations for the entire department is approximately $500 million per year, of which $128 million is collected in user fees. The Parks service is facing a a general fund reduction of approximately $13 million, which is 2.6 percent of the budget. While we support the Park Service, a 2.6 % cut is not unreasonable in these tough economic times. The average household has taken a bigger hit than that. Sorry guys, tighten that belt.
We recommend a NO vote on Prop 21.
Prop 22 denies diversion of Transportation, Redevelopment and local government projects and services to the general fund. This has been common practice for the state government to raid funds allocated for infrastructure, to pay for the deficit spending. This is lovingly called "feeding the beast". The problem is not lack of revenue, it is overextended and wasteful use of revenues. Allocated funds are just that - allocated. If the legislature didn't burn through what it had without thinking, our roads, railways, bridges and aqueducts would be in much better shape. Hands off the pile of cash. It's spoken for.
TPP recommends a YES vote on Prop 22
Prop 23 would suspend implementation of Governor Ah-nold's climate change program (AB32) until unemployment drops to 5.5%. Implementation of this program in the current economic climate would add another 1.1 million jobs lost to our current 12.4% unemployment level. This represents a 3% rise in the unemployment rate directly, which will ripple throughout the California economy. Provisions of AB32 have energy costs rising on average 11 - 15% from current levels. This is according to a study conducted by California State University - Sacramento (link at Cost of AB32 on Small Business ). Gasoline is projected to go beyond $5.00 per gallon in most studies and may go as high as $9.00 per gallon in worst case scenarios.
AB32 was intended to move California ahead of all other government efforts worldwide in dealing with greenhouse gas emissions (primarily carbon dioxide and methane). It does not deal with any other pollutants. Regulations regarding other pollutants remain in full force. This is essentially Ah-nold's monument. As there is now some question to both the cause and effect of greenhouse gases in the scientific community, TPP feels it prudent to delay a costly effort of dubious benefit.
TPP recommends a YES vote on Prop 23.
Prop 24 is a measure to repeal tax incentives given to employers in California. The tax incentives provide a cushion to employers in retaining employees, and thus keeping them off of the unemployment rolls. California is rated last out of 50 states for providing a good environment for businesses, according to a survey of CEO's conducted by Chief Executive magazine. The poor business climate combined with the horrible economy is causing California to shed jobs at a higher rate than would be expected in a more business friendly atmosphere. Removing these tax incentives will further drive businesses out of the state and increase unemployment.
TPP recommends a NO vote on Prop 24.
Prop 25 amends the state constitution to change the 2/3 vote required to pass a budget to a simple majority. It retains requiring a 2/3 vote to raise taxes. A California perspective on this one is necessary. As the media is fond of pointing out, California is a blue state. The last time the statehouse held a Republican majority was 1974, and even in the current political climate no one expects that to change this year. The majority is so solid that it only took 3 Republicans voting with the Democrats to put through the largest single tax increase in California's history.
By passing a budget with a simple majority, the budget will then need to be funded, with the first choice of the majority to raise taxes. By retaining the 2/3 majority to pass a budget, funding must be settled before the budget is approved. That means getting most people on board. Getting Republicans on board normally requires no new taxes. We support no new taxes. Sometimes you need to treat children as children.
TPP recommends a NO vote on Prop 25.
Prop 26 would require that same 2/3 vote to be required for raising state and local fees. This currently is done by simple majority. The fact that this proposition even appears on the ballot shows you that there is no trust in the state government of California. The reasons stated for voting no on Prop 25 are the same as they are for voting yes on Prop 26.
TPP recommends a YES vote on Prop 26
And finally, Prop 27, which in contrast to Prop 20 seeks to decommission the State Commission on Redistricting, currently charged with drawing state districts, and give redistricting power back to the legislature. That is either the definition of irony, or just the biggest set of stones ever put on display. Californians already know this, but now the rest of the country is aware of why the state is swirling down the toilet. Will the last person out please shut off the light and jiggle the handle? We're trying to conserve.
TPP recommends a HELL NO vote on Prop 27, and a punk slap to the people who got it on the ballot.
Well California, we put it out there as simply as possible. We hope it was helpful. We will answer questions posed in the comments or by email. For those of you outside California who think that this is all a bit complicated, it is. That's what happens when you shake the state and the best you can come up with for Governor is Jerry Brown or Meg Whitman. God help us all.
RLB
Categories: Civic Duty, Partisan Politics
Tags: civic responsibility
I do agree with your yes vote on prop. 23, but I disagree on the number of job's that will be lost if the "No's" Win. I believe most the job's that will be lost Already Have been lost! I spent a good chunk of money on an older class A truck in 2005 to do the self employment routine, 1 year before this legislation was passed, And after this legislation passed I decided not to spend the money to put the truck on the road because the new expenses would just be too extrene for me to afford!Trucking companies that can leave this state are leaving as fast as they can afford to and I don't think a promised temporary break from this law will make any companies decide to come back! I won't put my truck on the road here if prop.23 passes. It's simply not enough.
Reply to this
Ron has a good point - just the threat of AB32 stared killing jobs the day it was passed. Still, the ripple effects will be used as companies continue to pull out and energy costs rise. Sane America, wherever that is, is looking way better to me.
Reply to this
Props on the props. I gotta agree with all of the recommendations, if maybe for different reasons. We need to send the whole bunch of political hacks packing, or at least start a rehab for money addiction. I hope there's a California left for the next election cycle. We've only got clowns on the ballot.
Reply to this
I don't care why the legalize pot, just that it gets done. Having it illegal is insane. Booze and smokes do more harm. Party on dude!
Reply to this
Party on dude? Really? I thought Spicoli grew up to be an actor who nobody wants to work with. That's why he ahas all of this time on his hands to muck up politics. Ok, seriously, I agree with most of the recommendations, but the Park Service prop seems worthwhile, especially since you getthe money back by going to one of the parks twice. It's ten bucks for admission and parking. I don't really see a problem with it. Otherwise, I'm with you.
Reply to this
You have a proposition on the ballot to dissolve a redistricting commission AND to add to it's power on the same ballot? I don't get it. I thought DC was screwed up, but I figured it was just the high concentration of politicians. I'll stop by to jiggle the handle for you if the last guy out forgets. You guys are nuts.
Reply to this
For the most part I agree with what has been presented. Still, I use the State Parks a lot,and I've seen the staffing cuts and the facilities going to hell. Even more important, a lot of the consefvation and wildlife managment programs are suffering. I think Prop 21 is a good idea.
I'm worried about the environmental impact of Prop 23. Just because times are tough, it doesn't mean that the problem has gone away. I understand that there are economic costs, but I think it would be a better idea to implement what we can now. For the stuff that will really cost jobs and raise prices, maybe we can put that off until the economy recovers.
Reply to this
Don't most places elect a legislature to deal with all of these issues? If you have to vote on all of this stuff, what do they do?
Reply to this
On this prop23 comment, The government enviro folk's had to exaggerate truck pollution by340% in order to justify there new regulation's..... these new regulation's they are trying to implement are really a fraud against free market capitalism!
Reply to this
Yeah, all of the data on that was junk science. The guy who wrote it was from some internet university. John & Ken were harping on it for weeks. Politicians should be taken out of writing economic policy. If the need comes along, someone will invent a practical, economical solution. Anyone who believes that LA is a polluted mess wasn't here in the 70's.
Reply to this
If you reverse all of those recommendations, that's how I will be voting. The environment and the parks need to be cared for. The state needs added revenue to cover the deficit.We need to end the gridlock of that 2/3 vote. We went 90 days without a budget this year. That is not acceptable. Finally, I don't want to trust redistricting to 14 hand picked people who are not accountable to anyone. See you on November 2.
Reply to this
Okay, this is insane. I thought Jersey was bad. No wonder you people are going nuts and broke at the same time. We'd loan you Chris, but we like him here. Maybe you can "grow your own" leader. Geesh!
Reply to this
No wonder California looks a little funny to the rest of us. We elect a legislature to deal with this kind of stuff. What do you pay your guys for anyway? Ever think of putting them part time if the voters have to do all the work?
Reply to this
It's the granola state - once you get rid of the fruits and the nuts, all that are left are the flakes. We have a part time legislature, low taxes, excellent education, and the lowest unemployment in the country. You guys should try it.
Reply to this
Do you actually think that the greenhouse gas thing will be defeated? I remember Arnold on the cover of Time when he got that passed.
Reply to this
No leaders growing here for this election cycle. We're all hoping the state can pull together long enough for Tom McClintock to come to the rescue in 2014. As for the props, it's time to squeeze the fat out of the "beast". No new taxes, no more money, more voter control. Oh yeah, and throw the bums out.
Reply to this
23 is a job killer, and will bring economic disaster. That's the problem with laws that run a thousand or so pages - you never find out the fallout until they try to get enacted. It winds up in a lot of cases to the arbitrary decision of some bureaucrat insulated from the real world in his government job. I agree that we need to care for the planet, but it is way cleaner now than it ever has been, at least in this country. The environmental movement is starting to look more like religion than science.
Reply to this
This is what happens when a representative government becomes the personal playground of those supposed to represent their constituents. It becomes dysfunctional, and in our society, democracy takes over. The Founders warned against straight democracy as "mob rule" and "tyranny of the majority". It is why the minority was given protections to keep them from being over run by the majority. That might sound fine - majority rules, but a majority elected Hitler. The Jewish minority paid the price. The CA props seem confusing and populist, but they point to a system that is ill and may be on life support. America is moving in the same direction. We all need to wake up.
Reply to this
That's what the Tea Party is all about - getting representatives who understand the Constitution and their job if elected as representative. The system as it is being run now is as corrupt as antything the USSR could have come up with, and about as effective. We need citizen legislators, not a ruling class.
Reply to this
The problem isn't the ballot measures, or how mant there are. The problem is that the Court's in California, and in Federal District refuse to accept the will of the people and over-rule voter approved propositions. Prop 8 is a good example, as well as the restrictions on illegal immigrants passed a few years back. This piece is right about mairijuana too - the courts will block legalization. With a few excaptions, many of these Props are opinionpolls with little by way of enforcement. The ones that the courts do not block get hamstrung by the legislture. The will of the people is not reespected in California.
Reply to this
The courts are absolutely part of the problem. Their function at the federal level is only to make the determination of constitutionality of a statute with regard to federal law, or to settle disputes between the states. Laws not affecting interstate issues or fundamental federal rights are not the business of the federal courts. State issues are to be determined by state courts. There needs to be massive justification for federal intervention. Federal intervention needs to be the exception, not the rule. That is how the Costitution has constructed the federal (FEDERAL, not national) government. In a federal system, eachh state is sovereign and cooperates on issues of mutual interest. States are not obligated to bow to federal will. It is a system of mutual consent, not imposed authority. Check the Federalist Papers if you want full background.
Reply to this
The purpose of the propositions is to put the power of governing back into the hands of the voter. It gives the legislature direction,and underlines the direction that we want the state to go in. I will be voting the opposite of what you recommend,and I think that I'm on the winning side. It's only when the neanderthals get their fur mussed up that things like Prop 8 pass. For the most part the Prop system works.
Reply to this
You have a very good site, well constructed and very interesting i have bookmarked you, hopefully you keep posting new stuff, many thanks.
Preventivo trasloco
Reply to this
I'm not from California, and yes, this seems like a bit of a mess from an outsider's view. I guess I just have to trust that the right decisions will be made. Man, these are a lot of props.
Candace
Indiana health insurance
Reply to this