cv_rider
Junior Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2008
- Messages
- 819
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Danville, CA Bay Area
I've spent a few hours reading the voter's information guide on California's 12 ballot initiatives. Here is how I'll vote, with a sound bite explaining each. This is guided by my three main Axioms of Ballot Measures:
* California is practically bankrupt and we can't afford very many extravagent programs. Most ballot initiatives are about selling bonds, which allows backers to scream in capital letters "IT WON'T RAISE YOUR TAXES!!!". It's often viewed as "free money" but it's not. We'll be paying for it for 30 years and it sucks away from future general fund spending flexibility.
* Ballot initiatives are an awful way to create laws, and worse than that, modify our constitution. It is way too difficult for the average voter, who may dedicate 15 minutes (if ambitious) to understanding the initiative, to grasp the complexities and ramifications. If you don't know what you are doing, do nothing.
* Ballot initiatives that sell bonds bypass the prioritization that is a natural part of the compromises in the budget processes. It focuses special attention on tiny issues that may catch the public’s attention and allow the pet project to “cut to the front of the line’ which will ultimately take money from more deserving programs in the future.
* California is practically bankrupt and we can't afford very many extravagent programs. Most ballot initiatives are about selling bonds, which allows backers to scream in capital letters "IT WON'T RAISE YOUR TAXES!!!". It's often viewed as "free money" but it's not. We'll be paying for it for 30 years and it sucks away from future general fund spending flexibility.
* Ballot initiatives are an awful way to create laws, and worse than that, modify our constitution. It is way too difficult for the average voter, who may dedicate 15 minutes (if ambitious) to understanding the initiative, to grasp the complexities and ramifications. If you don't know what you are doing, do nothing.
* Ballot initiatives that sell bonds bypass the prioritization that is a natural part of the compromises in the budget processes. It focuses special attention on tiny issues that may catch the public’s attention and allow the pet project to “cut to the front of the line’ which will ultimately take money from more deserving programs in the future.
- Prop 1, $10B bond to start work on high speed rail between SF and LA. NO. Reason: we can’t afford to issue more bonds. Our congestion problem is commuting to work, not going between SF and LA.
- Prop 2, standards for humane confinement of farm animals. NO. Reason: topic is too narrow for voters to fully weigh pros/cons, vote no if you aren’t enough an are expert in farm animal husbandry to fully understand implications.
- Prop 3, $1B bond children’s hospital bond act. NO. Reason: We can’t afford more bonds. If this needs to be done, it should be part of the give-and-take in the budget process.
- Prop 4: parental notification for teenagers seeking an abortion. NO. Reason: You're either on one side or other. 'Nuff said.
- Prop 5, Spend $460 to fund expansion non-violent drug crime with treatment rather than prison time. YES. Reason: I hesitate to vote yes on anything, but this one looks good, and is supported by people in positions to have an informed opinion. It basically diverts low-impact drug offenses to treatment rather than jail. CA has too many people in jails to the extent that they are overcrowded, and we’re looking at the need to spend more on jails unless we de-crowd them. Legislative analysis shows this might save the state $2.5B by preventing a new prison from being built.
- Prop 6, Mandated $1B/year funding police and law enforcement bond. NO. Reason: We can’t afford more bonds. If this needs to be done, it should be part of the give-and-take in the budget process.
- Prop 7, renewable energy initiative. NO. Reason: It sounds appealing, but from what I’ve heard about it, the text of the proposal is fatally flawed and would retard adoption of renewable energy. Tellingly, it is opposed by many high-profile environmental groups.
- Prop 8, eliminate same-sex marriage. NO. Reason: I’m not into discriminating against minorities.
- Prop 9, codifying victims rights. NO. Reason: looks to be an amateurish attempt to modify the constitution that would have improved the problems a single family had with the justice system. All arguments in favor basically come down to emotional appeals that criminals are more protected than victims.
- Prop 10, $3B bond to advance alternative fuel vehicles. NO. Reason: Looks to be a mechanism to stimulate natural gas demand, greatly benefiting T. Boone Pickens, the backer of the iniative, who owns a natural gas company. I’m not smart enough to be sure that natural gas is the right solution that I’d want the state to sell $5B in bonds to stimulate that industry. We can’t afford more bonds.
- THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE: Prop 11: Redistricting: independent commission chooses legislative districts instead of the legislators choosing their own district as is done now. YES. Reason: ends gridlock and extremism in the Legislature by making races competitive. Currently, the Legislature jerrymanders districts so their party gets a “sure win” in the next election. The most appealing candidate in a one-party district tends to be the most extreme. End result: gridlock and inability to pass a budget, because there are no moderates and no compromises from the extremists on both sides.
- Prop 12. $1B bond to assist veterans in buying homes. YES. Reason: this is a continuation of a successful program initiated in 1921 that has historically paid for itself. It helps those who sacrifice for the country get into homes more cheaply with low-interest loans, but the cost of the program has historically been paid by the veteran’s interest payments. Veterans have proven to be good credit risks, so the risk of the defaults (which would be paid by the taxpayer) is less.
