HOW I'M VOTING - CALIFORNIA STATE INITIATIVES
It is a sad reflection of my constant state of work-related exhaustion that I didn't get around to writing about ballot initiatives weeks ago.
For what it's worth, here below are my thoughts on the California state propositions, which largely remain a testament to the undemocratic state initiative process. I'm happy to listen to different opinions, as there are a few propositions that I'm still torn about.
Nonetheless, if you generally agree with me, I implore you to vote on Tuesday. If not, please vote on Wednesday.
Proposition 1A - Transportation Funding Protection
NO. It sounds good, but I'm not sure I want our government to keep building roads while shutting down schools during an economic crisis or a mild apocalypse, which I believe Pat Robertson predicted is around the corner.
1B - Highway Safety Bond Act
NO. Doesn't put enough focus into public transit.
1C - Housing and Emergency Shelter
YES. A relatively small bond measure to help low-income renters and battered women and children who need temporary shelter. Those who oppose it will probably burn in hell.
1D - Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond
YES. I believe the children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way.
1E - Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006
YES. Let's not reenact the devastation of Katrina and the Waves in California. Even though it might be fun to see how badly FEMA could mess things up again.
83 - Send All Sex Offenders to Rural Areas
HELL NO. The severe penalties for child rapists and child pornographers are already on the books, so this initiative doesn't really do much in the sentencing arena. (Plus, what child rapists are deterred by any level of severe sentencing, anyway?) The only real impact of this initiative is to ban all registered sex offenders (which, as we've discussed here, includes people convicted of streaking) from living within 2,000 feet of a park or school, effectively banning them from all major cities in California and relocating them into rural areas. Call me biased since I grew up in a cowtown, but this is horrendous public policy. Plus, registered sex offenders would be required to wear GPS monitoring devices until they die, which will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars every year to know that they're all safely tucked away in a barn.
84 - Improve Water Quality
Yes. Save California's coasts. I'd like to fail at surfing without inhaling too much feces. (Is that too much to ask?)
85 - Parental Notification for Minors' Abortions
HELL TO THE NO. This would require girls (females under 18) to notify their guardians within 48 hours of getting an abortion, which is enough disincentive to effectively drive at least one person into a dark alley, which is all the reason I need to oppose this measure.
86 - Tax on Cigarettes
YES. I have mixed feelings about this since it's a regressive tax and one that disproportionately punishes the poor (who disproportionately suck on cancer sticks). But millions of revenue would be raised for children's health coverage, at the expense of those who greatly contribute to children's poor health. I'm in favor of anything that helps cut down the number of smokers (and reduces my taxpayer's bill for their health or lack thereof).
87 - Alternative Energy / Force Oil Companies to Pay Fair Share
YES. I could write an entire week's worth on this initiative, which is turning into the most expensive battle in the history of state initiatives. (Do people really spend millions to fight alternative energy proposals? People do. Chevron.) I will admit those slick oil company-sponsored commercials almost fooled me; I'm not thrilled about the idea of higher gas prices since they constitute a regressive tax, disproportionately punishing the working poor and middle class. But as I understand the fine print, it will be very difficult for the oil companies to pass off their slightly higher costs to the consumer.
Essentially, this initiative just helps California catch up to other Pacific coast states. Cali is the only state that doesn’t tax oil companies for drilling near its shores; apparently, our state treasury takes in more from hunting and fishing licenses than from drilling fees.
Plus, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Julia Roberts have told you enough about all the good things Prop 87 does for the environment. And when Julia Roberts speaks on the environment, I listen.
88 - Education Funding
YES. This tax is so infinitesimal that it hardly matters. But more money for schools? Sure.
89 - Political Campaigns
YES. I'm torn on this, actually. This is an initiative that boldly taxes those corporations that make the election process unfair. It also limits the speech of certain groups, which violates my First Amendment absolutist principles. But the political process today is so imbalanced and dysfunctional that this initiative seems necessary. A similar law is apparently working well in Arizona.
90 - Government Destruction of Rent Control and Local Environmental / Safety Laws
GOD, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. PLEASE BABY BABY PLEASE NO. This is NOT about eminent domain. It is, however, the worst thing to come along since Prop 13. This allows property owners -- mainly big landlords and big corporations -- to get money back anytime the government does something that causes a "substantial economic loss to private property." It basically would kill rent control, zoning laws, and environmental regulations, and cost taxpayers billions of dollars every year and clog up our courts. Frightening.
* * *
As for California statewide races, I'm pretty much supporting the entire Democratic ticket, even though Camejo would make a great governor. Schwarzenegger isn't the worst Republican in the world (note: not saying much) and Angelides may have only a tiny fraction of his charisma, but Angelides supports gay marriage and universal health care and doesn't say embarrassing things about Latinas.
<< Home