Here is how I am voting on the propositions this Tuesday.
Prop 30 & 38 : Education funding. YES on 30, NO on 38. Consider myself extorted. I can't let the drastic cuts (upto $6 billion) on education happen. Neither 30, nor 38 is perfect, but 30 aligns better with the governor's budget plans. If 30 fails, $6 billion cuts will happen this year, even if 38 passes. A reduction of the school year by 3 weeks is unthinkable. So I want 30 to pass. Someone pointed out that 30 and 38 will split the yes votes. So a better strategy for people yo care about education funding would be to vote YES for both, and hope at least one of them win. But I do not like 38. So I am taking my chances - YES on 30, NO on 38.
Prop 31: Two year budget cycle : NO: this budget reform proposition may be well intentioned, but it is too complicated, and according to many experts poorly fleshed out and poorly drafted. A definite no go for me is the provision to allow local governments to override state wide statutes. We can't let parochial considerations over rule hard fought state wide progressive measures relating to the environment, for example. And in principle, I am against adding complicated language to the constitution. It'll be a field day for lawyers and pundits, but the state's work will not get done.
Prop 32: Ban Union and Corporate Political donations from pay-roll deductions : NO : unfairly restricts unions while leaving big corporate political money pretty much untouched. Unions are political bodies. Unions need to collect fees from members, and payroll deduction is the convenient way. Prop 32 is a cynical play to under cut unions (corporations seldom use payroll deductions for political contributions - so it's deceptive to say this prop restricts both unions and corporations equally). If the real intention is to let union members choice of whether to contribute their money to the union's political spending or not, then a simple measure requiring a "opt out" provision for members would do.
Prop 33: Auto insurance "continuous coverage" discount. NO : Another disingenuous proposition, funded by the insurance industry. Though at first blush is seemed like it'll be a good thing for me - since I could shop around for insurance without losing loyalty discounts - in reality they are just after raising premiums for people with breaks in coverage. which might result in more uninsured motorists on the roads, which will not be cheaper for any one
Prop 34: End the Death Penalty. YES : There is both a moral and an economical argument in favor of ending the death penalty. Many innocent men are being executed, which is not acceptable. And even in air tight cases, the execution takes decades - costing many millions in legal expenditure and high security incarceration. Until the day forensics becomes 100% reliable (at least when declaring guilt, if not innocence), we can't find justification for applying the death penalty.
Prop 36: Fixing the Three Strikes Law : YES : Common sense fix to a flawed law. Currently, a minor felony (like shop lifting) can send someone to 25 years in prison if they had two previous serious or violent felony convictions. This is draconian. Prop 36 fixes it, while making sure that really bad felons (who've committed rape, etc. before) aren't let off easy.
Prop 39 : Income tax increase for multi-state corporations : NO : Very good idea, bad proposition. Closing the tax loophole gifted by the legislature to multi-state corporations in 2009 is a very good idea. But specifying that a good chunk ($550 million) of the new revenue must go to some niches like energy efficiency and the vague "create clean energy jobs" is a bad idea. It's propositions like this that make budgeting a nightmare in California. Wasted opportunity.
Prop 40 : Referendum on State Senate Redistricting plan : YES : I have voted in favor of the California Citizens redistricting commission before. Yes on Prop 40 would approve the commission's work. No brainer.
Prop 30 & 38 : Education funding. YES on 30, NO on 38. Consider myself extorted. I can't let the drastic cuts (upto $6 billion) on education happen. Neither 30, nor 38 is perfect, but 30 aligns better with the governor's budget plans. If 30 fails, $6 billion cuts will happen this year, even if 38 passes. A reduction of the school year by 3 weeks is unthinkable. So I want 30 to pass. Someone pointed out that 30 and 38 will split the yes votes. So a better strategy for people yo care about education funding would be to vote YES for both, and hope at least one of them win. But I do not like 38. So I am taking my chances - YES on 30, NO on 38.
Prop 31: Two year budget cycle : NO: this budget reform proposition may be well intentioned, but it is too complicated, and according to many experts poorly fleshed out and poorly drafted. A definite no go for me is the provision to allow local governments to override state wide statutes. We can't let parochial considerations over rule hard fought state wide progressive measures relating to the environment, for example. And in principle, I am against adding complicated language to the constitution. It'll be a field day for lawyers and pundits, but the state's work will not get done.
Prop 32: Ban Union and Corporate Political donations from pay-roll deductions : NO : unfairly restricts unions while leaving big corporate political money pretty much untouched. Unions are political bodies. Unions need to collect fees from members, and payroll deduction is the convenient way. Prop 32 is a cynical play to under cut unions (corporations seldom use payroll deductions for political contributions - so it's deceptive to say this prop restricts both unions and corporations equally). If the real intention is to let union members choice of whether to contribute their money to the union's political spending or not, then a simple measure requiring a "opt out" provision for members would do.
Prop 33: Auto insurance "continuous coverage" discount. NO : Another disingenuous proposition, funded by the insurance industry. Though at first blush is seemed like it'll be a good thing for me - since I could shop around for insurance without losing loyalty discounts - in reality they are just after raising premiums for people with breaks in coverage. which might result in more uninsured motorists on the roads, which will not be cheaper for any one
Prop 34: End the Death Penalty. YES : There is both a moral and an economical argument in favor of ending the death penalty. Many innocent men are being executed, which is not acceptable. And even in air tight cases, the execution takes decades - costing many millions in legal expenditure and high security incarceration. Until the day forensics becomes 100% reliable (at least when declaring guilt, if not innocence), we can't find justification for applying the death penalty.
Prop 35: Ban on Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery : YES : The laws to combat these evils need to be tightened. This prop has been criticized for being over reaching and too broad, and not providing funding. In spite of all that, it's necessary enough that I support it.
Prop 36: Fixing the Three Strikes Law : YES : Common sense fix to a flawed law. Currently, a minor felony (like shop lifting) can send someone to 25 years in prison if they had two previous serious or violent felony convictions. This is draconian. Prop 36 fixes it, while making sure that really bad felons (who've committed rape, etc. before) aren't let off easy.
Prop 37: Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods : NO : While, I am no fan of Big Food, or Monsanto, I am also not blindly against GM food. There is a lot of fear mongering around that. In principle, we need genetic engineering to be able to feed the soon to be 9 billion human tummies. So any regulation that throws a blanket road-block on GMO is not helpful in the long run. Prop 37 in particular sounds mostly harmless. Except it may turn out practically useless. I expect to see "may contain partially genetically modified ingredients" on all packaged food and even groceries, if this passes. At which point I'll ignore the label altogether.
Prop 39 : Income tax increase for multi-state corporations : NO : Very good idea, bad proposition. Closing the tax loophole gifted by the legislature to multi-state corporations in 2009 is a very good idea. But specifying that a good chunk ($550 million) of the new revenue must go to some niches like energy efficiency and the vague "create clean energy jobs" is a bad idea. It's propositions like this that make budgeting a nightmare in California. Wasted opportunity.
Prop 40 : Referendum on State Senate Redistricting plan : YES : I have voted in favor of the California Citizens redistricting commission before. Yes on Prop 40 would approve the commission's work. No brainer.
No comments:
Post a Comment