Let's take the easy one first ...
Prop 40 is the easiest with a YES vote.
Prop 40 is a yes/no vote on the new state senate district lines drawn up as a result of the 2010 census. There is no opposition to Prop 40 in any newspaper editorial board or major political party.
The rest are a bit more complicated and as I read through them and form a view, I'll post them below.
Vote NO on Prop 37.
This ballot calls for labeling of some food items to let the consumer know it contains genetically modified ingredients. This Freakonomics.com item highlights some of the problems with the labeling plan. Problem number one is that numerous scientific organizations have gone on record as saying that genetically modified food items are safe. Problem number two is that enforcing this kind of law can be complicated - which items should and should not have the labels - will likely result in lawsuits and could result in costly changes up and down the food production chain to comply with it. Because of all these headaches for no safety benefit, the six newspaper editorial boards I checked all came out against it.
The three-strikes law has broad support and this proposition modifies it in ways that make sense: if the third-strike conviction is not in the category of a serious or violent crime then the heavy punishment required in the current law doesn't apply. This revision to the three-strikes law is supported by all six newspaper editorial boards I checked.
Vote ??? on Prop 35 - leaning toward a NO.
Human trafficking is a terrible crime. Law enforcement should do all it can to stop it. Since Prop 35 claims to fight human trafficking it is likely to gain a lot of support. But is the ballot measure well thought out?
Its a good cause but there is some doubt the measure will actually address the problem. The LA Times and Sacramento Bee came out against Prop 35. The Bee gave its reasons: It's difficult to oppose Proposition 35, a measure that purports to stop a crime as despicable as human trafficking. But the proposition is overbroad and misdirected. The LA Times gave similar reasons: Sex trafficking of minors is a real problem. There is evidence that in Southern California, gangs that once sold drugs are turning now to forced prostitution, especially of vulnerable girls (and sometimes boys) in foster care. Effectively targeting the problem requires carefully crafted and thoughtful laws that keep pace with the constantly changing practices in the shadowy world of human exploitation. Proposition 35 is not equal to the task. However, four other newspaper editorial boards came out in favor as did BOTH the Democrat and Republican parties. The OC Register's endorsement also noted some of the problems with the ballot measure but gave its endorsement despite those reservations. KPCC Airtalk had the two sides on their October 16 show. The supporter of Prop 35 was a prosecutor and the opponent was a sponsor of the current human trafficking laws that are on the books already in California.
How would you vote on such an item?
Have to say, when I am in doubt, I tend to vote no.
NO on Prop 34.
This proposition ends the death penalty in California. If you oppose the death penalty for whatever reasons, the choice is rather obvious. But those who support the death penalty but find the current system unworkable may be tempted to support this proposition figuring what it offers will be better than the way things are now.
In one of my jury duty experiences, I was part of a pool of about 250 potential jurors for a potential death penalty case: murder with special circumstances. In California, the first part of the case is to determine if the defendant is guilty. If found guilty, the same jury continues its service in the second phase where they hear the prosecution argues for the death penalty while the defense argues for life imprisonment. As in the guilty/not guilty phase, the jury decision must be unanimous.
After three days of jury selection, most of us (including me) were excused by either the judge, the prosecution or defense. The experience was informative. I read in the LA Times that jury selection went on for two more days. Ultimately, the jury found the defendant guilty of murder with special circumstances and in phase two returned a verdict for the death penalty.
My experience indicated to me that the death penalty is not given out thoughtlessly. Some argue that LA County's judicial system is more careful than other parts of California but the review and appeals process after conviction and sentencing probably catches any errors. However, after the review and appeals, the death penalty doesn't actually get carried out because there is no approved method of execution. Thus, California has the death penalty on the books and all the mechanisms in place (at great cost) but in practice there is no death penalty. Shall we make it official and vote in Prop 34? Or do we keep the death penalty on the books and work toward reorganizing the death penalty system?
Below is a video in support of the death penalty by Dennis Prager where he discusses common objections and points out the choice is between NO capital punishment for ANY murderer while those who support capital punishment call for it in SOME cases.
Vote YES on Prop 33.
At first hearing, it sounds good to allow portability of auto insurance discounts for people with continuous coverage. But why is the proposition being supported by only one auto insurance company? If this change in auto insurance regulation was supported by more auto insurance companies, I would be more confident in the measure. Although, I suppose if many insurance companies supported it, the NO on Prop 33 people would claim the insurance companies are teaming up trying to gouge the customers. So in a sense it is a no-win situation for the insurance companies. But the fact is that some of the ballot measures this year are sponsored by one/few individual(s) (Prop 33, Prop 35, Prop 39) or seems to offer benefits to only one particular group (see Prop 39) and that immediately raises a caution in my mind. But what about the merit of the idea? If someone you don't like offers a reasonable idea do you dismiss the idea because of the messenger? That, in the realm of logic, is known as the genetic fallacy.
Thus, the question is, on the merits, should continuity of insurance coverage be part of the rate calculation? There are currently three main factors in setting rates in California: driver's safety record, miles driven and years of experience driving. The other discounts they offer are probably relatively minor compared to those three main factors. Would adding continuity of insurance coverage be unreasonable? Could it be that some auto insurance companies actually like the current rules because they don't have to compete to retain customers and fight "churn" which often happens in the cell phone service business? This could account for why they have not joined for or against this measure; they like it the way it is.
UPDATE: I did a google search to see if this kind of discount exists in other states. I found this list of discounts from Nationwide in Maine. The discount amounted up to 5%. I checked a few other states to see if this kind of discounts is also available: Michigan (no), Oklahoma (no) and Georgia (yes, up to 10%). I don't plan to check all 50 states! But suffice to say, this type of discount exists in other states. Whether it is a many or a majority, I do not know.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a customer of Nationwide and have no financial interest in Nationwide. I simply happen to find their auto insurance discount information through a Google search.
Prop 32 - YES
The measure places some additional regulations on political contributions. In particular, it removes the ability to have funds deducted from paychecks for political purposes. As such, it is strongly opposed by unions which gets a lot of money by this method.
The public employee unions essentially control Sacramento. This Wall Street Journal opinion piece describes the degree of control in stark terms. Excerpt: The governor originally proposed raising the top rate to 12.3% from 10.3%. That wasn't good enough for the nurses and teachers unions, which pressed for a 13.3% "millionaire's tax." ..... Public unions then picked up about 75% of the tab for gathering signatures and paid workers twice the going rate ($3 per signature) to speed things along. .... And without so much as lifting a finger, the governor has raised $50 million for his ballot campaign—nearly four times as much as the opposition. Public unions have kicked in more than $30 million.
Prop 31 - Leaning to a NO vote.
The proposition institutes some new procedures to state budgeting. Everyone agrees that Sacramento is a mess. But will this measure make things better? Airtalk's October 2 program discussed Prop 31. After listening to the program and hearing Larry Mantle say after reading the proposition in preparation for the broadcast and still not feeling sure about understanding it I don't feel like a total idiot. And after listening to both sides give their case, I don't know who or what to believe.
My impressions is that maybe the people behind prop 31 decided to "shoot the moon" and loaded it up with a grab bag of reforms. Perhaps it would have been better if they just stuck to one or two key reforms that would be easily understood.
My adage on propositions is when in doubt: vote no.
Prop 30, 38 and 39 are tax increase propositions and I plan to vote NO on all three.
Prop 39 makes some changes to business taxes and allocates some of the revenue for clean energy jobs. The first problem is that California is rated (according to Taxfoundation.org) as one of the worst in regards to business taxes compared to other states and so this is not going to repair the reputation of California as not business friendly. Secondly, even if the changes to the business taxes in Prop 39 were a good idea which this might actually be, why commit 1/2 of the revenue to clean energy jobs? California's budget is so out of balance, why carve out money for ONE specific sector of the economy? Sounds fishy to me that the supporters wrote a set-aside like this into the proposition.
Prop 30 and 38 raise taxes for education funding. The way they do so is different with Prop 30 being advocated by Gov. Brown and calls for a mix of increased income taxes and sales taxes. Prop 38 is backed by political activist Molly Munger and raises income taxes.
Education, of course, is a good cause. However, I am very concerned that the public school system needs to be reformed before more money is spent on it. I don't want to as the idiom goes "throw good money after bad." Also, I simply don't trust Sacramento to actually get the money to the right place.
Be sure to check out Reason Foundation where their concerns about Prop 38 was expressed this way:
... for 10 years the state has "deferred" nearly $10 billion of state revenue that is supposed to go to schools under Prop. 98. So even when we think we are voting to tie the government’s hands on how they spend our tax money, they seem to find ways around it. The problem is that Sacramento is not making education a budget priority.
In Reason's Prop 30 comments they offer this: Finally, since education spending has become the rhetorical lynchpin of Prop. 30, voters need to consider if they want more of their money to go into a system that refuses to reform, and where increases in spending are overwhelmingly being consumed by administration, not going to teachers and classrooms and instruction.
As of October 30 ...
30 - NO
31 - NO?
32 - YES
33 - YES
34 - NO
35 - NO??
36 - YES
37 - NO
38 - NO
39 - NO
40 - YES
No comments:
Post a Comment