If you use the ballot measures as an indicator of the perspective of California voters, they said ...
Yes: 20, 22, 25, 26
No: 19, 21, 23, 24, 27
Bold marks indicate matches between the party endorsement and how Californians voted.
The Libertarians
Yes: 19, 22, 23, 26
No: 21, 25
Undeclared: 20, 24, 27
The Greens
Yes: 19, 21, 24, 25
No: 23, 26
Undeclared: 20, 22, 27
The Democrats
Yes: 21, 24, 25, 27
No: 20, 22, 23, 26
Undeclared: 19
The Republicans
Yes: 20, 23, 26
No: 19, 21, 24, 25, 27
Undeclared: 22
Stunning isn't it?
Californians voted with the Republican recommended position in 5 of 9 races. Yet, no Republican won a statewide race in California last Tuesday.
Thus, it appears when you take away the "R" and "D" next to the item and vote purely on the issue like a ballot measure, California voters hold Republican views.
A ballot measure is about choosing yes or no about a given idea. In that situation, Californians were practical and voted very much in line with the Republican recommended positions.
But when one votes for a candidate, there are some feelings a voter has for "R" or "D" and for the specific candidate. In this situation, the California voter appears to be driven by something other than practicality.
What is the "meta-narrative" about voting "R" or "D."
What do you think?
Showing posts with label Nov 2010. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nov 2010. Show all posts
Politics: No on Prop 19
Do I think widespread pot smoking is good for society?
NO!!!
But the reality is that the medical marijuana law has resulted in almost de facto legalization.
Thus, from a governmental point of view, what is the proper regulation of the stuff?
Alcohol and tobacco are heavily regulated and taxed and proponents of prop 19 say that they want to see marijuana moved into the same category.
Did the drafters of Prop 19 do a good job?
I figured the newspaper that is most likely to support legalization of marijuana is the San Francisco Chronicle.
And guess what?
They came out against Prop 19. Excerpt:
NO!!!
But the reality is that the medical marijuana law has resulted in almost de facto legalization.
Thus, from a governmental point of view, what is the proper regulation of the stuff?
Alcohol and tobacco are heavily regulated and taxed and proponents of prop 19 say that they want to see marijuana moved into the same category.
Did the drafters of Prop 19 do a good job?
I figured the newspaper that is most likely to support legalization of marijuana is the San Francisco Chronicle.
And guess what?
They came out against Prop 19. Excerpt:
Even Californians who support the legalization of marijuana should be extremely wary of Proposition 19. This is a seriously flawed initiative with contradictions and complications that would invite legal chaos and, more than likely, fail to deliver its promised economic benefits.I call for a NO vote on Prop 19.
........
Among the specific problems:
Workplace: A nondiscrimination clause would prevent employers from firing or disciplining workers who used marijuana unless an employer could prove that job performance was impaired. Pre-employment testing would be banned. Conflicts with federal law abound. For example, the feds require operators of planes, trains, trucks and buses to be removed from their jobs if they test positive for any narcotic.
Tax and regulation: The measure establishes no state controls over distribution and product standards ... Prop. 19 allows the 58 counties and hundreds of cities to come up with their own taxation and regulatory schemes. In this critical element of legalization, Prop. 19 is more akin to the chaotic approach taken with medical marijuana than to the heavily taxed-and-regulated treatment of alcohol.
Cultivation: Property owners throughout the state would have a right to establish a 5-by-5-foot plot of cannabis plants for personal consumption - a right that could not be usurped by local ordinance. Anyone familiar with the stench and potential height of marijuana plants might pause at the thought of their proliferation in the neighborhood.
Transit: The proposition does not affect current laws against driving while impaired by cannabis, but it does allow passengers to smoke in a moving vehicle, proponents acknowledge. This is another element of 219 that that defies common sense.
Politics: No on Prop 23
Prop 23 is an effort to reverse AB32.
In brief, AB32 sets a target of lowering California's greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. It is estimated that will require a 25% reduction.
As such, California will need to have more Green Energy.
Green energy is useful in that it reduces air pollution and lesses our dependance on foreign sources of energy. Thus, one can make the argument for Green Energy on those basis without resorting to "end-of-the-world as we know it" global warming scenarios.
Prop 23 tries to "soften" its tone by saying it would only suspend AB32 until unemployment reaches 5.5% for one year. Unfortunately, that level of unemployment has been rarely reached. The drafters of Prop 23 should have been more honest in calling for an outright appeal.
Are the goals of AB32 too ambitious?
Probably.
As the application of AB32 gets underway, we will begin to see its impact both positive and negative. It is quite possible that the target date and target reductions may need to be modified. Thus, I recommend a No vote on prop 23. Let's wait and see the impact of AB32 before we call for rescinding it or modifying it.
In brief, AB32 sets a target of lowering California's greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. It is estimated that will require a 25% reduction.
As such, California will need to have more Green Energy.
Green energy is useful in that it reduces air pollution and lesses our dependance on foreign sources of energy. Thus, one can make the argument for Green Energy on those basis without resorting to "end-of-the-world as we know it" global warming scenarios.
Prop 23 tries to "soften" its tone by saying it would only suspend AB32 until unemployment reaches 5.5% for one year. Unfortunately, that level of unemployment has been rarely reached. The drafters of Prop 23 should have been more honest in calling for an outright appeal.
Are the goals of AB32 too ambitious?
Probably.
As the application of AB32 gets underway, we will begin to see its impact both positive and negative. It is quite possible that the target date and target reductions may need to be modified. Thus, I recommend a No vote on prop 23. Let's wait and see the impact of AB32 before we call for rescinding it or modifying it.
Politics: No on Prop 22
Prop 22 in the words of the Sacramento Bee tries to build a moat around local funding.
I have great sympathy for local governments tired of the California legislature raiding their funds to try to fix their budget messes but as is often the case, the measure over-reaches.
I like the part that protects transportation funding and allocations of property taxes. But not permitting state fuel taxes to help pay state transportation bonds? Protecting redevelopment agencies which are ripe for abuse?
The lefty Los Angeles Times and the righty Orange Country Register have also come out against Prop 22.
I have great sympathy for local governments tired of the California legislature raiding their funds to try to fix their budget messes but as is often the case, the measure over-reaches.
I like the part that protects transportation funding and allocations of property taxes. But not permitting state fuel taxes to help pay state transportation bonds? Protecting redevelopment agencies which are ripe for abuse?
The lefty Los Angeles Times and the righty Orange Country Register have also come out against Prop 22.
Politics: No on Prop 25
The budget situation in California is a mess.
Some say Prop 13 limits on property taxes are too strict. Others point to Prop 98 that requires education automatically getting the lion's share of budgetary dollars. Legislators complain about the 2/3 rule to pass taxes and the budget. Think tankers point to the wild fluctuations in revenue due to the capital gains/stock options taxation system. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Prop 25 calls for the end of the 2/3 rule for passing budgets and says it will dock legislator's pay for each day they miss the budget deadline. The Sacramento Bee calls it a partisan power play.
I think the "punishment" really has no teeth. The legislature could pass a "phony" budget to meet the deadline because there is a difference between passing a budget and enacting a budget (Governor signs it and Legislature appropriates money for it). So that part of the measure sounds good but probably is meaningless.
But what about the impact of the simply majority rule?
Under the current 2/3 rule, there are two scenarios:
(1A) If Mr. Brown wins as polls indicate and most Democrat state legislators hold their seats as is likely, the legislative majority party will also hold the governorship, thus, the only potential check on their power is the 2/3 rule in passing a budget. It should be noted that the Democrats hold nearly 2/3 of the seats in the State Assembly and State Senate in the latest legislative session.
(2A) The past few years with the Governator, the budget battle was a three-way fight between the majority party in the legislature, Governor Arnold and the minority party in the legislature.
If Prop 25 passes, a simple majority rule would be in effect for budgets. How would those two scenarios play out:
(1B) If Mr. Brown wins as polls indicate and most Democrat state legislators hold their seats as is likely, the legislative majority party will also hold the governorship. The minority party in the legislature could fall asleep and be stone silent at every committee meeting and the budget would pass.
(2B) If the Governor is of the opposing party to the legislative majority party, the check on the budget would be the governor's willingness to exercise a veto of the whole budget or line-item vetoes of specific sections.
The Sac Bee supports the idea of simple majority budgets but wants additional reforms which Prop 25 doesn't have. Thus, I join the Sac Bee in calling for a NO on Prop 25.
Some say Prop 13 limits on property taxes are too strict. Others point to Prop 98 that requires education automatically getting the lion's share of budgetary dollars. Legislators complain about the 2/3 rule to pass taxes and the budget. Think tankers point to the wild fluctuations in revenue due to the capital gains/stock options taxation system. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Prop 25 calls for the end of the 2/3 rule for passing budgets and says it will dock legislator's pay for each day they miss the budget deadline. The Sacramento Bee calls it a partisan power play.
I think the "punishment" really has no teeth. The legislature could pass a "phony" budget to meet the deadline because there is a difference between passing a budget and enacting a budget (Governor signs it and Legislature appropriates money for it). So that part of the measure sounds good but probably is meaningless.
But what about the impact of the simply majority rule?
Under the current 2/3 rule, there are two scenarios:
(1A) If Mr. Brown wins as polls indicate and most Democrat state legislators hold their seats as is likely, the legislative majority party will also hold the governorship, thus, the only potential check on their power is the 2/3 rule in passing a budget. It should be noted that the Democrats hold nearly 2/3 of the seats in the State Assembly and State Senate in the latest legislative session.
(2A) The past few years with the Governator, the budget battle was a three-way fight between the majority party in the legislature, Governor Arnold and the minority party in the legislature.
If Prop 25 passes, a simple majority rule would be in effect for budgets. How would those two scenarios play out:
(1B) If Mr. Brown wins as polls indicate and most Democrat state legislators hold their seats as is likely, the legislative majority party will also hold the governorship. The minority party in the legislature could fall asleep and be stone silent at every committee meeting and the budget would pass.
(2B) If the Governor is of the opposing party to the legislative majority party, the check on the budget would be the governor's willingness to exercise a veto of the whole budget or line-item vetoes of specific sections.
The Sac Bee supports the idea of simple majority budgets but wants additional reforms which Prop 25 doesn't have. Thus, I join the Sac Bee in calling for a NO on Prop 25.
Politics: Yes on Prop 21
As a general rule, I don't like budgeting by ballot box.
But sometimes the Legislature just isn't doing its job.
The California State Parks are a treasure that needs support in order to preserve them for today and future generations.
Is adding a Vehicle License Fee of $18 the best way to fund California State Parks?
Probably not. But since the Legislature isn't getting the job done, this proposition does.
Yes on Prop 21.
Politics: No on Prop 24
The California Legislature made some changes in the business tax laws that lowered their taxes.
Prop 24 rescinds those changes.
California has gained a reputation for being business unfriendly and passing Prop 24 will further fuel that perception.
I'm recommending a NO on Prop 24.
Prop 24 rescinds those changes.
California has gained a reputation for being business unfriendly and passing Prop 24 will further fuel that perception.
I'm recommending a NO on Prop 24.
Politics: No on Prop 26
What is a fee and what is a tax?
Generally, taxes are broad based (income, sales, property) and go to general revenue for services widely used (education, public safety, etc.). Fees are usually paid by a specific group and go to specific programs.
The lines do get blurred in some cases: the vehicle license fee for automobiles is pretty broad based and sounds more like a tax than a fee and there are some fees that wind up being used for things with wider benefit (i.e. environmental programs).
Legislatively, taxes can only be raised with a 2/3 vote while fees can be raised with a simple majority.
Prop 26 calls for some fees to be considered taxes and thus under the 2/3 vote rule for passage in the legislature.
There are situations where super-majorities make sense: you want broad consensus on a major policy issue.
I don't think fees crosses that threshold.
Generally, taxes are broad based (income, sales, property) and go to general revenue for services widely used (education, public safety, etc.). Fees are usually paid by a specific group and go to specific programs.
The lines do get blurred in some cases: the vehicle license fee for automobiles is pretty broad based and sounds more like a tax than a fee and there are some fees that wind up being used for things with wider benefit (i.e. environmental programs).
Legislatively, taxes can only be raised with a 2/3 vote while fees can be raised with a simple majority.
Prop 26 calls for some fees to be considered taxes and thus under the 2/3 vote rule for passage in the legislature.
There are situations where super-majorities make sense: you want broad consensus on a major policy issue.
I don't think fees crosses that threshold.
Politics: Nov 2010 ballot - LA Times and Orange County Register endorsements
The LAT is a well known lefty paper. The OCR is a well know righty paper.
Here are their views on the ballots for this Nov...
LAT:
YES: 20,25
NO: 19,21,22,23,24,26,27
OCR
YES: 20,23,26
NO: 21,22,24,25,27
UNDECIDED: 19
They share in common views on props 20,21,22,24,27 which is 5 of 9!
All the items this year are initiatives and are probably poorly written or bad ideas or both such that the newspaper editorial boards at the LAT and OCR which live at both ends of the political spectrum have issued the same endorsement for 20 and against 21,22,24 and 27.
Here are their views on the ballots for this Nov...
LAT:
YES: 20,25
NO: 19,21,22,23,24,26,27
OCR
YES: 20,23,26
NO: 21,22,24,25,27
UNDECIDED: 19
They share in common views on props 20,21,22,24,27 which is 5 of 9!
All the items this year are initiatives and are probably poorly written or bad ideas or both such that the newspaper editorial boards at the LAT and OCR which live at both ends of the political spectrum have issued the same endorsement for 20 and against 21,22,24 and 27.
Politics: Yes on 20, No on 27
Figure is from the Official Voter Information Guide.
Prop 20 and 27 are about how California does redistricting which is something that has to be done after each census.
In Nov 2008, Californians passed Prop 11 (I supported prop 11) to set up the Citizens Redistricting Commission.
Prop 20 extends their work to include drawing districts for House seats.
Prop 27 disbands the Citizens Redistricting Commission and returns that function to the State Legislature.
Suffice to say, since I supported prop 11, I don't want it reversed by supporting prop 27.
The liberal SF Chronicle says Yes on 20 and No on 27.
The conservative Orange County Register says Yes on 20 and No on 27.
They agree!
How often does that happen?
No brainer: Yes on 20 and No on 27.
Politics: 2010 November Cal Ballot Measures
Plan to blog through each proposition on the November 2010 California ballot.
But first, a round-up of the endorsements from the political parties.
Bold face marks where I agree with the respective party positions.
The Libertarians
Yes: 19, 22, 23, 26
No: 21, 25
Undeclared: 20, 24, 27
The Greens
Yes: 19, 21, 24, 25
No: 23, 26
Undeclared: 20, 22, 27
The Democrats
Yes: 21, 24, 25, 27
No: 20, 22, 23, 26
Undeclared: 19
The Republicans
Yes: 20, 23, 26
No: 19, 21, 24, 25, 27
Undeclared: 22
Rene's Recommendations:
19 NO
20 YES
21 YES
22 NO
23 NO
24 NO
25 NO
26 NO
27 NO
But first, a round-up of the endorsements from the political parties.
Bold face marks where I agree with the respective party positions.
The Libertarians
Yes: 19, 22, 23, 26
No: 21, 25
Undeclared: 20, 24, 27
The Greens
Yes: 19, 21, 24, 25
No: 23, 26
Undeclared: 20, 22, 27
The Democrats
Yes: 21, 24, 25, 27
No: 20, 22, 23, 26
Undeclared: 19
The Republicans
Yes: 20, 23, 26
No: 19, 21, 24, 25, 27
Undeclared: 22
Rene's Recommendations:
19 NO
20 YES
21 YES
22 NO
23 NO
24 NO
25 NO
26 NO
27 NO
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)