.
I’ve spent 5 minutes studying the 11 propositions on the November state ballot. I’m sure that’s more time than the average voter will spend on them, and way more than the legions of voters who will not even vote, so let’s cut to the chase on my analysis:
30 – Temporary state tax hike to increase revenue in hope of dealing with the perpetual state budget deficit. People making more than $250,000 a year would see their state income tax go up for 7 years, and we all would see the state sales tax go up by ¼% for 5 years. Something needs to be done about this state budget problem, and we probably cannot just cut our way out of this mess. It’s worth a try, especially since it sticks it to high earners. Yes.
31 – Changes the state budget process to a 2 year cycle and allows local governments to request to run some state programs. This seems like something a policy wonk might want to study. That’s not me. It’s too complex. Besides, haven’t we seen enough of “local control” to know it does not work either? No.
32 – This is about one group of special interests (conservative Republicans) trying to cripple the ability of another group of special interests (public sector unions) to influence legislators and thus legislation and public policy. Would the resultant uneven playing field be better or worse than the current situation? I think worse, and major newspapers like the Orange County Register, LA Times and Sacramento Bee seems to agree. No. on 32
33- Auto Insurance Prices – Considering the insurance history of drivers when setting insurance prices seems logical to me. Yes on 33.
34 – Yet another try to eliminate the death penalty in California for certain crimes. Go ahead, make my day. But in the meantime, No on 34.
35 –Cracks down on human traffickers including requiring those convicted to register as sex offenders. Might be better if it required the Orange County Human Relations Commission to better define what a hate crime is and is not. Seems like a solution in search of a problem. No.
36 – Modifies California’s three strikes law to move toward assuring that a strike must be serious or violent. Stealing a pizza would apparently no longer result in a strike-three life sentence. With our prisons and jails over crowded, this one seems to make sense. Yes on 36.
37 – Genetically engineered foods must be labeled as such and cannot be marketed as “natural”. I wonder if they could be marketed as “unnatural”. This smacks of a nanny state proposal that NY Mayor Bloomberg would like, but I don’t. Besides, who reads labels anyway? No. on 37.
38 – This one competes with 30. It would raise taxes specifically for public education. Yet another proposal to build a fence around tax revenue so it must be spent on only a specified program, whether it is needed or not. 30 makes more sense. No on this one.
39 – Seems to close a state income tax loophole by requiring businesses to pay income taxes on income from sales made in California. Sounds logical. Yes on 39.
40 – Yet another attempt to modify the process in California that is used to figure out the boundaries of political districts. This time the California Supreme Court would appoint people to do it. We keep seeing ballot proposals to deal with political district boundaries. Must be the last one we voters approved is not liked by someone. That has to be good. No. on 40.
It’s only early October, so I reserve the right to change my mind on any of these Propositions. But for now, at least this provides some early critical thinking.
One where there’s a catch.
33- Auto Insurance Prices – Considering the insurance history of drivers when setting insurance prices seems logical to me. Yes on 33.
Prop 33 is one of those trickster initiatives funded almost wholly by Mercury Insurance to eliminate consumer protections that we have all been benefiting from.
Billionaire Mercury Insurance Chairman George Joseph is not funding the initiative so his company can make less money. He would charge people whose insurance had lapsed hundreds of dollars a year more, using that money to give a tiny discount to other policyholders. But an overall hike in auto insurance rates will likely surpass that mini-discount as more people are unable to afford new insurance. Uninsured drivers raise insurance rates for every insured driver.
Of course, there’s the other side. If we can’t trust billionaire insurance ceonistas, who can we trust?
Yeah, OBNO, I was gonna get to that. Don’t you remember this one from two years ago, Prop 17? It got roundly defeated, and I think THAT was like Mercury Insurance’s third attempt, which would make this year’s 33 their fourth. It’s hard to believe it’s doing well in the polls this time, did we just get tired of fighting it over and over?
I need to reprint my old “Friends Don’t Let Friends Vote for Prop 17” which was pretty popular. Gotta see if I need to make any changes besides the title.
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2010/04/friends-dont-let-friends-vote-for-prop-16-17-part-two/
Prop 40 isn’t a vote to approve the redistricting process. That already happened a couple of years back. It’s a vote to approve the lines that the Citizens’ Redistricting Commission approved last year — lines that were compelling enough so that if Prop 40 fails, the courts are just likely to tweak them slightly.
Prop 40 was put on the ballot because of the fear among Republicans that Democrats would win a supermajority of the State Senate. It was also promoted by Schemin’ Mimi Walters because she didn’t want to have to move — make that pretend to move — into the new 37th District and could instead stay in her Laguna Niguel domicile. The Republicans have now given up on their No on 40 campaign. Vote Yes on 40 because voting No is a pointless waste of state judicial and legal resources that even no one who pushed for it still favors.
*35, 37, 38 & 40……
YES to all…….what, you didn’t want to comment on our earlier entry on the propositions?
Are you buying those “We are poor Central Family Farmers TV ads” who say can’t afford to label – “where our crops come from or that they are GMO?” Give it up!
It is the GMO’s that come from Ecuador and other places that will shock the American
public.
The rest we seem to agree with you.
Hadn’t noticed your slip-up on Prop 37, OBNO. It went right past me. I guess I just assumed ANYONE who writes for the Orange Juice is all for full disclosure and transparency.
You got some vestigial Republican nuttiness driving you blood-simple on this: “This smacks of a nanny state proposal.” Quite the opposite, this was the hard work of activists like our own Inge. If it was left up to the government, this would never happen, both Parties are perfectly happy raking in cash from Monsanto and the big food companies who don’t want it.
Good input, folks. When in doubt, re-read the last two sentences: It’s only early October, so I reserve the right to change my mind on any of these Propositions. But for now, at least this provides some early critical thinking.
Winships – no I am not buying that advertising cool-aid. I just believe 99% of consumers do not read labels and this is really a tempest in a tea pot. But if it makes you feel good, go for it!
Greg Diamond – if Mimi Waters is behind 40, you have changed my mind in an instant!
Vern – if Mercury Insurance is promoting a self-serving initiative, it sure speaks to how much worse things will be if Prop. 32 passes as big business, like Mercury, will be able to throw their millions into politics and organized labor will be penniless to challenge anything big business promotes.. No on 32!
So how does organized labor come out penniless in this? Are you stating that given a free choice, union members won’t turn over their cash for ideas they don’t support?
Over but not out – Sort of like the “slime burger meat”? That went over like a lead baloon……and people are still cautious. Some folks actually do care what they put into their own bodies. No Diet Coke…….No High Frutose Corn Syrup…NO GMO’s that you can identify. The big news will be that crops coming from cheap markets like Peru and Ecuador are using Monsanto GMO seeds. That will be a huge shocker.
Interesting column by Brian Joseph in the Oct. 9 Register about Prop. 40. The way I read it, he says that Prop. 40 was put on the ballot by Republicans to reverse a redistricting plan approved by the new State Commission as they felt it favored Democrats. However, a Court decision dealt with that issue and now even the Republicans are not campaiging for Prop. 40, saying it is a moot point Plus, this is one of those tricky ones where a no vote means yes, and a yes vote means no. All very confusing.
Ryan Cantor – the ads running in support of Prop. 32 claim unions and corporations will be prevented from contributing money to politicians. The no on 32 ads say it will not prevent corporations and political action committees from making those contributions, just unions. I wonder if unions could contribute with money given to them voluntarily by their members, vs. money coming from payroll withholding? You imply that unions could contribute such voluntary money, or are you suggesting union members could just contribute directly to the political cause of their choice without involving their union at all? This all seems so confusing also.
Great question. I have no idea. I haven’t dug into it anymore than what’s posted here.
In my opinion, the only institution that should be allowed to directly take money from a worker’s paycheck for a cause they don’t agree with is the government. That’s what sovereignty is all about.
I have a real moral problem with stating that it’s OK to allow a union to take a teacher’s money and spend it on a cause she doesn’t agree with. Her choice is to either quit her job or to fork over the dough. If you’re a teacher and you love what you do, it’s not like quitting your job and picking up a new career is an option.
Does Prop 32 fix my moral conundrum? I don’t know, but based on all the noise– I doubt it, but I won’t accept that this is some cosmic battle between evil corporate interests and public employee unions who are on my side in the fight for goodness and light in this country. It isn’t and they’re not.
In the end, if this were to pass, it’ll probably be overturned as unconstitutional anyway. SCOTUS just ruled on this and corporate political donations are protected free speech. Unless the components of the initiative can be considered individually (Greg?), the whole thing gets tossed.
I understand the principle that no one should be forced to be part of a labor organization or to be forced through that organization to fund things with which they might disagree. I may seem unfair. I disagree with that notion, though.
Allowing mandatory unionization and collective bargaining is a counterweight to something even more screwy that is even more deeply embedded into our law — allowing the limited liability of the corporate form to begin with. The opponents of unions — corporations — can create new subsidiaries, shovel their liability onto them, and then snuff them out of existence and extinguish those obligations. They can live in perpetuity and win legal battles with mere time-bound humans by delay. And on, and on.
I recognize the argument that investment requires limitations on investor liability; I don’t see an easy way around that while still maintaining the sort of society we appear to prefer. But it skews the political system in favor of the wealthy and it skews the legal system in favor of the manufacturer and employer who wrongs others. That needs to be countered and limited some way or our society suffers — as we’ve seen in recent decades. So, yeah, we need to allow mandatory contributions from payroll deduction as one small and inadequate way to counter them. That’s the price we pay for allowing corporations to exist in their present and awesomely powerful form.
How about some insight into the q I asked on if the provisions of the prop are severable (I’m sure I’m not using that right) from the rest? Will striking down the portion banning corporate donations also strike down the portion banning automatic deductions?
Also, we don’t negotiate civil liberties. They aren’t exchangeable for the “greater good”.
Severability is the right term. Whether provisions of a proposition are severable should ideally be stated in the legislation, but it could also be elsewhere in the code that would apply to the section where it would appear but be easy for me to miss without my doing a lot more research than I’m going to do (and I’m not even going to read the proposed language, because anyone can do it; it’s not like you need a law degree to see if there’s a severability clause.)
The ability to workers benefit from union activity without contributing to it is not a “civil liberty.”
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/vig-public-display/110612-general-election/prop-32/prop-32-text.pdf
The initiative does contain a severability clause, which doesn’t make me happy. This is an attempt at hoodwinking the electorate to assume an action as an outcome of their vote that the authors of the initiative know can’t happen. I’m not a fan of people being deceptive and this proposition isn’t what it says it is.
In other words, I don’t see this initiative doing what it says it’s going to do– ban direct contributions from a labor union or a corporation directly to a candidate. I think (both parts) of this get overturned.
I don’t see a problem with this Section 85151 (a) banning automated deductions and (b) allowing voluntary contributions. This seems like freedom ringing to me, but obviously not everyone is going to agree.
The argument against 32 is the moral equivalent of stating you have to buy the LA Times if you live in Los Angeles and you’re a Republican or Independent. Even though the paper has endorsed a Democrat in 99 out of the last 100 elections, the paper provides a check against evil interests in the county; and given a free choice, subscribers would not voluntarily subscribe to the paper in such numbers as to maintain the paper’s effectiveness, including its endorsement of Democrat candidates. As such, we have to force to you enter the market place, buy the paper, tolerate it’s political activity that you don’t agree with– all for the sake of curbing what we feel are bad influences that only the media can counter.
If you think the Times can and should be forced on everyone, vote “No”. If you think otherwise, consider voting “Yes.”
No, employment is different from reading choices. This requires a long discussion about the basic theory and philosophy behind unionism (and what happens without it), which is a hell of a long way to have to go for a small point.
*Tennessee Ernie Ford said it best: “16 Tons and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt….St. Peter don’t you call me….cause I can’t go….I owe my
soul….to the Company Store!” At least that is what Mitt Romney wants…..
I am voting YES on Prop 37! So what the author is saying – (who doesn’t have the BALLS give real name.) What are YOU afraid of?? If you want to be given ANY credibility why not give your real name?????? – you don’t think Americans have a right to know what they are eating.
So let me get this straight. You are against labeling, even though Monsanto promotes labeling in UK and Europe? 50 countries already label, including China and Russia.
We wouldn’t require a “nanny’ state if companies could be trusted, but they can’t because they dont care about safety, only MONEY!!!!! Haven’t you got that yet? And the label ‘natural’ means absolute ZIP!!!! Cat shit is natural, you want that in your cereal???
Here is definition of the word ‘natural’
“Natural” still has no regulatory definition. Of Natural, the FDA says:
From a food science perspective, it is difficult to define a food product that is ‘natural’ because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth. That said, FDA has not developed a definition for use of the term natural or its derivatives. However, the agency has not objected to the use of the term if the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances.
Too bad your article is online, if it were a newspaper, I’d line my birdcage with your November Propositions, because thats all its good for.
Inge – the purpose of this post was to start a civil discourse on the propositions. I think that goal was achieved, at least until your post. Regarding youir closing comment, it sounds like someone must have given you the bird – I can’t imagine why..