Well, I just got my ballot for this year's election in the mail. And may I say, to any Californians reading this blog, you really should sign up to be a Permanent Vote-by-Mail Voter! It's so nice to get your ballot early and have time to fill everything out. Why stand in line if you don't have to? But enough about that.
I was getting around to filling out my ballot when I realized I don't know how to vote on the ballot propositions. Well, there are some helpful recommendations at this site from various organizations. But I want to know what the citizens and our visitors think! Why don't we collect some thoughts here and then we can make a master post of our recommendations later. For our out-of-state or foreign visitors, you can wade through overviews of the various propositions at this site.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Ballot Proposition Recommendations
Posted by Bell Curve at 9:21 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I just voted. I was drinking some wine, so I don't remember all of it, but basically I'm in such a funk about CA I did the following: (1) Voted for the new sales taxes for police and transit, 'cause we need both and this is all we can do; (2) Voted for all the bond issues even though I think more debt is idiotic because we need the infrastructure so badly - everything except the boondoggle for new prisons; (3) Voted for the crime prevention measures that reduces penalties for marijuana; (4) Voted against all the social engineering crap - the mandatory parental notification for abortion and elimination of equal marriage rights.
Oh, and I voted for proposition 2 for less cruelty to farm animals. That's a moral issue.
Do us a favor and check the ol' ballot for hanging chads before you send it in--or whatever the Ink-a-Vote equivalent is. Friends don't let friends vote drunk :-)
I plan to vote YES for these three propositions only:
YES on #1A: High speed rail. This is the kind of forward-looking infrastructure investment for which the bonds process was intended. It creates jobs and solves traffic issues. We've been waiting for like six years to get to vote on this one.
YES on #5: The "Drug Dealer's Bill of Rights" (as its detractors call it). We have stayed the course on the war on drugs for too long. Time to reform the system to emphasize rehab instead of prisons. It's sure worth a try!
YES on #11: Redistricting. We've thrashed this out on the blog before. Suffice it to say, to nobody's surprise, I am voting for this one.
I plan to vote NO on everything else:
NO on #2. Sorry, but I didn't vote to ban horse meat either. We need a comprehensive legislative approach to animal rights, not a flurry of these weird, inflexible, one-off statutes.
NO on #3. Sorry, but we passed a bond act for Children's Hospitals back in 2004. Time for other projects (i.e., high speed rail) to get their turn.
NO on #4. Why do we have to vote down abortion restrictions almost every year?! This is frustrating. No, no, no.
NO on #6. Ballot-box budgeting that restricts the general fund is bad enough, but this measure also makes new crimes and increases penalties. We already have enough men and women behind bars that we are starting to rival China. This is not the answer.
NO on #7. This is a deceptive proposition that would hurt the alternative energy market, not help it.
NO on #8. Duh.
NO on #9. The point of this "victims rights" initiative is to make it harder for prisoners to get parole. Like the governor ever paroles anyone anyhow!
NO on #10. T. Boone Pickens funded this mess. Why should we subsidize natural gas cars? This is bizarre to me.
NO on #12. I know, I know, Veterans deserve homes. But if the legislature wants to help them, they should provide tax money, not issue bonds. Bonds are for infrastructure investment, not ongoing expenses.
...I am open to persuasion on many of these--so please, give me your input. Thanks.
I can't believe you guys are voting for more bond issues. You'll never pay them off unless you raise taxes out there which you'll never be able to do because of the 2/3 budget majority rule.
Didn't Schwarzenegger just alert the Feds to the possibility that California would need several billion in bail out dough to tide them over?
What-ever. We need stuff and can't raise taxes. So what's to do? I'm out of ideas. At least it's for capital expenditures, which is why you borrow. Arnie made us borrow for expenses, which is nuts.
My tendency is to vote NO on all propositions just because I am sick of junking up the system.
I will vote yes on 1A. I want high speed rail badly and I want to buy the tax free bonds that will allow us to buy it. I want a European style transport system in this state. I am tired of driving. I have decided that all investment outside my 401K will be based on 1) companies that I actually patronize and 2) things that I really believe in. High speed rail is long over due and it is something EVERYONE in the state will benefit from, not just special interests. And it will create jobs! Of course, it will take 50 years to build and run way over budget, no doubt. But hey, better get started now.
RbR... Yes, I am voting for a bond measure. But I don't feel so bad because I'm voting against all the bond measures except this one--and this measure has been deferred several times and should have been voted on a long time ago.
My basic rule on bond measures for the past decade has been: yes for building schools and roads. No for everything else. (OK, so 1A is rails not roads, but "schools and roads" sounded more folksy than "education and transportation". And dontcha know it's all about sounding more folksy this year *wink*)
I actually voted yes on #11 (redistricting) because I think a bipartisan commission is much better than a supposedly non-partisan commission. And because I agree that Gerrymandering is getting really, really bad.
Yes, RBR, CA will need an emergency bailout loan from the Feds. For about $10 billion. That much is probably in coin jars on Paulson's desk about now.
We gotta get back all the money we haven't been getting, but should have been getting all this time. What is it? We get something like 60 cents for every dollar we send to Washington? And since we are subsidizing Mexico . . .
Post a Comment