Had the initiative been just somewhat better designed (like assuring the money raised was kept in the state and so on), then it would have passed.
I voted yes on 28 and no on 29. The term limit proposal was a bit confusing, but I'm against term limits, at least for non-national seats. I love my district councillor here in San Diego, Todd Gloria. I wish he could stick around forever. AFA statewide governance, I have no real opinions on anybody. I just moved here two years ago after 9 years in PA and 9 years elsewhere. I vote, but am not a huge fan of everyday politics. 29 was a "no" for me. The cancer research situation bugs me. I've never been too close to anybody with cancer, but at the same time, I would never wish the worst on them. But I'm more well versedwith cystic fibrosis, having had a few friends with it. But, yet, in this country, it's somehow "cool" to donate to cancer, even though it's so well known and has so much funding anyhow. But yet, CF, and other diseases, make you just as dead. I like the idea of another vice tax, but cancer research already has too much money going to it, and look: we still have cancer. I wouldn't mind seeing a prop to regulate donations and other funding and how it's used exactly. But, honestly, that's outside my realm of knowledge. And so, for me and other San Diegans (are you out there?), the mayoral final is on federal election day. Openly gay staunch Republican Carl de Maio vs. Democrat Bob Filner. Money vs. money.
My dad worked for American Cancer Society and American Heart. Paid, that was his job. Heart killed 3x as many people but Cancer Society was the promotion for him because it received 3x as many donations, so it was the bigger company.
I voted No on all the propositions both state and City of San Diego. I really don't feel strongly either way about term limits for city council. I will only vote Yes on propositions if they expand/protect civil rights and liberties. If the propositions have fiscal or budgetary impacts I stay away from them, even if I might agree with the sentiment. I gave Filner my vote, but none of the mayor candidates are my bag. What I liked about Filner is he seemed like the only candidate willing to play hardball with the Chargers and the Convention Center. I don't care for his unabashed partisanship or his knee-jerk siding with the municipal worker unions. He says he has a plan for reducing the pension deficit that doesn't involve go after their pension, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for that.
Bump! Time for the Fall 2012 update -- we've got a lot of propositions on the ballot this November, here in the Golden State, the state that has a horribly dysfunctional government but is still a pretty sweet place to live. Let's get right to it. Links below are to the Official California Voter's Guide. Proposition 30: Jerry Brown's tax initiative. Raises income taxes for incomes over $250K, and raises the state sales tax by 1/4 percent. There's another tax initiative to compete with this one, see Proposition 38 below. The goal here is to try to overcome the state's structural spending and tax issues which originate with Proposition 13, which passed about 35 years ago, and which really came into focus with the economic downturn from the last five years. See, almost everyone here in California really likes government spending -- even people who say they don't like government spending scream like stuck pigs when the schools and fire departments get cut -- but we don't like paying taxes, cause, you know, taxes. As long as property taxes were rolling in, the state was fine, but then property values took a nosedive a few years back, and we're hurting. So this is a "temporary" tax increase to try to shift the burden more to income taxes. The real solution is to repeal Proposition 13, which at this point is mostly letting corporations spend way less on property taxes than they should, but that's politically untenable. I'm voting for this, but I don't expect it to pass. Proposition 31: Switches state budgeting to a two-year cycle instead of yearly, and puts some other restrictions on the state budget. I haven't heard too much about this one -- there's not nearly as much emphasis on this one compared to some of the others (30, 32, 37, etc.). The state budget is all smoke and mirrors anyways, so I'm not sure if this will help or make it worse. The argument against (at the link on the voter's guide above) uses more ALL CAPS than the argument for, which is usually an indicator that I should support this, but I haven't decided yet. Proposition 32: prevent unions from automatically deducting money from employee paychecks for political purposes. The backers claim that this will get "special interests" out of campaign financing, but it's about crippling the unions. Big money will be spent on this one -- California has some of the most powerful public employee unions (e.g. teachers, prison guards) around and they are fighting this one with all they've got. I'm opposed, but I think how you feel about this one is more or less dependent on how you feel about unions in general. I don't expect this to pass. Proposition 33: Lets auto insurance companies raise rates on customers who ever had a gap in coverage. We had this dance two years ago -- Proposition 17 was sponsored by the same guys, and it got defeated. Of course, the beauty of the California proposition system is that the sponsors can come back as often as they like. This proposition is slightly different, but the goal is the same -- if anyone drops insurance coverage for some period of time (say, they lose their job and can't afford a car any more) and then comes back (say, they get a job and need to start driving again), insurance companies get to jack up their rates. The difference between Proposition 17 and this one is that Proposition 17 did not have an exceptions for military service -- someone gets deployed to Afghanistan for a year, so they drop their car insurance (why pay for it when they're going to be out of the country for a year?) and then when they get back, their rates get raised. Proposition 33 now prevents this from happening to active duty military. But it still screws the unemployed. I'm voting no. Proposition 34: Repeals the death penalty. Pretty straightforward. I hope this passes. Proposition 35: Increases sentences for people convicted of human trafficking crimes -- essentially putting them at the same level as sex offenders. I haven't looked at this one yet. The argument for in the voter's guide is basically "But what about the children?" while the argument against is "hey, if I have to whore myself out to feed my family, that doesn't make me a human trafficker". Or something. I don't have any strong opinions on whether human trafficking is a huge issue that needs additional sentencing -- I'm leaning no on this one. Proposition 36: Yet another attempt to adjust the Three Strikes law. There have been a bunch of these over the years. I haven't looked at the details of this one, but this basically boils down to whether you're a hippie or a square: being a hippie, I think the three strikes law is a bad idea and anything to weaken it is good, so I will vote for this, but the squares think that three strikes keeps people locked up for years for good reason, so they will vote against this. I doubt this will pass based on the previous attempts. Proposition 37: Genetically engineered foods must be labeled. I wasn't aware this was a big issue, but on NPR this morning they were talking about it. On one side, you have the "certified organic" farmers who want the other guys to have to put labels on their food. On the other side, you have the agri-industrial complex who don't want to have to put labels on their food. I don't really have a dog in this fight -- no opinion at this time. Proposition 38: the other tax increase proposition. Jerry Brown and the California democrats tried like hell to consolidate the various tax proposals and come up with the compromise which is now Prop 30, but whoever sponsored this one (some rich lady) didn't play ball, so now there are competing tax propositions. I think this one has a much smaller chance of passing -- most good little California democrats are lining up behind the governor to support prop 30. Proposition 39: something about out-of-state companies and tax loopholes. I'm not really sure who's arguing for what. Both the arguments before and against fail the CAPS LOCK test -- they both have too high of a ratio of CAPS LOCK to regular words. But the argument against uses the old "don't hurt our poor job creators" line which makes me mad. When in doubt, vote no -- but I'm torn on this one. Proposition 40: a referendum on the new district lines for the state senate. The district lines were redrawn after the 2010 census, and by state law (from a previous proposition) the redistricting was done by a bipartisan citizen's commission. The Republicans didn't like the lines, so they gathered signatures to put this referendum on the ballot. A Yes vote keeps the lines as specified by the commission, a No vote means that we get to go through redistricting again. The sponsors have apparently withdrawn their objections -- the argument against (by the Republicans who wanted the new districts undone) says "well, we don't object to this any more". So there you go. Folks from other states, commence your pointing and laughing.
Most organic farmers want the labels not to stick it to the competition, but b/c they believe in quality food. Dude. Chickens choose non-GMO seed food over GMO "food". More important, they don't want their heirloom seeds getting decimated by GMO seeds, which do not produce viable, reliable seeds. Think about this: a critical way to reduce costs as a farmer is to control seed costs, so if your seed base gets contaminated by GMO seeds, you now have to buy seeds again. Every year. To boot, Monsanto et al ****ing sue small farmers for "stealing" their seed that gets blown over by the ****ing wind!!! The real draw of GMO seeds for growers is that they splice foreign genes (say, from a frog) to control specific insect threats, but it's critical to get the other pesticides (conveniently sold by the same company) to make it financially feasible to implement a GMO+pesticide pest management system. So if your field is now producing GMO "crops" through no fault of your own, you essentially are screwed unless you start spraying for the other bugs that are going to be attracted to your "crop". The body can't recognize GMO "food" b/c its DNA is out of whack. And yet, it's found in a ton of food, even baby formula!
Under five weeks to go update! Most of the political ads I am exposed to are on the radio, when commuting to and from work. I mostly listen to NPR (which of course does not have ads), the local news radio station (which has tons of ads), and "The Bay Area's Old School" when I feel like I need some Gap Band or Janet Jackson to get me through my commute. California is not competitive in the Presidential race, and none of our statewide or local races are competitive, so all of the political ads I hear are about the propositions. I've been hearing ads for the following: No on 32 -- paid for by the public service unions, but they don't talk about how they're paid for by the public service unions, they just talk about how the special interests who sponsor this one have exempted themselves from the restrictions on spending and stuff. I haven't heard any ads in favor -- probably the guys who are paying for the ads recognize that running those ads in the Bay Area is a waste of time, so they're running them in Bakersfield and San Diego. Yes on 38 -- because it's for the children, you see? There haven't been a lot of ads for or against the other propositions, at least on the Bay Area news station. I hear that the pro-Prop 30 ads will start soon. Every so often, NPR has the "California Report" and they cover one of the propositions -- I heard something about Proposition 39 on that this week, and now I'm in favor of it, because they got some Orange County anti-tax guy to complain that it was just a tax hike on job creators, so my response was, suck it Orange County.
You're seeing and hearing ads? Maybe I'm not because I really don't listen to the radio or watch much broadcast or cable TV (soccer aside, of course). But really, I haven't seen anything. The most I've got around me are yard signs for local races. Supposedly I'm getting my ballot in the next few weeks. Perhaps I should figure this stuff out.
I'm seeing tons of ads on broadcast TV (network and basic cable, especially on MSNBC). So far: 30 pro 32 pro and con 35 pro and con 37 pro and con 38 pro 39 pro Mostly 32 and 37.
I finally sat down and worked my way through these damned propositions ... My reasoning was different on some of them, but for the first time I can remember I ended up aligning exactly with Kevin Drum's endorsements. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/california-propositions-november-2012 Though in the past I've usually differed with him on one or two measures in every election, I do wait for his analysis to come out. It's a good time saver, even if I end up disagreeing on some propositions. The hard cases were 31, 35 and 37. The bottom line for 35 and 37 is that they are badly written and I do not believe either of them should be on the ballot at all. This stuff belongs in the legislature. As much as I like 2-year budgeting, 31 is also badly written -- and again, the proposition process is a poor instrument for dealing with this. That said, I suspect all three of those will pass.
I'm in agreement with all of Drum's endorsements bar his opposition to 37 (GMO labelling). It's a long way from perfect, but it's good enough for my vote. I am also cynical about prop 30. Whilst I agree that California has screwed itself with prop 13 - and some people have made out like bandits because of it - I'm confused by this: California spends somewhere over 40% of its budget on education. But it's stated that if prop 30 fails to pass, nearly all of the triggered budget cuts will fall on education. Why is this? Did Brown cynically structure this so that the triggered cuts fall on something that he perceives people have more sympathy with, and which he could then argue for avoiding with this proposition?
CA spends 52 to 56% of its budget on education. If prop 30 fails to pass, $5.4bn of the triggered cuts of $6bn will be from education. That's 90%. Why the disparity in percentages?
Tracking all this shit down - including local bond measures - is exhausting. Anyway, I voted no on 37, which is the only one I was torn on. I'm actually for more specific food labeling laws, but not done via ballot measure. California is ********ed up, truly.
Agreed. I've spent hours just trying to fathom all the shit surrounding San Francisco City College. They're asking for a parcel tax even though the place has been horribly mismanaged and in danger of losing its accreditation. And some of the candidate statements for board member are "head in the sand" stuff. Problem is, the GMO companies have enough lobbbying $$$ to stop it happening in the legislature. That's what's even more fucked up.
Some of California's expenditures may be non-discretionary, meaning that by law they can't be cut below a certain level. That means other area of the budget (the discretionary ones) will take a greater percentage of cuts. That could be part of the answer. The non-partisan California Budget Project has some analysis of Props 30 and 38 - they might be able to give you a better answer. That's a great resource for non-political analysis of CA props.
Best description I've seen so far of the props. Still not sure about triggered cuts, but I think you're onto something about non-discretionary parts of the budgets. Schools are currently getting more than their prop 98 minimums, so it looks like the the discretionary part over those limits is being disproportionately hit. But... there is some interesting stuff that prop 30 also fixes a fudge in the 2011/12 budget: I take this to mean that schools would get back - nominally for 2011/12 - some of the cuts in the event prop. 30 doesn't pass. But who really knows?
Let me just say that old Prop 14 from 2010 fcuking sucks. Because of that stupid ass proposition my fcuking choice for Assembly is between two fcuking winger, moron Republicans. Fcuk that! I can't even do a damned write-in! That's not allowed under this new fcuking system. Seriously, this fcuking sucks. I'm not voting in that fcuking race at all. Pisses me off ... in case you didn't fcuking notice.
Sorry, but that is the kind of ignorance that causes science not to be taken seriously enough. Cancer is a VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY (et al.) difficult disease to "cure." On top of that, the US lost about 8 years+ of research because of the bioterrism requirements under Bush II. Further, there have been advances in cancer research that cross over into many other areas. Yet this proposition was about taxing a specific, known source of cancer for cancer research.
Which would go into other forms of cancer other than lung cancer, which is seeing far less occurrence as a result of smoking.
Current results: http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/ballot-measures/ With ~50% of precincts reporting, I think the only ones that we can really call are the following: 35 (human trafficking) is passing big 38 (the other tax increase) is failing big 40 (the redistricting referendum which is supposed to pass) is passing pretty big. As of now, 36 (three strikes reform) is passing by a lot, but I'm not sure that margin will stay as more results come in. Other three strikes reforms have always failed miserably, I'm not sure why this one is passing so well. 39 (the business tax loophole thing) is passing pretty well, but without knowing which precincts have and have not reported, I don't want to call this one. The others are all closer -- I think we need to wait until morning to make any judgements.