Friday, October 20, 2006

California Proposition Nov 2006

Prop 83 - Known as Jessica's Law. This law is extremely unrealistic. Some of the provisions of the law are good, but many are simply ludicrous. The onthingng that I find completely insane in the requirement for people tagged as "sex offenders" to wear a GPS tracking device for life. WTF? Not only is that completely pointless, it is a complete waste of public funds to maintain a system that has to keep track of these people. It is the first step to requiring more and more minor offenses to also have this GPS requirement limiting their freedoms. Sure, none of us like sex offenders, but I also don't like the fact that society feels it has the right to tell an undefined segment that it can go here, but can't go there, for LIFE! This is a slippery slop to totalitarianism. First it was repeat offender drunk drivers, now this nebulous class of sex offenders, then terrorist, then supposed gangbangers, then violent criminals, then any criminal, then any group who's views don't fit the social order. One day, it will be political opponents, and maybe the general population. Think I'm kidding or exaggerating? Just take a look at the end result just this kind of control over the population in North Korea! Already, the term "sex offender" has been expanded to include people that might be a bit surprising to many. It even has been applied to people that have never been convicted of a crime! How's that possible?! Imagine such limitations being applied to someone that has never been convicted of anything! It will happen. I'm reminded of the book 1984. Another fact that makes this prop just silly is that only 7% sexual assults are committed by registered sex offenders. Most incidents are perpetrated by someone that the victim knows from within their family or circle of friends. Should we next put GPS devices on everyone to prevent the other 93% of incidents? Jessica's law is far too broad. It needs to be more well thought out, and limited to increasing law enforcement's ability to catch perpetrators, increase of prison time, and increase of parole terms. It should also make medical treatment more dominate during and after prison terms. Anything else should be scrapped as unworkable or just ridiculous. NO!

Prop 84 - Proposition to protect and improve our water and nature resources infrastructure. I'm marginally yes. I don't have a strong opinion about this one though. Yes.

Prop 85 - This proposition seeks to establish a waiting period and Parental Notification before a minor can have an abortion. The previously rejected proposition for this same purpose attempted to define when life began in a first step to completely outlaw any abortions. I am in favor of requiring parental notification for any medical activity for a minor, but I'm against the attempts to erode away at a woman's right to choose. So, NO!

Prop 86 - Tax on cigarettes. One issue that hasn't been addressed is the fact that this proposition does remove some level of accountability by Hospitals. Why would a simple tax want to have any say in how Hospitals operate? It is very suspicious. No.

Prop 87 - This is a tax on California oil to fund Alternative Energy research, production and incentives. This is a very good idea. We need to pay for this now or later, and it is always more expensive later. Right now, Texas and Alaska get paid for the oil pumped from their states, but California does not. In fact, even though much of the oil we use is from our own state, we have traditionally paid much more for gas than any other state! We need to kick this oil habit, and this proposition is a big and correct step in the right direction to that goal. It will decrease our dependency on all oil (not just foreign). It takes money from oil company profits (billions of dollars) that should be paid to California anyway. For too long, the oil companies have been taking or oil, making too much money from us by selling it to us at the highest rates in the country. I'm voting Yes.

Prop 88 - I don't have a strong position on this one. So, since it is a tax without any strong purpose for me, I am voting no. (BTW, it's something to do with Education funding).

Prop 89 - It's called Political Campaigns. Public Financing. Corporate Tax Increase. Contributions and Expenditure Limits. Initiative Statute. It seeks to regulate public financing for campaigns, especially for all these propositions. However, it does go way to far. I like the idea of limiting corporation financing of political campaigns, but I'm against many of the other provisions, including taxing corporations to pay for public funding of political campaigns. I don't see the value in this. It would be much better to require TV and radio stations to provide certain amounts of free airtime dedicated to the political campaigns. This would go much farther to evening the playing field between the rich and powerful with grass roots. The more support one has by the people, the more airtime earned. So, while limiting corporations in their funding of pthingcal campaigns (a very good thang), this proposition is over reaching by forcing the bulk of all funding to come from the government. This can be used to eventually silence the minor or grass roots instead of helping them. In my opinion, this Prop is nothing more than a power grab attempt by particular unions. NO!

Prop 90 - This proposition seeks to limit State and Local government use of eminent domain for any other purpose other than public use. It also narrowly defines public use. It does a few other things too, which make the proposal a bit more palatable. I'm pretty much dead set against this proposition. In an attempt to limit government powers regarding eminent domain, it in fact opens the door for developers to do pretty much whatever they want, increasing urban sprawl, while allowing inner city degradation. Cities much develop both by expanding at reasonable rates and by urban renewal. Taking away a government's authority to carry out its responsibility to the people to keep our cities vital, this proposition tries to pull us back to a period in which cities expanded without regard, ignoring their interiors without any an organized overall plan. It puts communities at the mercy of large land owners and developer by taking away the public's right to have any say in the process. It will cost money strapped communities millions to revitalize city interiors, and open them up to unlimited lawsuits regarding any move towards urban renewal. Someone thought, "hey, it would be a good idea to limit government power." But what this proposition really does is limit the people's power to determine the course of their community's future. This is libertarianism taken to an unrealistic and poorly executed extreme. NO!

Prop 1A - This proposition strengthens Prop 42 on how sales tax revenue can be used for transportation purposes. Limiting government's power to fund projects is normally well intentioned, but usually has consequences. A marginal No from me.

Props 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E or all much needed bond measures. I'm marginally Yes on these.


ascap_scab said...

I have voted against Prop 89. While I am in favor of campaign finance reform and even public financing of campaigns as part of a larger package of reforms, I voted against this Proposal because if its intentional bias against third party and independent candidates.

The Democrats were tossed from Congress in 1994, the Republicans will likely be tossed from Congress this year and what has changed for the better?? Prop 89 is a two party entrenchment law that makes it harder to remove those who would continue to fail us.

The legislative analysis states clearly that any distributions to third party/independent candidates would only be half that to either Democrat or Republican candidates. What are the two parties (or the nurses union who wrote this) afraid of??

Over the past 40 years, voter registrations have risen by 15.2% and nearly all of them (14.8%) have chosen decline to state/non-partisan because the two established parties no longer represent them.

The latest poll shows a Congressional approval of just 16%!! That's both parties failing the people!! The two-headed mafia that is Congress must be slain.

The same entrenched incompetence that permeates Congress has its roots in State politics. Prop 89 only makes the entrenched failures stronger.

I'm sympathetic to funding non-millionares willing to run, but look at Louie Contreras in CA-41 running against the criminal Jerry Lewis. If the party put just $250k toward Contreras, the Democratic party could pick up that seat, but the party doesn't want anyone that is not a DLC clone messing up their empire.

Same thing with Jerry McNearny in CA-11 vs Richard Pombo. The DCCC has spent $0 on a race that is tied in the polls!! McNearny beat the DLC puppet in the primary and now the party won't back him. If not for McNearny's own money, Pombo would be a shoo-in for another term!!

Prop 89 promises relief for the un-monied candidates, but in reality it only encourages the party empires.

I also voted against Prop 87. It's a good idea, but tragically ill thought out. Clinton in an ad says, "Brazil went to ethanal and so should we". The problem is Brazil uses sugar cane as their feedstock. Sugar cane in Brazil is practically a weed that doesn't need planting or fertilizer or anything other than picking and processing.

In America they propose to use midwestern corn which will cost just as much to produce as it does to produce gasoline from oil. The kicker is that whatever goes into the tank will not go on the table so the price of food will go up!!

I like the wind and solar aspects, but they get too small a slice of this pie.

FCSuper said...

Yeah, I know about the corn thang. My complaint is the same in the arena. The tipping factor for me in Prop 87 is the fact it does get the ball rolling for reducing oil dependancy over all, regardless of where it comes from. It's a move in the right direction and it charges the right people for it. :)