Thursday, October 11, 2012

UPDATED Susan's Voters Guide Nov. 2012 - CALIF State Propositions

As a resident of Jerry Brown's Democrat utopia, here's how I'm voting on the plethora of state ballot propositions -- Follow along carefully.  It can get confusing this year:

Thumbnail list here with detailed reasons below: 
Prop 30 = NO NO NO NO!        
Prop 31 = NO NO NO NO!
Prop 33 = YES
Prop 34 = NO
Prop 35 = YES
Prop 36 = YES
Prop 37 = NO NO NO NO NO!
Prop 39 = NO
Prop 40 = YES

Los Angeles County Measures
A = NO  -- keep County Assessor an elected position, not appointed.
B = YES -- burdens porn producers with more regulations, and that's a good thing.
J = NO -- extends earlier tax hike FOR 30 YEARS to build trains, bridges, fix potholes and paint rainbows.

NO on Prop 30 - temporarily jacks up personal income AND state sales taxes to fund more government
Why NO? First, it's yet another tax hike on people who already pay one of the highest rates in the country.  California's high tax rates are already driving millions out of the state.  Second, I doubt the tax will truly be "temporary."  This one goes through 2019, but by then we'll hear how we have to make it permanent because we (the government) have come to rely on the money.  Third, it's a bureaucratic shell game using your money.  Although Jerry Brown and the Dems tell us the money will "fund education," the fine print in the bill makes it clear that the money goes into the State's "General Fund."  And as the Legislative Analyst clearly explains
"[f]uture actions of the Legislature and the Governor would determine the use of these funds." So in the end the money will actually go into the governmental black hole of debt already created by the insolvent teachers' pension fund.  And they call this "helping to balance the state budget."  That's why the teachers' union supports it -- so they can retire in style.  Why should I pay higher taxes for the teachers' pensions when the teachers don't pay for their own pensions and I cannot afford to even save for my own?

NO on Prop 31 - creates a two year fiscal state budget cycle; gives control of property and state sales tax revenues to local governments, and prevents future tax hikes without public knowledge. Why NO?  Initially this one fooled me and I was planning on voting "yes" because it sounds like local control of local taxation; however, those at the legislative sausage factory know better.  Quoting from Stanley Kurtz at National Review:
"How does Prop. 31 work? It allows local governments to join together to form “Strategic Action Plans.” Supposedly, this pooling of local municipal services into a kind of de facto collective regional super-government would be voluntary. In fact, Prop. 31 deploys powerful incentives to effectively force the creation of these regional super-governments. To begin with, municipalities that join regional collectives–and only those municipalities–can effectively waive onerous state laws and regulations by creating their own more lax versions of those rules. Next, Prop. 31 channels a portion of state sales tax revenue to municipalities that join regional governing collectives–and only those municipalities. Finally, Prop. 31 authorizes local governments participating in the regional collectives to pool their property-tax receipts."
YES on Prop 32 - stops unions, corporations and government contractors from using employees' payroll deductions (a.k.a. "dues") for political purpose.  Please note the deceptive title: "Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Contributions to Candidates."
Why YES? This law bans the use of payroll deductions to finance union spending for political purposes against an individual member's will.  Prop 32 will cripple the Democrat money laundering scheme by restricting how unions like SAG and the teachers' union spend their members' money.   Each year employees can VOLUNTARY authorize their union to use such dues towards political goals.  Prop 32 only restricts the unions, not the individuals' rights to contribute to a political activity, and that's a very good thing.  Puts individuals back in control of their money and restricts the corporate palm greasing in Sacramento.

YES on Prop 33 - allows insurance companies more flexibility in setting prices for driving insurance, allowing discounts for continuous coverage to follow the driver.  WHY YES?  The state already requires you to carry drivers' insurance.  If an insurance company wants to compete for your business by matching your current insurance rate discount for prior continuous coverage, why should a law stop that discount?  Right now, the current law does just that, hurting individuals seeking lower rates by taking away their discount if they switch, thereby destroying true free market competition. Prop 33 will permit drivers to take their good driver discounts with them when they choose to transfer to another insurance company.  Military personnel are protected from losing their discount due to service lapses.

NO on Prop 34 - repeals the death penalty and replaces it with life imprisonment.  Applies retroactively converting all current death sentences to life without the possibility of parole.
WHY NO? It's part of the ACLU's leftist political agenda to undermine public safety laws by claiming that the death penalty costs too much to enforce.  Yet, for years it has been the ACLU filing endless death row appeals, increasing the cost to the state to enforce the death penalty.  Now, ironically, the ACLU advances Prop 34 to win all those death rows appeal by legislative fiat, and charging the taxpayers $100 MILLION dollars in grants ($25 million over the next four years) to make the change!!  Don't let the ACLU's Prop 34 give a reprieve to Polly Klaas' killer, Richard "Night Stalker" Ramirez, vicious child rapists and murderous gang members.  Prop 34 is cruel and unusual punishment to the families of the victims.

YES on Prop 35 - increases prison time and fines for human trafficking.
WHY YES?    Increase the penalties to discourage the crime and to keep those who commit them off the streets for longer.  Duh.  Unless you're Maxine Doogan, an "erotic service provider" concerned about giving money to your son, you should support this one.

YES on Prop 36 - revises California's "Three Strikes" law to allow certain third strikers to apply for resentencing.
WHY YES?  I'm on the fence with this because "Three Strikes" is working and I am loathe to fix what ain't broke; however, that said, I'll trust Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley (R) and Los Angeles Chief of Police Charlie Beck, both of whom have endorsed this proposition as a means of restoring the true intent of the Three Strikes law while saving the state money and resources.  Read argument to Vote NO here and the argument to Vote Yes here.

NO on Prop 37 - requires brand new, specific labeling unique to California on all food sold in California  and changes how manufacturers can market foods.
WHY NO? More bureaucratic red tape to burden actual producers while spurring crippling lawsuits.  Prop 37 is a litigator's dream -- it creates brand new state regulations which will hurt the little food growers by forcing them to use more costly operations or switch to higher priced ingredients, creating a hidden food tax for all of us.  From opponents: "Prop 37 was written by a trial lawyer to benefit trial lawyers. Its primary sponsor is a trial lawyer whose firm and organization have made more than $3 million suing under the terms of another proposition he helped write."  

NO on Prop 38 - another tax on personal income rates ostensibly to fund education.
WHY NO?  Prop 38 is being marketed as a smart alternative to Prop 30.  Proponents claim Prop 38 will do a better job at funding education than Prop 30.  But Californians cannot afford any more new taxes no matter the wrapping.  Prop 38 confiscates $120 BILLION in taxes from individuals and small businesses making as little as $30,000 a year until 2024!  And one third of the taxes raised wouldn't even go to schools, but to back filling the state's debt, just like Prop 30.  Prop 38 has no requirements to improve school performance by getting rid of bad teachers because it's just all about the money, not how kids learn.  We are already paying one of the highest state income tax rates now and have been for decades.  Prop 38 will just take more money away from parents trying to make ends meet so bureaucrats can keep on spending.

NO on Prop 39 - forces state businesses to use new calculations to recompute their tax liability and denies multi-state businesses the right to shop friendly tax rates in other states.
WHY NO?  This new tax hike on businesses will drive employers out of California.  Prop 39 raises taxes on California businesses to the tune of $1 BILLION dollars, creating a new bureaucracy to fund "green energies" -- can anyone say "Solyndra"? And Prop 39 won't stop contractors from giving kick back campaign donations to those politicians who award them their contracts.  So if you're a business with operations in several states, leave California now because if you stay you have to pay our rate and pay off our legislators.

YES on Prop 40 - approves the new State Senate districts drawn by citizen volunteers.
WHY YES?  Looks like there is no opposition to this one.  Without a YES vote, the state senate boundary lines will be redrawn by unaccountable officials picked by the California Supreme Court and would cost us more money for the duplicate paperwork necessary.  Last cycle we created this citizen's redistricting board to redrawn these lines.  Time to try their recommendations.

No comments:

Post a Comment