California Propositions November 2012

It's that time again for damage control in this once great state.

Proposition 30. "Temporary" Sales and Income Tax Hikes to Fund Education, Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding — NO!!!

For starters, as long as they intend to spend at least 60 BILLION, and more likely nearly 100 BILLION, on a choo-choo that WON'T be "high speed" after they get through routing it, I plan to vote NO on *any* new tax or bond measure.

Governor Brown's threat is disgusting: "Your Wallet or Your Kids!" Either approve $36 billion in higher sales and income taxes or else Gov. Brown threatens to shoot the schools. How about "Your Choo-Choo or The Schools"?

The proponents, again and as usual, claim that the new income taxes are only on the "very wealthy," but it turns out the "very wealthy" include many small businesses filing under sub-chapter S, meaning lower wages, higher prices and fewer jobs. Moreover, the sales taxes hit all of us, even the poorest.

California already has one of the highest overall tax burdens in the country and yet has just approved a budget to spend $8 billion dollars more than it's taking in. Moral of the story: it's the spending stupid.

Proposition 31. A Trojan Horse for "Regional Government"--NO

I acknowledge there are appealing aspects to this initiative. Shouldn't the state constitution and law be amended to require government performance reviews and two-year budget cycles, and to prohibit the Legislature from creating certain expenditures unless offsetting revenues or spending cuts are identified? That all sounds great.

However, this initiative locks into the State Constitution an incredibly anal process for local communities to adopt "Strategic Action Plans" serving such open-ended, and frankly sinister, objectives as "community equity" and nudges them into establishing regional governments to push this agenda. The purpose of local governments is to provide basic services, not to pursue utopian four-year plans, which will prove to be dystopian.

The National Review observes:

"The measure is meant to bail out California’s failing cities by creating regional super-governments empowered to raid and redistribute suburban tax money. It’s the end of the system of local self-government that has served as the bedrock of American democracy since the time of the Founders — in the nation’s largest state, no less. Yet virtually no one is paying attention.

Proposition 31 allows collections of local governments to pool their tax receipts. While this “tax sharing” is supposedly voluntary, the initiative sets up rewards and punishments that effectively force California’s local governments to submit to redistribution, or accept second-class status instead. Once California’s municipalities have been swallowed up by de facto regional super-governments, citizens will come under the thumb of officials unelected by the public they control."

In other words, if you moved to a nicer community or county to get away from the garbage you were getting in certain inner cities, the inner cities are subtly trying to rope you back in. Vote NO.

Proposition 32. Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Contributions to Candidates — State of California--YES!!!

Should unions, corporations, government contractors and state and local government employers be prohibited from using payroll-deducted funds, or in some instances their own funds, for political expenditures? Oh my YES.

In the "It's About Time" category, this measure would finally prohibit unions, corporations, government contractors, and state and local governments from deducting money from employees' paychecks for political purposes without their express written consent.

As Jefferson wrote, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." This puts an end to this despotic practice.

Proposition 33. Auto Insurance Companies. Prices Based on Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage--YES

We have seen this one before, Proposition 17 in June 2010, so I might as well repeat what I wrote back then:

This measure deletes a small part of the state law that currently prohibits automobile insurance companies from providing “continuous coverage” to new customers. This prohibition was a strange part of Prop. 103, which was narrowly passed in 1988 to establish a number of insurance regulations). Even Democrats and Republicans in the Legislature agreed with removing the ban several years ago, but the courts struck that down, ruling only the ballot voters can amend a ballot initiative like Prop. 103.

Why YES: If you have been a long-time customer of an automobile insurance company and want to keep your "good driver" and “continuous coverage” discounts, passing Prop. 17 will mean you won't lose those when you change insurance companies. The opposition to this claims that people who let their insurance lapse and stop driving for an extended period of time will get rate hikes, but really, how many people like that are there in California?

Why is only Mercury Insurance, one of the smaller California insurance companies, funding Prop. 17? Probably because they think they can win new customers, and that’s just fine. Let’s open up more competition among private insurers, which benefits consumers.

Proposition 34. Abolishing the Death Penalty--NO!!!

"Why do we kill people who kill people when killing people is wrong?" Because murderers deserve to die, you treasonous pinkos.

This proposition is justified in economic terms, because the cost of capital trials and prosecutions is so onerous. But this is a self-fulfilling prophecy by, and a sinister intention of, the death penalty opponents.

Worse still, these treasonous anti-death penalty activists have "Innocence Projects" going where they try to fabricate the "innocence" of the most disgusting people on earth, because obviously no one wants to see an innocent person executed. This is why disgusting murderous creeps like Stanley "Tookie" Williams and Wesley "Mumia Abu-Jamal" Cook get nominated for Nobel Peace Prizes and are turned into "civil rights" martyrs, and utterly fabricated evidence and claims of innocence are made on their behalf.

I don't just use terms like Demunists, or Commiecrats, to describe these "activists", for rhetorical pizazz. Proposition 34 is proof.

Proposition 35. Human Trafficking--YES, with reservations.

It's hard to be opposed to something well intentioned that just seems to be on the side of the angels. Who doesn't find this practice disgusting, usually the exploitation of vulnerable young women, often underage? Raising the sentences on such scum is just and proper.

There are some provisions in Prop 35 that could make it ripe for prosecutorial abuse, including limiting the ability of defendants to cross-examine witnesses and broadening the definition of trafficking to include those who never had direct contact with the victim. I suppose this was intended for internet producers and viewers of illegal exploitative videos, for example. And indeed, here the 21st century has changed the scope of the problem.

Moreover, with this initiative, there is a glaring issue overlooked--border control. How many of these exploited young women--or young men, for that matter--are illegal aliens from Mexico, Latin America or elsewhere?

All that said, reading through it, I have no qualms with raising the punishment for such acts.

Proposition 36. Trying to undo the "Three Strikes" Law--NO!!!

After many years of rising crime rates, Californians finally struck back with the three-strikes law. It is actually a two-strikes law: after two serious or violent felonies - in which one has murdered, assaulted, raped, robbed or pillaged his fellow citizens - he is on notice that any further misconduct will remove him from polite society.

Prop 36 would require that the third strike also be a "serious" or "violent" crime, giving dangerous criminals yet one more opportunity at atrocity. The Left predicted that "Three Strikes" would have no effect on crime - in fact, crime rates have plummeted. When it ain't broke, don't try and fix it.

As with Proposition 34, I don't just call them Demunists, or Commiecrats, for pizazz. They keep trying, in a sinister fashion, to undo what the people overwhelmingly want, and they keep trying to undo what is settled policy.

Proposition 37. Genetically Engineered Food Hysteria--NO

This is the latest effort of the Nanny State Left to tell us what to eat. It requires foods that contain any ingredients resulting from biotechnology advances to carry the scary warning: "GENETICALLY ENGINEERED."

There is not a shred of evidence that biotechnology is the least bit dangerous - it often reduces the need for pesticides. Moreover, hybrid plants date back to Gregor Mendel and "animal husbandry" is not exactly new.

To avoid branding their products with the Scarlet Warning, food processors and local grocers would have to prove that every scrap and crumb in their fare is devoid of biotechnology or face crushing lawsuits. Grocery prices high enough yet?

Proposition 38. Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs--NO!!!

As if Proposition 30 wasn't bad enough. Those even to the Left of the Democrat Party Establishment want to do even more economic harm.

Proposition 39. "Green Energy" Taxes--NO!!!

As if the Obama "stimulus" that shoveled money into these fiascos was not bad enough.This is a $1 billion per year tax increase on California businesses to subsidize a whole new generation of Solyndra scams, just for our state. But remember, businesses don't pay business taxes; they only collect them from employees through lower wages, from consumers through higher prices, or from investors through lower earnings. Prop 39 might be bad news for California's employees, consumers and investors, but it's great news for the Nevada Chamber of Commerce.

Proposition 40. Ratifying the State Senate Districts—YES, depending

This initiative is a monument to the stupidity of some Republican Party leaders, who spent nearly $2 million of party funds to qualify - and then drop - this referendum to overturn the Senate reapportionment because several state senators didn't like their new districts. They had hoped to run in their old seats, but after qualifying the initiative they found out via Court rulings that they couldn't run anyway. A "Yes" vote affirms that the new non-partisan Citizens Redistricting Commission works.  So if you think it does or does not, vote accordingly.