Props: Basic Overview:
–Let’s be honest here, I’m not going to do further
research on this topic and neither would most people. This is your soap box. If
you can’t provide legitimate reasons for or against
a prop in this space, you’ve lost my vote in your favor. This shouldn’t be like
an episode of LOST where I end up with more questions than answers after
reading your written retort.
Prop 30: Temporary taxes to fund education.
Guaranteed local public safety funding. Initiative constitutional amendment.
What it does:
1.
Increases
taxes on earnings over $250,000 for seven years.
2.
Increases
sales taxes by ¼ cent for four years, to fund schools.
3.
Guarantees
public safety realignment funding.
4.
Fiscal
Impact: Increased state tax revenues averaging about $6 billion annually over
the next few years.
5.
Revenues
available for funding state budget. In 2012–13, planned spending reductions,
primarily to education programs, would not occur.
PRO: Taxes people earning above
$250,000 to temporarily pay more taxes so schools don’t have to suffer budget
cuts.
CON: This raises sales taxes and we’ll never know where the
money actually goes.
Prop 31: State Budget. State and
local government. Initiative constitutional amendment and statute.
1.
Establishes
two-year state budget.
2.
Sets
rules for offsetting new expenditures, and Governor budget cuts in fiscal
emergencies.
3.
Local
governments can alter application of laws governing state-funded programs.
4.
Fiscal
Impact: Decreased state sales tax revenues of $200 million annually, with
corresponding increases of funding to local governments. Other, potentially
more significant changes in state and local budgets, depending on future
decisions by public officials.
PRO: Local governments (a.k.a. the
citizens) will be able to see what the government is up to financially behind
closed doors. There will be more fiscal accountability and more transparency
with the government’s spending. It will require governments to report results
before spending more money.
CON: Proposition 31 is a flawed initiative. It will cause
expensive, conflicting provisions into the Constitution, causing lawsuits,
confusion, and cost.
(From what I’ve seen these people don’t have any
concrete evidence for their concerns and they brought in the “stand with the
village people, teachers, orphans, Santa Claus, police, and fire men” language
–which makes me doubt them even more. The real people of the village they
mention would have had a more concise response with a lot more validity to what
they were saying. They also say this prop threatens: “public health, the
environment, prevents future increases in funding for schools, and blocks tax
cuts”. I’m sure it also threatens Little Orphan Annie, NASA, Cancer Survivors,
and United Nations.)
Prop 32: Political contributions by
payroll deduction. Contributions to candidates. Initiative statute.
What it does:
1.
Prohibits
unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes.
2.
Applies
same use prohibition to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations or
government contractors.
3.
Prohibits
union and corporate contributions to candidates and their committees.
4.
Prohibits
government contractor contributions to elected officers or their committees.
5.
Fiscal
Impact: Increased costs to state and local government, potentially exceeding $1
million annually, to implement and enforce the measure’s requirements.
PRO: Unions and corporations could not
use money deducted from an employee’s paycheck for political purposes. Unions,
corporations, and government contractors would be subject to additional
campaign finance restrictions. It cuts the money tie
between special interests and politicians to the full extent constitutionally
allowed. Bans contributions from corporations And unions to politicians. Prohibits
contributions from government contractors. Stops payroll withholding for
politics, making ALL contributions voluntary. No loopholes, no exemptions.
CON: Prop. 32 isn’t reform—it exempts
business Super PACs and thousands of big businesses from its provisions, at the
same time applying restrictions on working people and their unions. It’s
unfair, unbalanced, and won’t take money out of politics. Unions shouldn’t have
their power stripped just so major corporations can get their hands kept from
reaching into the cookie jar.
Prop 33: Auto insurance companies.
Prices based on driver’s history of insurance coverage. Initiative statute.
What it does:
1.
Changes
current law to allow insurance companies to set prices based on whether the
driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company.
2.
Allows
proportional discount for drivers with some prior coverage.
3.
Allows
increased cost for drivers without history of continuous coverage.
4.
Fiscal
Impact: Probably no significant fiscal effect on state insurance premium tax
revenues.
PRO: Insurance companies could offer new customers a discount
on automobile insurance
premiums based on the number of years in the previous
five years that the customer was insured. Basically Californians with car
insurance earn a discount for following the law. Normally if you switch
companies you lose this discount. Proposition 33 allows you the freedom to
change insurance companies and keep
your discount. Proposition 33 makes insurance companies compete, helps lower
rates, and will insure more drivers are insured.
CON: Proposition 33 is another deceptive insurance company
trick. Insurance companies spent millions to pass a similar law in 2010—voters
defeated it. Proposition 33 allows auto insurers to raise premiums on
responsible drivers up to $1,000, unfairly punishing people who stopped driving
for legitimate reasons.
(How would premiums be raised if they were
responsible and they did have coverage? This argument seems counter-intuitive
in its reasoning. Why would insurance companies purposely support a bill that
would by law lower rates for those covered prior to signing up with a new insurance
company?)
Prop 34: Death Penalty. Initiative
statute.
(Holy Sh*t. We just went from “how to best manage
government spending” to “should take the life of murderers”. Heavy. Wait, this
Repeals the death penalty? Then why don’t they title it: “Repeal Death
Penalty”?)
What it does:
1.
Repeals
death penalty and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of
parole.
2.
Applies
retroactively to existing death sentences.
3.
Directs
$100 million to law enforcement agencies for investigations of homicide and
rape cases.
4.
Fiscal
Impact: Ongoing state and county criminal justice savings of about $130 million
annually within a few years, which could vary by tens of millions of dollars.
One-time state costs of $100 million for local law enforcement grants.
PRO: It has been proven before that
“criminals” have been executed that were later found to be innocent. What
happened to the phrase: It is better to set 10 murderers free than to take the
life of one innocent man. There is has also been recent evidence presented that
suggests lethal injection may in fact be inhumane and cruel do to the
uncertainty of whether or not the chemicals injected before the lethal injection actually make the criminal unconscious during the lethal injection.
CON: California is broke. It would cost taxpayers $100
million over four years and many millions more, long term. Taxpayers would pay
at least $50,000 annually, giving lifetime healthcare and imprisonment to
killers who tortured, raped, and murdered children, cops, mothers and fathers.
Prop 35: Human trafficking. Penalties. Initiative statute.
What it does:
1.
Increases prison sentences and fines for human trafficking
convictions.
2.
Requires convicted human traffickers to register as sex
offenders.
3.
Requires registered sex offenders to disclose Internet
activities and identities.
4.
Fiscal Impact: Costs of a few million dollars annually to state
and local governments for addressing human trafficking offenses. Potential
increased annual fine revenue of a similar amount, dedicated primarily for
human trafficking victims.
PRO: “Human Trafficking” is
just a nice way of saying “Enslaved Prostitution” –usually of women and
children. Traffickers force women and children to sell their bodies on the
streets and online. Prop. 35 fights back, with tougher sentencing, help for
victims, protections for children online. Trafficking survivors; children’s and
victims’ advocates urge: YES on 35. We need longer prison sentences and larger
fines for committing human trafficking crimes.
CON: Proposition 35 actually threatens
many innocent people “My son, who served our country in the military and now
attends college, could be labeled a human trafficker and have to register as a
sex offender if I support him with money I earn providing erotic services.”—Maxine
Doogan. Please Vote No.
(What “erotic services” are you providing exactly.
If they are legal services why would
this bill have anything to do with you? And EVEN if this bill did impact you as
an individual in a that rare and very random circumstance does that mean the
greater whole of this country has to run the risk of more human traffickers
being on the streets?)
Prop 36: Three strikes law. Repeat
felony offenders. Penalties. Initiative statute.
What it does:
1.
Revises
law to impose life sentence only when new felony conviction is serious or
violent.
2.
May
authorize re-sentencing if third strike conviction was not serious or violent.
3.
Fiscal
Impact: Ongoing state correctional savings of around $70 million annually, with
even greater savings (up to $90 million) over the next couple of decades. These
savings could vary significantly depending on future state actions.
PRO: Repeat offenders of serious or
violent crimes get life in prison. Nonviolent
offenders get twice the ordinary prison sentence. Saves over $100,000,000
annually and ensures rapists, murderers, and other dangerous criminals stay in
prison for life. Some criminal offenders with two prior serious or violent
felony convictions who commit certain non-serious,
non-violent felonies would be sentenced to shorter terms in state prison.
In addition, some offenders with two prior serious or violent felony
convictions who are currently serving life sentences for many non-serious,
non-violent felony convictions could be resentenced to shorter prison terms.
(Firstly your claims are kind of contradictory
about the lesser felonies. Secondly, how do you get a life sentence for “many”
non-serious, non-violent convictions? They should give better examples of what
kinds of crimes these are exactly. I want to make sure people who don’t deserve
longer stays in prison aren’t kept in there beyond a reasonable amount of time.)
CON: Proposition 36 will release dangerous
criminals from prison who were sentenced to life terms because of their long
criminal history. The initiative is so flawed some of these felons will be
released without any supervision! Join California’s Sheriffs, Police,
Prosecutors, and crime victims groups in voting No on Proposition 36.
(Now I’m really confused. How can a bill be doing
the exact opposite of what it literally has written out in front of you. Are you
sure you guys aren’t just being paranoid? “The bill says it will give rapists
and murderers life in prison, but what it’ll really do is free them all!!! And give
them a coupon to shop at any convenience store of their choosing.”)
Prop 37: Genetically engineered
foods. Labeling. Initiative statute.
What it does:
1.
Requires
labeling of food sold to consumers made from plants or animals with genetic
material changed in specified ways.
2.
Prohibits
marketing such food, or other processed food, as “natural.”
3.
Provides
exemptions.
4.
Fiscal
Impact: Increased annual state costs from a few hundred thousand dollars to
over $1 million to regulate the labeling of genetically engineered foods.
Additional, but likely not significant, governmental costs to address
violations under the measure.
PRO: Proposition 37 gives us
the right to know what is in the food we eat and feed to our families. It
simply requires labeling of food produced using genetic engineering, so we can
choose whether to buy those products or not. We have a right to know.
(For those on the side of Genetically Modified
veggies and fruits, this prop begin passed means the price of GM plants will go
down –which means more people will end up buying cheaper fruits and veggies.
You’re talking to a country that consumes fries linked to cancer and soda
linked to diabetes. Something tells me our nation is willing to “take the hit”
to save some money. For those against GM plants –congratulations, I have a
feeling your prop will pass. That’ll teach people to modify plant DNA so plants
can naturally defend themselves from bugs instead of lacing everything with harmful
pesticides like we do now!)
CON: Prop. 37 is a deceptive, deeply
flawed food labeling scheme, full of special-interest exemptions and loopholes.
Prop. 37 would: create new government bureaucracy costing taxpayers millions,
authorize expensive shakedown lawsuits against farmers and small businesses,
and increase family grocery bills by hundreds of dollars per year.
(Food labeling scheme? Yes those tricky food labelers
trying to swindle society! It would create a new government bureau –like the
Men in Black only they would be the Men in green and they would arrest any
suspicious looking tomatoes or fruit that appeared “out of the norm”. These
people should write soap operas –maybe then people would actually start
watching them.)
Prop 38: Tax to fund education and
early childhood programs. Initiative statute.
What it does:
1.
Increases
taxes on earnings using sliding scale, for twelve years.
2.
Revenues
go to K–12 schools and early childhood programs, and for four years to repaying
state debt.
3.
Fiscal
Impact: Increased state tax revenues for 12 years—roughly $10 billion annually
in initial years, tending to grow over time.
4.
Funds
used for schools, child care, and preschool, as well as providing savings on
state debt payments.
PRO: Helps schools in the ways
stated in the prop. This Prop prevents Sacramento politicians from touching the
money. Spending decisions are made locally with community input and strong accountability
requirements, including independent audits.
(I think the biggest fear is where they money will
go. You hand it off to the government and it seems like we never see what
happens to it. And doesn’t it suck that politicians don’t seem to generally
care or try to raise funds normally throughout the year so we all just end up
paying large lump sums through taxes that end up God knows where…)
CON: If you earn $17,346 per year in
taxable income, your taxes increase. Total of $120 BILLION in higher taxes. No
requirements to improve student performance. Can’t be changed for 12 years even
for fraud. Damages small business. Kills jobs. Educators, taxpayers and
businesses say No on 38.
(Firstly: How would you require the government to “improve
student performance”? Is the government going to start executing kids who get
less than a “B-“? Will the government give out cheat sheets? Government just
funds schools it doesn’t run them. As for the taxes –where did you think the
money would come from? If you don’t pay taxes that go to schools parents will
end up paying out of pocket for all school supplies like they are now. Either
we pay as a nation for the embitterment of our future generation or we make
parents pay on their own out of pocket. Secondly: How does it “kill jobs”? What
does this bill have to do with jobs –other than people are paying taxes they
will inevitably pay anyway? You may as well say this bill negatively impacts
the environment because more school funding = more trees being cut down for paper
to make notebooks and pencils.)
Why don’t we just pass a bill that lets Americans
vote American Idol-style on where the current taxes go? Then we wouldn’t have
to raise taxes because the amount we already pay would be spent more wisely.
Prop 39: Tax treatment for multistate
businesses. Clean energy and energy efficiency funding. Initiative statute.
What it does:
1.
Requires
multistate businesses to pay income taxes based on percentage of their sales in
California.
2.
Multistate
businesses would no longer be able to choose the method for determining their
state taxable income that is most advantageous for them.
3.
Some
multistate businesses would have to pay more corporate income taxes due to this
change.
4.
Dedicates
revenues for five years to clean/efficient energy projects.
5.
Fiscal
Impact: Increased state revenues of $1 billion annually, with half of the
revenues over the next five years spent on energy efficiency projects. Of the
remaining revenues, a significant portion likely would be spent on schools.
PRO: YES on 39 CLOSES UNFAIR
TAX LOOPHOLE letting OUT-OF-STATE CORPORATIONS avoid taxes by keeping jobs out
of California. Closing the loophole protects local jobs and provides $1 BILLION
to California. Funds used for job-creating energy efficiency projects at schools
and for deficit reduction. YES on 39—CLOSE
THE LOOPHOLE.
(WAY TO BE EXCITED!!!! AREN’T CAPSLOCKS FUN :0 !!!)
CON: Proposition 39 is a massive $1
billion tax increase on California job creators that employ tens of thousands
of middle class workers. It’s a recipe for waste and corruption, giving
Sacramento politicians a blank check to spend billions without real
accountability. California is billions in debt; Prop 39 makes it worse.
(Well if the “job creators” are then sending those
jobs out of state then shouldn’t they be called “job creators who create jobs
that are of no benefit to Californians because they are out of this state”?)
Prop 40: Redistricting. State senate
districts. Referendum.
What it does:
1.
A “Yes” vote approves and a “No” vote
rejects: new State Senate districts drawn by the Citizens Redistricting
Commission.
2.
If rejected, districts will be
adjusted by officials supervised by the California Supreme Court.
3.
Fiscal Impact: Approving the
referendum would have no fiscal impact on the state and local governments.
4.
Rejecting the referendum would result
in a one-time cost of about $1 million to the state and counties.
Alright, one question: Who the heck is the “Citizens
Redistricting Commission”?
PRO: Yes on 40 protects the
State Senate maps drawn by the voter-approved Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission. Yes on 40 upholds
the will of California voters to hold politicians accountable by keeping them
out of the redistricting process. Good government groups, seniors, businesses
and taxpayers recommend “Yes on 40.”
(Ok second question: how does this bill keep
politicians out of the redistricting process? I need details people!)
CON: As sponsors of Proposition 40, our
intention was to overturn the commission’s State Senate districts for 2012.
However, due to the State Supreme Court’s ruling that kept these districts in
place for 2012, we have suspended our campaign and no longer seek a NO vote.
(What happened? Ok all I got from that is the
supporters of Prop 40 no longer seek a vote against it… Yah cause that makes
sense. Either way, there’s no “NO” vote here so I guess I’ll go with “Yes”? I
wish “Maybe” were an option.)
Well this was the first 10 pages of the 144 page
PDF. Let’s fast forward to Page 79 so we can check out the nominees for Best
Politician.
Just for the record: A
U.S. Senator:
• Serves as one of two Senators who
represent California’s interests in the U.S. Congress.
• Proposes and votes on new national
laws.
• Votes on confirming federal judges,
U.S. Supreme Court Justices, and many high-level presidential appointments to
civilian and military positions.
Each candidate has about 3 paragraphs worth of
their “who I am and what I promise to do with my time in office” speech. Since
it’s all drivel for the most part and not exactly reliable since it’s coming
from someone self-nominating themselves in writing I’ll just list the nominees
and leave you take pick the candidate.
Nominee #1 DIANNE FEINSTEIN –Democrat
Nominee #2 ELIZABETH EMKEN –Republican
No comments:
Post a Comment