Friday, October 12, 2012

Props to Me for This


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