11/29/2006
Well... having had a lapse of posting, its best to first cover that i've been busy and this hasn't been a priority. Rather than cover what I've been busy with... I figure I'll opt for what will be keeping me busy in the future instead.
This week is being particularly difficult, starting off with that things that were supposed to happen over the weekend didn't, since I was sick. So now, I've got two homework assignments for solid state to get done and one for thermo, as well as my drama class' assignments which are late since I was sick for the duration of them being due. The benefits of when a teacher gives online assignments for less than a week, I feel.
I also have taking planetarium tickets on Friday night, which will keep me busy then, but at least the lecture then will be about Pluto's demotion, which is something I'm looking forward to learning more on.
Then Saturday will be my physics GRE which I know I'm not going to be ready for because of all the study time I've lost so far. I'll have to give it my best shot, but I don't feel optomistic. From there, I'm heading straight to the UCLA vs USC football game, which ought to be one heck of a game, hopefully. And at least I'll then be home moderately early that evening as its a 1:30 game.
Sunday, I've got to work early so that I can then be off work for the handful of physics people I could get to go to Griffith get there at like 4:30 on Sunday. That should, at least, be fun.
Next week, the 9th will be busy with A New Hope showing at the Aero, and I intend to go... plus work, as always, keeps me busy on the weekends. LAFF has their holiday party then as well, but I'm not sure if I can go to that.
More long term...on the Friday of the week after next... which I think makes it the 15th, Sam will arrive, and stuff will change gears. Work will be less frequent then, though I'll still have finals to get through. The first few weeks of her being here will be more low key relaxing, in general, but then we're traveling to the east coast starting early January. It'll mean being gone for a little over 2 weeks, but will also mean spending time in San Francisco, Chicago, Virginia/D.C., and New York. It'll be pretty interesting, especially as I've not been anywhere outside California, really, and we'll be travelling through a lot of states. January looks like it'll be full of adventure. More snow than I ever see normally, I think. Plus, I think with the stress of school and work now... some traveling could do me good.
So there covers the next month and a half or so of things that are going to keep me busy, but at least it'll be an enjoyable sort of busy for much of it.
This week is being particularly difficult, starting off with that things that were supposed to happen over the weekend didn't, since I was sick. So now, I've got two homework assignments for solid state to get done and one for thermo, as well as my drama class' assignments which are late since I was sick for the duration of them being due. The benefits of when a teacher gives online assignments for less than a week, I feel.
I also have taking planetarium tickets on Friday night, which will keep me busy then, but at least the lecture then will be about Pluto's demotion, which is something I'm looking forward to learning more on.
Then Saturday will be my physics GRE which I know I'm not going to be ready for because of all the study time I've lost so far. I'll have to give it my best shot, but I don't feel optomistic. From there, I'm heading straight to the UCLA vs USC football game, which ought to be one heck of a game, hopefully. And at least I'll then be home moderately early that evening as its a 1:30 game.
Sunday, I've got to work early so that I can then be off work for the handful of physics people I could get to go to Griffith get there at like 4:30 on Sunday. That should, at least, be fun.
Next week, the 9th will be busy with A New Hope showing at the Aero, and I intend to go... plus work, as always, keeps me busy on the weekends. LAFF has their holiday party then as well, but I'm not sure if I can go to that.
More long term...on the Friday of the week after next... which I think makes it the 15th, Sam will arrive, and stuff will change gears. Work will be less frequent then, though I'll still have finals to get through. The first few weeks of her being here will be more low key relaxing, in general, but then we're traveling to the east coast starting early January. It'll mean being gone for a little over 2 weeks, but will also mean spending time in San Francisco, Chicago, Virginia/D.C., and New York. It'll be pretty interesting, especially as I've not been anywhere outside California, really, and we'll be travelling through a lot of states. January looks like it'll be full of adventure. More snow than I ever see normally, I think. Plus, I think with the stress of school and work now... some traveling could do me good.
So there covers the next month and a half or so of things that are going to keep me busy, but at least it'll be an enjoyable sort of busy for much of it.
11/01/2006
Too busy to blog much, but here is some election stuff:
A large summary of the elections, and who I believe should win, as well as what propositions I feel should win. It is a long read at over 3,000 words, so you are warned in that regard. In addition, it is valuable to remember my own perspective, which is someone that is socially liberal, fiscally conservative, but also feels that government should be fiscally conservative as a priority, because its easier to elect fiscally conservative candidates and ensure that social liberties are preserved than it is to elect socially liberal candidates and ensure that fiscal matters are maintained. I do, however, view the Libertarian Party as a solution to that paradox, however, but I do not choose candidates based on party alone and as such will not pick a candidate that I can’t find a platform for. This is especially relevant in regards to third-party candidates in small races.
Candidates:
Governor
Phil Angelides has shown, with his weak campaigns attacking such things as Schwarzeneggar for being in the same party as Bush as having very little in the way of platform, and ideas such as suing the federal government for the national guard being in Iraq are wastes of money that won’t accomplish anything. He certainly doesn’t deserve to be governor by any measure. Schwarzeneggar, on the other hand, has abandoned the fiscal conservatism that led to his being elected with hopes of the state budget being fixed, and has proven at times dangerously weak on issues of illegal immigration.
Of the third party candidates, Art Olivier has shown desire to control illegal immigration and also get the budget under control. Personally, I do also align myself often with the Libertarian party.
For Governor, I endorse Art Olivier of the Libertarian party.
Lieutenant Governor
The race for Lieutenant Governor I view as mainly between the Republican and Democratic candidates, however I do side with McClintock (Republican) because he has prioritized the fiscal security of the state at the top of his list, and would be a force for smaller government. While I have disagreements on a social level with him, it is much easier to change the social restrictions of government regulation when those in government disagree than it is to change fiscal policy.
For Lieutenant Governor, I endorse Tom McClintock of the Republican Party.
Secretary of State
The statement by Debra Bowen (Democrat) in the voter guide is to me, distasteful, because rather than call for solutions it relies on fear mongering based on Florida and Ohio while either ignoring or unaware of why something like Florida ALREADY can’t happen here. Bruce McPherson (Republican), while a suitable candidate, is not the best one out there, and has further called into question his judgment as it relates to the Tan Nguyen letter has made me further question if he should be secretary of state. I do, however, agree with much both Forrest Hill (Green) and Gail Lightfoot (Libertarian) have stated as priorities. I do slightly lean in favor of Gail Lightfoot between the two; however, my main factor that pushes me the rest of the way to picking Lightfoot is her desire to add a ‘None of the Above’ option as well as wanting to generally increase diversity of political parties.
For Secretary of State, I endorse Gail Lightfoot of the Libertarian Party
Controller
I find controller to be a very simple vote for Donna Tello (Libertarian) as she has priorities of auditing the state government wherever necessary to cut costs and waste while looking for help from state employees to know where to start. She additionally has strong views of setting up budgetary guidelines of 2, 4, and 10 years which would help the state have budgets prepared by the deadline with greater frequency and aid in long term planning.
For Controller, I endorse Donna Tello of the Libertarian Party.
Treasurer
I’ll be honest… I know I picked this for a reason, but I can’t remember why, and am not going to go back and figure out why… but this one narrowly beats out Marian Smithson (Libertarian). I think it was the idea to sell state bonds to Californians more easily, and opposing most bonds that led to me siding with Claude Parrish (Republican).
For Treasurer, I endorse Claude Parrish of the Republican Party.
Attorney General
First of all, this is a race where I am first and foremost of the view that Jerry Brown should not, under any circumstances, be attorney general. My main reasoning here is that he, as governor, appointed a judge that reduced the sentence of death on the man that killed my mom’s cousin to life with the possibility of parole. It is unconfirmed, to my knowledge, if he’s since been released or not. I do, however, agree that personal responsibility and an individual’s privacy are both key, and that does lead to my support of Kenneth Weissman.
For Attorney General, I endorse Kenneth Weissman of the Libertarian Party.
Insurance Commissioner
For insurance commissioner, the Republican candidate Steve Poizner has listed priorities of cracking down on insurance companies taking away insurance or raising the costs for those that have to file claims, prosecution of those that make fraudulent claims and raise the cost for all, and removing uninsured drivers from the road. In contrast, the Democrat Cruz Bustamonte is a career politician that has taken significant donations from the insurance companies and has been reduced to commercials that he’d be a good candidate because he lost weight.
For Insurance Commissioner, I endorse Steve Poizner of the Republican Party.
State Board of Equalization (District 2)
Lacking any information on the Libertarian candidate, and not picking a candidate based on party affiliation only, has limited who I will pick.
For State Board of Equalization, I pick Bill Leonard of the Republican Party.
U.S. Senate
I have significant disagreements with how Feinstein and Boxer have represented California, and as such, I do hope that Feinstein loses her election, although I do not expect this to happen.
For U.S. Senate, I endorse Richard Mountjoy of the Republican Party.
U.S. House of Representatives
In CA 25, my district, I endorse Buck McKeon of the Republican Party as he has voted well on illegal immigration, a key issue, in my opinion, and there is a need for those that will stay strong on that issue.
Additional candidates I support in other districts:
CA 26 – Cynthia Matthews (Democrat)
CA 35 – Paul Ireland (Libertarian)
CA 43 – Scott Folkens (Republican)
CA 47 – Tan Nguyen (Republican)
CA 50 – Brian Bilbray (Republican)
State Assembly (38th)
For the 38th district of the State Assembly, I’ve picked Cameron Smyth of the Republican Party.
Propositions:
Proposition 1A
Proposition 1A aims to prevent, or at least, further restrict, the ability of the California government to divert money from taxes on gas away from the transportation funds that it is intended to go to. California's transportation infrastructure is in need of repair, and many freeways are outdated and unable to serve the large numbers that travel them each day, as I'm sure we are ALL aware of. While critics say that passing Prop 1A will move the priorities of California away from education by making the roads the top priority, all this does is make sure that money that should be going to roads goes where it is supposed to go, and is a small portion of the annual budget of California (only a few billion out of over 100 billion a year budget).
Better roads will save people time, allow for a better flow of traffic, and cut down on pollution by reducing the time commuters spend stuck in traffic.
On Proposition 1A, I say vote "Yes"
Proposition 1B
Proposition 1B is titled as being for highway safety, traffic reduction, air quality, and port security. However, the price tag for such a bond is nearly $40 billion between the initial 20 billion and the amount that will have to be paid in interest. While some elements that this bond would go to are key infrastructure, specifically the six and a half billion that would go to reducing congestion and increasing capacity on the roads, that does not in itself justify the entire investment. While a much smaller bond measure might be feasible and a good idea if it limited itself to a few key priorities, it isn't a good idea to incur this much debt now, as it will greatly diminish our ability to continue to invest in our infrastructure in the future as much of the money will continue to go to paying off this bond measure as it will be nearly 20 billion in interest alone.
On Proposition 1B, I say vote "No"
Proposition 1C
Proposition 1C claims that by borrowing almost 3 billion dollars in bonds, and uses the claim of building shelters to try to convince voters. However, of the 2.85 billion dollars to be borrowed, only 100 million of it will go to homeless shelters and housing projects for homeless youths. By comparison, that’s half of what the proposition puts aside for parks, something that not only takes up space, but also raises housing prices, which is exactly what this proposition says it intends to fix. A large portion of this money, however, goes to developers rather than to helping people find homes or building shelters. For example, 850 million in grants that will go toward urban development. Additionally, that there will be an additional 3 billion dollars in interest costs, this proposition would be, in effect, removing additional money that could be used in the future to help people without incurring debt, and this would be very different if this was the state choosing to spend a surplus to help people. While helping people with home ownership is acceptable for consideration when money is left over in the budget, its reckless for the state to incur debt to help a select few buy homes.
On Proposition 1C, I say vote "No"
Proposition 1D
Proposition 1D is 10 billion dollars in additional spending on the school system of California. While the educational system is a key priority, this is not only too sweeping, but also fiscally irresponsible. Firstly, 3 billion of it is going to cope with overcrowded schools, a patch for not dealing with the current problems being caused by illegal immigration. Second, this will hurt education and the state in the long run as this will require an additional 10 billion dollars in interest payments. We can't afford that large of an increase in our debt, and the money would be much better spent as a portion of the annual budget for the next several years than if it were to be a bond where interest would have to be paid.
On Proposition 1D, I say vote "No"
Proposition 1E
Unlike Proposition 84, which used flood control as part of its sell to push for greater conservation efforts, 1E is entirely money that will go to flood control. Of the 4 billion dollars that it would use, 3 billion go to Central Valley flood control system repairs and improvements and Delta levee repairs and maintenance, half a billion to flood control outside the central valley, and 300 million to stormwater flood management. While bond spending is never a preferential way of paying a cost, this addition to flood control is very direct, does exactly what is advertised, and flood control is a key part of state infrastructure that should have been prioritized more prior to this proposition, but will at least be taken care of with 1E.
On Proposition 1E, I say vote "Yes"
Proposition 83
Proposition 83 will expand the definition of a sexually violent predator, prohibit sex offenders from living within 2000 feet of a park or school, and require global GPS monitoring of felony registered sex offenders. While some portions of proposition 83 are good, such as making sure that sex offenders have to serve their full term and can’t get out early, that doesn’t mean one can ignore the bad portions of this proposition. The main issues are that the definition of sex offender is very broad, and isn’t simply limited to active sexual predators. Additionally, while there are some people that restrictions like 2000 feet from a park or school or GPS monitoring would be good, it isn’t a solution to all sex offenders. More important to realize is that a large portion of sex offenders that do victimize children, victimize children that they have access to already, they don’t go looking for them. This doesn’t include those that aren’t even sex offenders against children. In the end, this is taking a solution that would work for a subset of sex offenders and trying to apply it to the majority of sex offenders, and that isn’t practical or efficient.
On Proposition 83, I say vote "No"
Proposition 84
Proposition 84 gives top billing to water quality, safety, and supply, however large amounts of money that would come from bonds would be going toward what would seem to be maintenance costs of general conservation rather than creating sufficient water supplies and ensuring their quality. Of the 5 billion in bonds, most of it would go to conservation projects. While conservation is important, it is not a cause necessary of a bond measure, and again, it would be fiscally irresponsible to pay 5 billion more in interest to spend this money now. While water supply would be critical infrastructure that might necessitate bonds, conservation isn't, and it would be of better value to put money toward conservation from a surplus than to further deficit spending for the sake of conservation of the environment.
On Proposition 84, I say vote "No"
Proposition 85
Proposition 85 requires, with exceptions, a 48 hour waiting period to allow for the notification of a minor's parents before an abortion. In a situation where someone under 18 can't choose to get a tattoo or piercing themselves, and even a 17 year old requires parental permission to miss school, it is ridiculous that they can get an abortion without so much as parents knowing. The counterargument is that it endangers the health of the girl, and that some have home lives where they can't talk to their parents. While I personally question if those opposed to proposition 85 have exaggerated how frequent that may be, that is still a moot point. Proposition 85 also makes exceptions to parental notification, such as if the girl's health is in danger, or would be put in danger, and allows for a system through the courts that requires a ruling within 3 days on if parental notification can be waived. Also, a minor that is emancipated does not need parental notification. While records are kept by the court, they do not contain identifying information. There is also nothing that means that the parents can STOP the abortion, merely that they are to be notified. A woman's right to choose is not infringed upon, and parents do have a right to know when their children are going to undergo a major medical procedure while they are still under their care.
On Proposition 85, I say vote "Yes"
Proposition 86
Proposition 86, the tax on cigarettes raising the cost of one pack by $2.60 equates to using government legislation to control behavior. While it has been marketed as anti-smoking, the only element that is at all anti-smoking is the more than 300% increase in taxes on cigarettes. Of the money taken in, only about 10% is going to be spent on things related to tobacco use. The largest amounts of money are going to hospitals and child health care costs. First and foremost, the trouble of those that don't pay for medical care should not be placed as a burden to smokers by way of a very large increase in taxes. Second, this fails to address that one factor that has led to the burden on many hospitals is low-income illegal immigrants who have families that aren't able to pay for health care costs. To simply tax another group to pay for these costs doesn't fix anything, and just allows the problem to worsen. In short, to use public sentiment against smoking to try to justify an outrageous tax against smokers to try to patch an entirely unrelated problem in our healthcare system is unethical and a dangerous use of government trying to legislate behavior, while also giving large amounts of money to hospitals, HMOs, and doctors.
On Proposition 86, I say vote "No"
Proposition 87
Proposition 87, in an attempt to reduce dependency on foreign oil and provide cheaper fuel alternatives, or at least, in claiming to do so, will in fact do the exact opposite. The idea that making oil drilled in California more expensive via taxes will lead to a diminished dependence on foreign oil ignores that by basic economics, making oil more expensive in California will also make it more cost-effective to simply obtain oil from foreign sources. Additionally, increasing these taxes will raise gas prices in California, again due to simple economics. There is no valid way to make sure that oil companies don't 'pass the cost to consumers' and it is naive, at best, to believe that there is some way for government to make sure that that doesn't happen. While alternative energy sources are important, hurting the economy by increasing our dependence on foreign oil and forcing an increase in gasoline prices does not help alternative energy possibilities.
On Proposition 87, I say vote "No"
Proposition 88
Proposition 88 imposes a $50 parcel tax on all landowners in California to put toward education (with some exceptions on landowners). While proponents claim that it allows for local control of money for classrooms, the money is distributed as a bureaucracy sees fit, not simply all money flowing to the local respective districts. It also uses the example of teachers having to pay for classroom costs out of their own pocket as evidence of the necessity of proposition 88, however there is little indication of how the 100 million it provides in instructional costs is expected to go toward helping teachers, as proponents also make the case that that money is needed first to go toward textbook costs. Additionally, the largest share of the expected 470 million dollars is the 175 million that would go toward reduced class sizes. However, reduced class size does not go toward helping students. One of the greatest dangers to students is the lack of qualified skilled teachers, and rather than trying to improve the quality of teachers, simply adding teachers will just mean more people teaching that have no place in a classroom, and that is money that could be much better applied to costs like textbooks, which proposition 88 relegates to second priority with only about half the money of what would go to reducing classroom numbers. While the California educational system needs help, this won't help it.
On Proposition 88, I say vote "No"
Proposition 89
Proposition 89 would create an optional system in which a candidate's campaign would be funded by the people of California rather than their backers. The claim is that by creating a more restrictive system, one can remove the influence of big lobbyists. However, the proposition fails to actually fix anything, other than removing the difficulty politicians may face when it comes to fundraising. Firstly, the money would come from corporate tax increases, which hurt the economy, and even if taxes on corporations were to be increased, this is not the best use of that money. Second, the design of the proposition gives the largest benefit to Republican and Democrat candidates, partially shutting out third parties and enforcing the political status quo as a two-party system. It won't fix the problems caused by lobbyists and special interest groups, but will hurt the California economy.
On Proposition 89, I say vote "No"
Proposition 90
Proposition 90 is a direct move against eminent domain as it has been put in use in other parts of the U.S. With proposition 90, eminent domain would be restricted to taking land for the public good, to lease to a private entity for the sake of a public good (such as toll roads), to correct a specific public nuisance, or in response to a declared state of emergency. Specifically prohibited would be for the transfer to private use, to address a general public nuisance, such as a generally run-down area, and to promote development. These would fix the most egregious uses of eminent domain, as has been seen in cases like in Kelo v. City of New London, and ensure that the rights of property owners remain intact and politicians and local governments can't take those rights in order to court new developments or favor corporations.
On Proposition 90, I say vote "Yes"
A large summary of the elections, and who I believe should win, as well as what propositions I feel should win. It is a long read at over 3,000 words, so you are warned in that regard. In addition, it is valuable to remember my own perspective, which is someone that is socially liberal, fiscally conservative, but also feels that government should be fiscally conservative as a priority, because its easier to elect fiscally conservative candidates and ensure that social liberties are preserved than it is to elect socially liberal candidates and ensure that fiscal matters are maintained. I do, however, view the Libertarian Party as a solution to that paradox, however, but I do not choose candidates based on party alone and as such will not pick a candidate that I can’t find a platform for. This is especially relevant in regards to third-party candidates in small races.
Candidates:
Governor
Phil Angelides has shown, with his weak campaigns attacking such things as Schwarzeneggar for being in the same party as Bush as having very little in the way of platform, and ideas such as suing the federal government for the national guard being in Iraq are wastes of money that won’t accomplish anything. He certainly doesn’t deserve to be governor by any measure. Schwarzeneggar, on the other hand, has abandoned the fiscal conservatism that led to his being elected with hopes of the state budget being fixed, and has proven at times dangerously weak on issues of illegal immigration.
Of the third party candidates, Art Olivier has shown desire to control illegal immigration and also get the budget under control. Personally, I do also align myself often with the Libertarian party.
For Governor, I endorse Art Olivier of the Libertarian party.
Lieutenant Governor
The race for Lieutenant Governor I view as mainly between the Republican and Democratic candidates, however I do side with McClintock (Republican) because he has prioritized the fiscal security of the state at the top of his list, and would be a force for smaller government. While I have disagreements on a social level with him, it is much easier to change the social restrictions of government regulation when those in government disagree than it is to change fiscal policy.
For Lieutenant Governor, I endorse Tom McClintock of the Republican Party.
Secretary of State
The statement by Debra Bowen (Democrat) in the voter guide is to me, distasteful, because rather than call for solutions it relies on fear mongering based on Florida and Ohio while either ignoring or unaware of why something like Florida ALREADY can’t happen here. Bruce McPherson (Republican), while a suitable candidate, is not the best one out there, and has further called into question his judgment as it relates to the Tan Nguyen letter has made me further question if he should be secretary of state. I do, however, agree with much both Forrest Hill (Green) and Gail Lightfoot (Libertarian) have stated as priorities. I do slightly lean in favor of Gail Lightfoot between the two; however, my main factor that pushes me the rest of the way to picking Lightfoot is her desire to add a ‘None of the Above’ option as well as wanting to generally increase diversity of political parties.
For Secretary of State, I endorse Gail Lightfoot of the Libertarian Party
Controller
I find controller to be a very simple vote for Donna Tello (Libertarian) as she has priorities of auditing the state government wherever necessary to cut costs and waste while looking for help from state employees to know where to start. She additionally has strong views of setting up budgetary guidelines of 2, 4, and 10 years which would help the state have budgets prepared by the deadline with greater frequency and aid in long term planning.
For Controller, I endorse Donna Tello of the Libertarian Party.
Treasurer
I’ll be honest… I know I picked this for a reason, but I can’t remember why, and am not going to go back and figure out why… but this one narrowly beats out Marian Smithson (Libertarian). I think it was the idea to sell state bonds to Californians more easily, and opposing most bonds that led to me siding with Claude Parrish (Republican).
For Treasurer, I endorse Claude Parrish of the Republican Party.
Attorney General
First of all, this is a race where I am first and foremost of the view that Jerry Brown should not, under any circumstances, be attorney general. My main reasoning here is that he, as governor, appointed a judge that reduced the sentence of death on the man that killed my mom’s cousin to life with the possibility of parole. It is unconfirmed, to my knowledge, if he’s since been released or not. I do, however, agree that personal responsibility and an individual’s privacy are both key, and that does lead to my support of Kenneth Weissman.
For Attorney General, I endorse Kenneth Weissman of the Libertarian Party.
Insurance Commissioner
For insurance commissioner, the Republican candidate Steve Poizner has listed priorities of cracking down on insurance companies taking away insurance or raising the costs for those that have to file claims, prosecution of those that make fraudulent claims and raise the cost for all, and removing uninsured drivers from the road. In contrast, the Democrat Cruz Bustamonte is a career politician that has taken significant donations from the insurance companies and has been reduced to commercials that he’d be a good candidate because he lost weight.
For Insurance Commissioner, I endorse Steve Poizner of the Republican Party.
State Board of Equalization (District 2)
Lacking any information on the Libertarian candidate, and not picking a candidate based on party affiliation only, has limited who I will pick.
For State Board of Equalization, I pick Bill Leonard of the Republican Party.
U.S. Senate
I have significant disagreements with how Feinstein and Boxer have represented California, and as such, I do hope that Feinstein loses her election, although I do not expect this to happen.
For U.S. Senate, I endorse Richard Mountjoy of the Republican Party.
U.S. House of Representatives
In CA 25, my district, I endorse Buck McKeon of the Republican Party as he has voted well on illegal immigration, a key issue, in my opinion, and there is a need for those that will stay strong on that issue.
Additional candidates I support in other districts:
CA 26 – Cynthia Matthews (Democrat)
CA 35 – Paul Ireland (Libertarian)
CA 43 – Scott Folkens (Republican)
CA 47 – Tan Nguyen (Republican)
CA 50 – Brian Bilbray (Republican)
State Assembly (38th)
For the 38th district of the State Assembly, I’ve picked Cameron Smyth of the Republican Party.
Propositions:
Proposition 1A
Proposition 1A aims to prevent, or at least, further restrict, the ability of the California government to divert money from taxes on gas away from the transportation funds that it is intended to go to. California's transportation infrastructure is in need of repair, and many freeways are outdated and unable to serve the large numbers that travel them each day, as I'm sure we are ALL aware of. While critics say that passing Prop 1A will move the priorities of California away from education by making the roads the top priority, all this does is make sure that money that should be going to roads goes where it is supposed to go, and is a small portion of the annual budget of California (only a few billion out of over 100 billion a year budget).
Better roads will save people time, allow for a better flow of traffic, and cut down on pollution by reducing the time commuters spend stuck in traffic.
On Proposition 1A, I say vote "Yes"
Proposition 1B
Proposition 1B is titled as being for highway safety, traffic reduction, air quality, and port security. However, the price tag for such a bond is nearly $40 billion between the initial 20 billion and the amount that will have to be paid in interest. While some elements that this bond would go to are key infrastructure, specifically the six and a half billion that would go to reducing congestion and increasing capacity on the roads, that does not in itself justify the entire investment. While a much smaller bond measure might be feasible and a good idea if it limited itself to a few key priorities, it isn't a good idea to incur this much debt now, as it will greatly diminish our ability to continue to invest in our infrastructure in the future as much of the money will continue to go to paying off this bond measure as it will be nearly 20 billion in interest alone.
On Proposition 1B, I say vote "No"
Proposition 1C
Proposition 1C claims that by borrowing almost 3 billion dollars in bonds, and uses the claim of building shelters to try to convince voters. However, of the 2.85 billion dollars to be borrowed, only 100 million of it will go to homeless shelters and housing projects for homeless youths. By comparison, that’s half of what the proposition puts aside for parks, something that not only takes up space, but also raises housing prices, which is exactly what this proposition says it intends to fix. A large portion of this money, however, goes to developers rather than to helping people find homes or building shelters. For example, 850 million in grants that will go toward urban development. Additionally, that there will be an additional 3 billion dollars in interest costs, this proposition would be, in effect, removing additional money that could be used in the future to help people without incurring debt, and this would be very different if this was the state choosing to spend a surplus to help people. While helping people with home ownership is acceptable for consideration when money is left over in the budget, its reckless for the state to incur debt to help a select few buy homes.
On Proposition 1C, I say vote "No"
Proposition 1D
Proposition 1D is 10 billion dollars in additional spending on the school system of California. While the educational system is a key priority, this is not only too sweeping, but also fiscally irresponsible. Firstly, 3 billion of it is going to cope with overcrowded schools, a patch for not dealing with the current problems being caused by illegal immigration. Second, this will hurt education and the state in the long run as this will require an additional 10 billion dollars in interest payments. We can't afford that large of an increase in our debt, and the money would be much better spent as a portion of the annual budget for the next several years than if it were to be a bond where interest would have to be paid.
On Proposition 1D, I say vote "No"
Proposition 1E
Unlike Proposition 84, which used flood control as part of its sell to push for greater conservation efforts, 1E is entirely money that will go to flood control. Of the 4 billion dollars that it would use, 3 billion go to Central Valley flood control system repairs and improvements and Delta levee repairs and maintenance, half a billion to flood control outside the central valley, and 300 million to stormwater flood management. While bond spending is never a preferential way of paying a cost, this addition to flood control is very direct, does exactly what is advertised, and flood control is a key part of state infrastructure that should have been prioritized more prior to this proposition, but will at least be taken care of with 1E.
On Proposition 1E, I say vote "Yes"
Proposition 83
Proposition 83 will expand the definition of a sexually violent predator, prohibit sex offenders from living within 2000 feet of a park or school, and require global GPS monitoring of felony registered sex offenders. While some portions of proposition 83 are good, such as making sure that sex offenders have to serve their full term and can’t get out early, that doesn’t mean one can ignore the bad portions of this proposition. The main issues are that the definition of sex offender is very broad, and isn’t simply limited to active sexual predators. Additionally, while there are some people that restrictions like 2000 feet from a park or school or GPS monitoring would be good, it isn’t a solution to all sex offenders. More important to realize is that a large portion of sex offenders that do victimize children, victimize children that they have access to already, they don’t go looking for them. This doesn’t include those that aren’t even sex offenders against children. In the end, this is taking a solution that would work for a subset of sex offenders and trying to apply it to the majority of sex offenders, and that isn’t practical or efficient.
On Proposition 83, I say vote "No"
Proposition 84
Proposition 84 gives top billing to water quality, safety, and supply, however large amounts of money that would come from bonds would be going toward what would seem to be maintenance costs of general conservation rather than creating sufficient water supplies and ensuring their quality. Of the 5 billion in bonds, most of it would go to conservation projects. While conservation is important, it is not a cause necessary of a bond measure, and again, it would be fiscally irresponsible to pay 5 billion more in interest to spend this money now. While water supply would be critical infrastructure that might necessitate bonds, conservation isn't, and it would be of better value to put money toward conservation from a surplus than to further deficit spending for the sake of conservation of the environment.
On Proposition 84, I say vote "No"
Proposition 85
Proposition 85 requires, with exceptions, a 48 hour waiting period to allow for the notification of a minor's parents before an abortion. In a situation where someone under 18 can't choose to get a tattoo or piercing themselves, and even a 17 year old requires parental permission to miss school, it is ridiculous that they can get an abortion without so much as parents knowing. The counterargument is that it endangers the health of the girl, and that some have home lives where they can't talk to their parents. While I personally question if those opposed to proposition 85 have exaggerated how frequent that may be, that is still a moot point. Proposition 85 also makes exceptions to parental notification, such as if the girl's health is in danger, or would be put in danger, and allows for a system through the courts that requires a ruling within 3 days on if parental notification can be waived. Also, a minor that is emancipated does not need parental notification. While records are kept by the court, they do not contain identifying information. There is also nothing that means that the parents can STOP the abortion, merely that they are to be notified. A woman's right to choose is not infringed upon, and parents do have a right to know when their children are going to undergo a major medical procedure while they are still under their care.
On Proposition 85, I say vote "Yes"
Proposition 86
Proposition 86, the tax on cigarettes raising the cost of one pack by $2.60 equates to using government legislation to control behavior. While it has been marketed as anti-smoking, the only element that is at all anti-smoking is the more than 300% increase in taxes on cigarettes. Of the money taken in, only about 10% is going to be spent on things related to tobacco use. The largest amounts of money are going to hospitals and child health care costs. First and foremost, the trouble of those that don't pay for medical care should not be placed as a burden to smokers by way of a very large increase in taxes. Second, this fails to address that one factor that has led to the burden on many hospitals is low-income illegal immigrants who have families that aren't able to pay for health care costs. To simply tax another group to pay for these costs doesn't fix anything, and just allows the problem to worsen. In short, to use public sentiment against smoking to try to justify an outrageous tax against smokers to try to patch an entirely unrelated problem in our healthcare system is unethical and a dangerous use of government trying to legislate behavior, while also giving large amounts of money to hospitals, HMOs, and doctors.
On Proposition 86, I say vote "No"
Proposition 87
Proposition 87, in an attempt to reduce dependency on foreign oil and provide cheaper fuel alternatives, or at least, in claiming to do so, will in fact do the exact opposite. The idea that making oil drilled in California more expensive via taxes will lead to a diminished dependence on foreign oil ignores that by basic economics, making oil more expensive in California will also make it more cost-effective to simply obtain oil from foreign sources. Additionally, increasing these taxes will raise gas prices in California, again due to simple economics. There is no valid way to make sure that oil companies don't 'pass the cost to consumers' and it is naive, at best, to believe that there is some way for government to make sure that that doesn't happen. While alternative energy sources are important, hurting the economy by increasing our dependence on foreign oil and forcing an increase in gasoline prices does not help alternative energy possibilities.
On Proposition 87, I say vote "No"
Proposition 88
Proposition 88 imposes a $50 parcel tax on all landowners in California to put toward education (with some exceptions on landowners). While proponents claim that it allows for local control of money for classrooms, the money is distributed as a bureaucracy sees fit, not simply all money flowing to the local respective districts. It also uses the example of teachers having to pay for classroom costs out of their own pocket as evidence of the necessity of proposition 88, however there is little indication of how the 100 million it provides in instructional costs is expected to go toward helping teachers, as proponents also make the case that that money is needed first to go toward textbook costs. Additionally, the largest share of the expected 470 million dollars is the 175 million that would go toward reduced class sizes. However, reduced class size does not go toward helping students. One of the greatest dangers to students is the lack of qualified skilled teachers, and rather than trying to improve the quality of teachers, simply adding teachers will just mean more people teaching that have no place in a classroom, and that is money that could be much better applied to costs like textbooks, which proposition 88 relegates to second priority with only about half the money of what would go to reducing classroom numbers. While the California educational system needs help, this won't help it.
On Proposition 88, I say vote "No"
Proposition 89
Proposition 89 would create an optional system in which a candidate's campaign would be funded by the people of California rather than their backers. The claim is that by creating a more restrictive system, one can remove the influence of big lobbyists. However, the proposition fails to actually fix anything, other than removing the difficulty politicians may face when it comes to fundraising. Firstly, the money would come from corporate tax increases, which hurt the economy, and even if taxes on corporations were to be increased, this is not the best use of that money. Second, the design of the proposition gives the largest benefit to Republican and Democrat candidates, partially shutting out third parties and enforcing the political status quo as a two-party system. It won't fix the problems caused by lobbyists and special interest groups, but will hurt the California economy.
On Proposition 89, I say vote "No"
Proposition 90
Proposition 90 is a direct move against eminent domain as it has been put in use in other parts of the U.S. With proposition 90, eminent domain would be restricted to taking land for the public good, to lease to a private entity for the sake of a public good (such as toll roads), to correct a specific public nuisance, or in response to a declared state of emergency. Specifically prohibited would be for the transfer to private use, to address a general public nuisance, such as a generally run-down area, and to promote development. These would fix the most egregious uses of eminent domain, as has been seen in cases like in Kelo v. City of New London, and ensure that the rights of property owners remain intact and politicians and local governments can't take those rights in order to court new developments or favor corporations.
On Proposition 90, I say vote "Yes"
