PROP 9 - CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. VICTIMS’ RIGHTS. PAROLE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
PROP 10 - ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES AND RENEWABLE ENERGY. BONDS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Busy week so I'm falling behind on the propositions. I'm starting to experience an acute episode of political fatigue so I'll be happy once the process is over (not necessarily happy with the results though). Check out The Blarg for more analysis on these since I agree on both of them.
PROP 9 - YES
PROP 10 - NO
And in other news I should have a nice little package showing up on my doorstep this afternoon. More on that later.
Tagged with: california, election, proposition
Posted under: Political Stuff
PROP 7 - RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
- Requires utilities, including government-owned utilities, to generate 20% of their power from renewable energy by 2010, a standard currently applicable only to private electrical corporations.
- Raises requirement for utilities to 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025.
That's the big part of this proposition. If those goals aren't met then the utilities get charged a penalty per kilowatt-hour, a max of $25 million per provider per year. Investor-owned utilities and electric service providers (92% of our electricity supply) would be allowed to charge 10% over the market price for electricity. I'm going to go with the opponents of this initiative (pretty much everyone, both Republican and Democrat parties) and vote NO.
My biggest issue is the government meddling in electricity production. Renewable energy production shouldn't be mandated by anyone but the market. When it becomes cheaper to produce electricity through solar or wind then the market will shift that way. And until renewables are truly ready for prime time we should be filling the gaps with increased nuclear capacity.
Tagged with: california, election, proposition
Posted under: Political Stuff
PROP 6 - POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING. CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND LAWS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Like Proposition 5, Proposition 6 deals with the criminal and prison systems. There's a lot of stuff in here and if it passes it will require a minimum of $1 billion in mandatory spending for law enforcement agencies. The programs and changes to the law sound good like doubling sentences for gang members, but we don't have any more money to spend.
Like Prop 5, the general public shouldn't be asked to tack on a huge amount of new spending for things we might not necessarily understand. I'd actually be more willing to look into these propositions if they weren't massive bundles of new laws and spending. Put up an initiative that deals specifically with methamphetamine prosecutions and I can probably make an informed decision. Bundle 30 different things together and the average person won't be able to analyze all of them thoroughly. Plus if there's one thing I don't like in there, I have to vote no on the whole package.
I'm going to vote NO on Prop 6 for the same reasons as Prop 5, we don't have the money and there's just way too much included for the average person to consider.
Tagged with: california, election, proposition
Posted under: Political Stuff
PROP 5 - NONVIOLENT DRUG OFFENSES. SENTENCING, PAROLE AND REHABILITATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
It's late and I don't want to fall behind on the Proposition posts. I read through the analysis and I'm not impressed for the simple fact that this initiative adds an additional $460 million in mandatory spending that will increase with cost of living and population. I'm not going to pick this one apart and try to reason through it's merits because it requires the one thing we don't have, money.
I also object to this proposition because this really doesn't need to be decided by the people of California. We don't know anything about prison administration, corrections and probation, try reading the text of the law, we can't possibly make an informed decision on something like this. I just get the feeling that they couldn't get this through the legislature so they are trying their hand with us.
I'm voting NO.
Tagged with: california, election, proposition, voting
Posted under: Political Stuff
PROP 3 - CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL BOND ACT. GRANT PROGRAM. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
The word BOND pops up again in Proposition 3, but this time it is for children's hospitals. That sounds like a noble cause so we should pony up $2 billion ($1 billion bond, $1 billion interest) for it right? I'm going to stick with my reasons for voting no on Prop 1A and say incurring any additional debt, no matter how small, is a bad idea for California right now. The proponents of the proposition (3 parents?) even say we should pass this bond because it "is one of the smallest bonds ever".
I'm going to vote NO on this one. There is a point where we have to stop piling on the debt. If these hospitals are so hard pressed for money then they need to request additional funding from the legislature, adjust their own budgets or look to private individuals for donations. Rich people love having capital improvements named after them
Tagged with: california, election, proposition, voting
Posted under: Political Stuff
PROP 2 - STANDARDS FOR CONFINING FARM ANIMALS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
This is one of the propositions that can't really be boiled down to budget issues or idiocy. The text of the law names the act the "Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act", not sure why there is a discrepancy there. The act pretty much says that hens, pigs and calfs for veal have to be able to be able to turn around without touching the edges of their pen or another animal and stops the practice of tethering.
The proposition plays to the emotions and makes you think "ah poor animals". I'm no member of PETA, but it is hard to justify bad living conditions for farmed animals. What I'm not a fan of is telling farmers how they have to conduct business. I bet the vast majority of farmers try to provide the best living conditions they can, there will always be those few that ruin it for the rest. I'm not sure what kind of humane treatment laws are on the books right now (I'm assuming there are already numerous), but I'd rather take a different approach to regulating things further.
Vote with your wallet. Don't want eggs from cooped up hens? Buy free range. Don't think it is right to keep calves tethered and confined for veal? Don't buy any. I'd be more open to legislation that requires the living conditions of the animal to be printed on the packaging of food. That would give the consumer more information to make a decision when purchasing food.
I'm going to vote NO because I'm not convinced that current laws aren't doing enough to treat animals humanely and keep our food sources safe from disease. You could go either way on this way, but I just see it doing more harm to farmers and their industry than actually improving conditions for animals.
Tagged with: california, election, proposition, voting
Posted under: Political Stuff
It's that wonderful time of year again and I'm going to post my critical analysis of the propositions on the ballot. We've got 12 to consider this time and some of them aren't exactly insignificant. I'll do my best to cut through the you know what and present the facts and the conclusions that they lead me to. The Blarg is posting his analysis at the same time every night too (we're writing ahead of time so we have no idea what each of us will say), so check his view out too.
PROP 1A - SAFE, RELIABLE HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN BOND ACT
First up is Proposition 1A, a $10 billion bond to start the creation of a high speed rail system throughout California. They slip the most important word in at the end of the title, BOND. Who wouldn't want a safe, reliable high-speed passenger train system? It would actually be nice to be able to take the train up to grandma's in Turlock or head up to Frisco for the weekend. So how could anyone actually be against this?
Let's look at the bond this proposition authorizes:
- Provides for a bond issue of $9.95 billion to establish high-speed train service linking Southern California counties, the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley, and the San Francisco Bay Area.
- State costs of about $19.4 billion, assuming 30 years to pay off both principal ($9.95 billion) and interest ($9.5 billion) costs of the bonds. Payments of about $647 million per year.
- When constructed, additional unknown costs, probably in excess of $1 billion a year, to operate and maintain a high-speed train system. The costs would be at least partially, and potentially fully, offset by passenger fare revenues, depending on ridership.
$10 billion bond that will cost about $10 billion to pay off. Our state budget deficit this year is in the ballpark of $10 billion. That $20 billion just covers the first phase of the project and they're predicting it will take "$45 billion" to complete the entire system. If we have to issue bonds for all of that the cost would be nearly $90 billion, that's getting close to the total yearly budget for California.
Even though it sounds like a great idea I have to say NO. We are in no position to add mandatory spending into our budget and after this year's budget debacle it makes zero sense to put more pressure on a state that is already heavily burdened.
Tagged with: california, election, proposition, spending
Posted under: Political Stuff
I took possession of my new to me Rossi Model 62 .22 pump action rifle yesterday after jumping through a few hoops. I showed up at Ammo Bros a little after 6pm to pick up my gun after the 10 day waiting period. In California the law states that all sales and transfers of firearms must be accompanied by a cable/trigger lock with a receipt from the last 30 days or proof you have a safe. Fine I'll buy a $5 cable lock, but the guy helping me noticed the chamber wouldn't accept a cable so I'd need a trigger lock. They didn't have any so it was off to Turner's to buy their last trigger lock (rung up at $30, but it had an old $20 sticker on it which they honored) and hurry back to Ammo Bros before they closed.
So they check off that I have the trigger lock and receipt and hand me my gun. So now I have an unopened trigger lock and no lawful requirement that it actually be used. This is just one of California's wacky gun laws. They should pass a law saying all scooter/motorcycle sales (even private party sales) be accompanied with proof of ownership of a helmet, but then you don't actually have to wear one while riding. I don't see why I shouldn't return the trigger lock and reclaim my $22.
Off to Seattle tonight for a nice little vacation. I hit my one year with the county last week so I can actually use my vacation. Also, my promotion went throught last week so I'm now an Application Developer I.
Tagged with: california, guns, law
Posted under: Life Stuff
Right now in Downey, Council members can serve two 4 year terms and then that's it. 8 years is a long time to serve in a relatively unimportant local position. This measure would allow 3 consecutive terms followed by a 2 year waiting period. After that waiting period, an individual could serve another 3 consecutive terms. So how should you vote on this one? I don't really care.
We voted in 1993 to change term limits to the way they are right now and seriously Downey hasn't done too bad in the past 14 years with these rules. The city isn't falling apart because of the lack of experience on the city council. My gut says to vote no; in a city this large there are plenty of people willing to use their talents and time to serve the community. We don't need to "reform" term limits, but we do need the occasional injection of fresh political blood and the new perspectives that come with it.
Measure G - No
Tagged with: california, election
Posted under: Political Stuff
The Indian Gaming propositions on the ballot have received more exposure than any of the others and for good reason; there's lots of money at stake. The four tribes that negotiated these new compacts with the Governer would be able to expand their operations by tripling their slot machines and pay increased taxes on the new slots. Las Vegas casinos, racetracks, card clubs and other Indian tribe's who are not included in these exclusive compacts are threatened with an increase in competition. To further throw a wrench in the situation these propositions weren't meant for voter review. These compacts were negotiated behind closed doors and only through a campaign by other casinos and racetracks were enough signatures gathered to force these changes to be voted on by us.
I have to break my analysis of these propositions up into two portions: how it will affect the state financially and how morals play into the situation. The morals involved in the situation are much simpler than the financials. I am personally opposed to gambling engineered to part people from their money. You can't prevent people from making bad decisions with their money, but games like slots are programmed to pay out certain amounts and the odds are always in the casino's favor. I guess the the casinos are providing some sort of service by giving a player a feeling of satisfaction while they lose their money. No matter how you feel though, a yes vote will allow expansion of Indian gaming operations in California and a no vote keeps things where they are.
I normally don't base decisions solely on feelings or emotions so the financial impacts are an important factor for these propositions. Both sides have been pouring millions of dollars into TV ads and we all know how truthful political TV ads are. In these ads, both sides have been lying through their teeth and blowing the consequences of a yes or no vote completely out of proportion. Let's look at some facts:
- Just for perspective, in 2006 all Californian Indian Casinos took in a between $5 billion and $7.7 billion
- Currently tribal casinos pay $0 into the General Fund, instead the tribes pay into special funds
- These 4 tribes pay $74 million into the Special Distribution Fund (SDF) which covers costs associated with Indian gaming and $2 million into the Revenue Sharing Trust Fund (RSTF) which pays $1.1 million to about 70 other tribes with small or no casinos
- Payments to SDF would end, shortfalls in RSTF made up from SDF then from money going to General Fund
- 17,000 new slots for 4 tribes (for comparison, MGM Grand in Vegas has about 3,400)
- Initial payment increase would start at $122 million and then grow as more slots are added, predicted to grow to $400-$500 million a year if all 17,000 slots installed (15% rate for first 1000-2000 slots or so and then 25% for the last ones)
- As casinos expand about $140 million in tax revenues could be shifted from racetracks and other casinos which could also grow as more slots are installed and business shifted to Indian casinos
The tribes would also make some concessions on environmental and state regulations and open up employees to unionization, but these are pretty minor points. Right off the bat, the shift of funding from RSTF to the General Fund will lead to a deficit and money will get pulled back in to cover shortfalls. So that $122 million in initial payments to the General Fund is more like $50 million. As slots numbers grow this payment will increase, but here comes the biggest fallacy of the whole situation: tax revenue does not grow linearly with the number of slot machines. The main reason for this is that there is a finite supply of gamblers and money to gamble away. Adding 17,000 slots will not create 17,000 new gamblers, a portion of any growth will be shifted from other gambling venues which means tax revenues are also just shifted around. The estimates I saw for this shifting tax revenue were around $140 million, reducing the actual gains being touted by these propositions even further.
I think it is fair to say that the claims of the 4 tribes that would benefit from these compacts are grossly exaggerated. The state will probably end up getting more money each year and it might add up to a few billion over the next 20 years, but this is hardly a solution to our budget problems. You also have to consider the costs of such expansion and whether encouraging people to gamble is healthy for our society. The fact that these deals are unfair to other tribes also bothers me; I would probably consider supporting a deal like this if it applied to all the tribal casinos and evenly distributed the increase in slot machines among them. On top of all this the number of slots is downright unsettling considering these propositions would add the slot machine equivalent of 5 MGM Grands to California.
Oh and here's a little gem hidden away in the propositions:
Tribal Payments to State May Decline in Certain Instances. Under the compact amendment, if the state allows a nontribal entity to operate slot machines or certain card games in nearby areas, the tribe’s required payments to the state would be significantly reduced or eliminated.
Props 94, 95, 96, 97 - No
Tagged with: california, election
Posted under: Political Stuff
Previous Posts
