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.
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.
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.
I probably wouldn't normally agree or even read the writings of a self proclaimed feminist, but her insights into the current election and Democrats are interesting. The only really wacky thing she goes into is her belief that abortion is our way of defying "nature's fascism".
Okay I'm seriously stoked about Sarah Palin. Obama preaches about changing Washington politics and then chooses a running mate who has spent nearly his entire career in Washington. McCain chooses Alaska's own maverick who hasn't stepped foot in Washington. Who is in a better position to shake things up in the capitol now?
I would be able to respect liberals if they devoted more attention to the issues. I just overheard a phone conversation at work that went something like this, "Obama spoke for about 44 minutes and it was wonderful. He bashed on McCain so hard. The news wanted to talk to undecided voters, but there's like a billion people here, so he won't be able to please everyone. Why don't they just get on board." I kid you not the person said "billion".
I watched his speech last night and all I got out of it was that Obama is the best person for the job because McCain is like Bush. Not because he has more well thought out policies or more experience. That's going to be the main Democratic strategy for the rest of the campaign, connect McCain and Bush whenever possible. You won't hear specifics on Obama's long term policies because they are way to far to the left for people in the center. Instead we'll be fed more rhetoric and one line "burns".
I'm glad Obama is going after McCain because it just opens the door for a fierce counter-attack. I want McCain to hit back HARD and paint Obama as the quasi-Socialist that he is. I'm looking forward to the debates where the two of them have to speak side-by-side.
Looks like McCain has picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin which is exciting from what I've read about here. Will have to do some research on her once the decision is final. Oh reminds me, Biden = yawwwwwn.
The close 5-4 ruling in DC vs Heller goes to show how important judges are. The 4 left-wing judges on the court wanted to repeal the individual right to own a firearm without connection to a militia. The current election could help determine the composition of the Supreme Court considering the older justices on the bench:
There's a good chance the next president will be nominating replacements for 1 or 2 of them. Any of McCain's nominees would be far superior to anyone Obama would put up. You might not like everyone about the McCain, but he sure looks good next to the alternative.
Read the entire dissent, starting on page 68, written by Stevens in DC vs Heller to be thoroughly disgusted. Here's just a quick tidbit:
As used in the Second Amendment, the words “the people” do not enlarge the right to keep and bear arms to encompass use or ownership of weapons outside the context of service in a well regulated militia.
That's right, 45% of the Supreme Court doesn't think you should be able defend yourself in your home with a handgun. Suzanna Hubb is a perfect example of what happens when law abiding citizens aren't able to protect themselves. If you haven't heard her story you must listen to her tell it:
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:00am
Didn't have a lot time to prepare for this election, but the two big things on the ballot are Propositions 98 and 99. Both deal with eminent domain. 98 seems stronger and has fewer exceptions than 99. 98 throws in rent control reform which I agree with, see this well written analysis of rent control to see why:
How Rent Control Drives Out Affordable Housing
Important to remember that rent control is only phased out after a tenant vacates a property. Everyone's poor little grandma won't be affected by this. For the judicial nominations and supervisors I'll just follow the Republican Party's recommendation:
http://www.lagop.org/news.asp?artid=74
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.
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.
Right now an individual can serve six years in the Assembly (three two-year terms) and eight years in the Senate (two four-year terms) for a total of 14 years. The proposition would eliminate those restrictions and allow a representative to serve in either house for a total of 12 years.
Proponents are pushing this proposition as a way to keep experience in our state government. Opponents are saying it is a deceitful attempt to prolong the political careers of 42 incumbent representatives. The proclaimed goal of this proposition sounds great, but there's more than meets the eye with this one. Let's take a look at why we have term limits.
I think term limits, especially at the state and local levels, are a good idea. I'm sorry, but things going on at this level of government isn't exactly rocket science. We don't need career politicians at the state level; we need smart, successful people willing to put their life on hold and serve their communities as best as possible. Limiting the length of time someone can serve keeps their service from becoming a career and forgetting who they are ultimately responsible to.
So how does reducing the total time someone can serve from 14 to 12 years keep experience in our Legislature? It doesn't. Hidden in the proposition is the condition that current representatives get to serve a total of 12 years in the house they belong to when the change goes into effect. Which means certain representatives currently in office will be able to serve more than the original 14 years.
Say a representative has served 8 years in the Senate and is in their second year in the Assembly. Prop 93 passes and they can now serve a total of 12 years in the Assembly. Well wait a second, what about those 8 years in the Senate? Doesn't matter. The representative in this scenario would be able to serve for a total of 20 years, 6 more than the original 14 and 8 more than the new limit of 12. The true goal of this proposition is to circumvent term limits and allow current representatives to serve longer than they were suppose to.
It's because of the loophole for current representatives that I'm opposing this proposition.
I'm a 24 year old self-proclaimed geek. I have a B.S. in Computer Science and I work with web technologies and databases on a daily basis. My geekiness extends into computers, photography, sound, video games, music, movies, politics and books.
