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
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 Tagged with: election, voting
Posted under: Political Stuff
