“Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day...”What with November 7th just around the corner, the pace of time seems not so petty, but rather preternaturally accelerated. Politicians, who really should know better, are wasting their campaign dollars driving voters away with negative, mud-slinging, attack ads on their opponents. It will be such a relief when the Wednesday after rolls around and I don’t have to worry about muting the TV every time one of those annoying commercials comes on. It’s a good thing I’m the only one who uses that remote, ’cause the word “Mute” has been worn off thanks to constant overuse. Yet another minor irritation to cast vindictively at the feet of those ungrateful wretches... uh... er... I mean... our beloved public servants. Now that I’ve vented a bit, I think it’s time for me to chime in with my recommendations on the ballot measures and my reasoning behind each. You don’t have to vote with me, but I would hope that you’d take my logic into consideration when you step into that booth. Most folks vote the party line for the government offices so I won’t waste my time or yours talking about those.
Bear in mind that I make a distinct point of reading the text of each ballot measure and working out the legalese. The commercials bear little, if any, impact on my selections beyond checking to see if the commercials are being intentionally misleading or giving us out-and-out, bald-faced lies. They also give me a clue as to who is supporting or opposing each measure, which may or may not play a part in my reasoning. Now, on to the measures!
Proposition 1A: Transportation Funding Protection
Background: The state sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel currently provides about $2 billion a year. Until 2002, this money went into the state’s “General Fund” to be used for... well, whatever. Health, education, corrections (i.e., prisons), social services, etc. Proposition 42, approved by voters in 2002, amended the State Constitution to require that those funds be transferred to a “Transportation Investment Fund” that would be used for transportation projects (highways, streets, roads, transit systems, etc.). However, that transfer from the General Fund to the Transportation Investment Fund may be suspended if the state faces “fiscal difficulties.” Should the transfer be suspended, there is no stipulation [in Prop. 42] that the amounts not transferred should be repaid. Since the passage of Prop. 42, the state has suspended (either partially or fully) the transfer every year (2003-2004 partially, 2004-2005 fully).
Prop. 1A: What proposition 1A does is to amend the State Constitution to limit the conditions under which the transfer could be suspended. Furthermore, if the state does suspend the transfer, that is considered a loan that must be repaid, in full, including interest, within 3 years of the suspension; suspension may only occur twice in a ten year period; and the state may not suspend unless prior suspensions [loans] have been repaid in full.
Opponents claim that this “hurts education” because it takes transportation money from the General Fund and devotes it to... well... transportation. Hogwash. The State Constitution requires a minimum amount to be devoted to education. As it now stands, the state government can spend recklessly because, when the time comes to fund education, if the money isn’t in the General Fund (because they wasted it), they can just steal it from transportation. Proposition 1A puts a stop to that. It will force the government to spend a bit more wisely to begin with so they don’t run short when the time comes to fund education. Ultimately, it forces them to [GASP!] budget! I’m shocked... shocked! That we might expect our elected representatives, our public servants to spend our tax dollars wisely seems to be a foreign concept to those same representatives. It is long past time for us to remind them that they work for us, not the other way around.
Bottom Line: YES on 1A.
Propositions 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, and 84: Bond Acts
Background: A bond act allows the state to sell “bonds” (e.g., Treasury Bonds). These bonds must be paid back to the purchaser, with interest. Basically, bonds are the debt vehicles of the state. They are the method the state uses to borrow money from the people. Now, anyone who has ever financed a purchase (car, house, etc.) knows you can wind up paying more in interest than you do in principal. Many years ago, when I bought my place for $130,000, the interest on the mortgage was in the neighborhood of $170,000. I was paying more in interest than I had borrowed in the first place! The interest more than doubled the cost of the house! I would be paying that over 30 years, mind you, but I’d still be paying it! Being fiscally conservative, I was horrified! I hate, loathe, and despise debt, so I don’t want to have that hanging over my head. I don’t want it hanging over the head of my state, either. I think my government officials should take the money that have and spend it more wisely. When they have shown me that they’re not going to get themselves in over their heads in debt (like so many young, new-credit users do), I will consider approving bonds. As long as I see them spending poorly, wasting my tax dollars, and basically taking the attitude “we can spend however we want because, if we get into trouble, we can just float a bond,” I will continue to vote down bond acts across-the-board, no matter what project they are slated for.
Bottom Line: NO on 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, and 84.
Proposition 83: The Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act (Jessica’s Law)
This act is 12 pages of confusing and poorly-written legalese. I consider myself a reasonably intelligent man. When I get a headache trying to figure out what the act is really saying and still feel like the guy in that hardware store commercial wandering around with a big question mark on my shoulder, I get a little suspicious. If you’ve written the measure in such a way that I can’t understand it, I think you’re trying to hide something, and that leans me toward the “NO” side of the scale. Furthermore, even the summary and analysis of the measure does nothing to counteract that. I come away with the overall feeling that this will be an expensive act that does not accomplish the goals it sets out to, and pushes these offenders out to rural areas where there is less law-enforcement manpower and fewer neighbors nearby to keep an eye out. I certainly agree that something should be done... but this is not it.
Bottom Line: NO on 83.
Proposition 85: Parents’ Right to Know and Child Protection Initiative
“Child Protection Initiative...” [heh heh heh heh heh... chuckle chuckle chuckle chuckle... HAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHHHHAHAAAAHAHAHHAHAAA *snort* *cough* *cough* *sigh*] This act has absolutely nothing to do with “protecting children.” It is an effort to legislate family communication. Think this through: If this girl didn’t feel she could tell her parents when she first got pregnant, what makes you think she’s going to be willing to tell her parents now? If she knows the doctor will be violating the doctor-patient confidentiality and ratting her out to her folks, she won’t be going to the doctor. She’ll get her abortion from some back-alley abortionist who will do it in the most unsanitary conditions on the kitchen table with a coat hanger. Is that what you want? If you’re a parent, put your child’s welfare ahead of your own control issues for a moment and ask yourself this: Would I rather hear about my daughter’s pregnancy from my daughter because she feels she can talk to me, from her physician because I forced him to tell me, or from the coroner calling me in to identify her body after she bled out following an amateurish abortion? If the least of these three evils is one of the last two, vote yes - It means that the illusion of control over your daughter is more important to you than her welfare. If you actually want a relationship with your daughter, vote no and take a good long look in the mirror to see if you are the type of parent your daughter can confide in. If you are a good parent, this measure is completely unnecessary, as your daughter will either not get pregnant or will tell you when she does. If you are not a good parent, this measure will only hurt your child.
Bottom Line: NO on 85.
Proposition 86: The Tobacco Tax of 2006
Short version: It’s poorly written, it tries to do too much, and it implies that certain medical organizations are exempt from anti-trust laws. It doesn’t come right out and say that, but you and I both know if it can be inferred from the terminology of the measure, the legal departments of HMOs will push for the precedent. This act is 13 pages of complicated legalese. I don’t trust it. I think they’re trying to hide something in the terminology. Whether I find what they’re trying to hide or not is irrelevant, the suspicion that they are trying to hide something is enough.
Bottom Line: NO on 86.
Proposition 87: The Clean Alternative Energy Act
I was on the fence for a long time about this issue. I debated it with my mother and sister. I debated it with my friends Michael and Donna. Both sides are telling the truth... well, half of the truth, at any rate. Neither side is telling the whole truth. Yes, Prop. 87 would create a new bureaucracy. Yes, Prop. 87 would probably (though not certainly) mean higher gas prices. The opposition argument that it lacks “accountability” is hogwash, as is the argument that it “denies revenues to schools.” It does fund “grants, loans, loan guarantees, credits, and buydowns” for alternative fuel research, production, and usage. For example: A top-of-the-line Honda Accord will run you about $25,000. The exact same model in a hybrid or alternate fuel costs around $30,000. If you qualify for the buydown, the “Clean Alternative Energy Authority” pays the difference (or part of the difference), making the hybrid/alternate fuel option more competitive and, thereby, providing an incentive to switch. This is a good thing. The opponents scream “Gas Tax!” in the hopes that voters will blindly vote “NO.” Proponents say that it would be illegal to pass the tax on to consumers. This is not true. The measure points out, correctly, that the price of oil is fixed in the international market. However, there is a 20 to 30 cent difference in gas prices between Mission Viejo and Fullerton, both in Orange County. That’s more than enough “wiggle room” for oil companies to slip the tax in and have consumers pay for it. Still, even if it were “illegal” for them to pass the tax on to us, the tax is on oil produced in California. All the oil companies have to do is stop using California wells, in which case California consumers will have to pay more for the gas to be transported in from out of state. Either way, gas prices go up.
Now I have to ask: Is that a bad thing? The more the consumer market gets ticked off at Big Oil, the more they will pressure auto manufacturers, service stations, and the government for options that are not dependent on Big Oil. That is what Prop. 87 is trying to accomplish in the first place! It will wind up being a short-term pain (higher gas prices in the near future), but a long-term gain (more alternatives and potential freedom from Big Oil). Ultimately, it was the fact that Chevron is campaigning against Prop. 87 that pushed me off the fence. If Big Oil is fighting this proposition, it will probably be bad for them and good for us.
Bottom Line: YES on 87.
Proposition 88: Classroom Learning and Accountability Act
Short version: It’s a nasty, regressive tax that hits the poor harder than the rich. If it had been a percentage, rather than a flat dollar amount, I’d consider it.
Bottom Line: NO on 88.
Proposition 89: California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act
First off, there’s nothing “fair” about this act. It is content-based and probably unconstitutional. Just looking at the analysis by the legislative analyst, minor party and independent candidates (defined as parties whose nominee for Governor in the last election received less than 10 percent of the vote), even though they might qualify for public funds, get less (at most, HALF) than the “major” parties. If you want “fair elections,” every party must be treated equally. Period. Other than that, I confess I do like the idea. With that minor party and independent candidate limitation, though, I can’t support it.
Bottom Line: NO on 89.
Proposition 90: Eminent Domain
First of all, let me tell you about “eminent domain,” from the perspective of someone who has experienced it... first hand. Basically, it is legalized state robbery. If the state decides they want your property, they can claim “eminent domain” and force you to sell it to them. They have to intend to use your property for “public benefit,” and they have to pay you for it. However, the definition of “public benefit” is extremely loose. They can take your home, sell it to a developer who builds condos on the property, and say that the increased tax revenue they will receive from the higher-density housing is “public benefit.” They will low-ball their offer to you. If you complain, they will up the offer a little, but still nowhere near what your property is really worth. They will advise you to take the second offer because, if you don’t, they’ll just condemn your property, kick you out, and pay you nothing. Yes, they can do that... legally. Yes, this is exactly what happened to my family shortly before my 15th birthday. Yes, this is the voice of experience. Yes, this is a first-hand, eyewitness account.
Proposition 90 puts a stop to that. Opponents say it’s a “trap,” and, in a sense, they’re right... it’s a trap for the government and developers. Proposition 90 is nothing but good for homeowners. If the government wants to take your property, they have to publicly state what the purpose is (and “public use” is MUCH more narrowly defined than before) and they must offer you fair market value for your property. If you don’t like their offer, you can opt to take it all the way to a jury (not a judge, not a government commission, but 12 good men and true... to quote someone I can’t remember) and let them decide if the government’s stated use qualifies as “public use” and what “fair market value” for your property really is. Furthermore, they may only use your property for the stated use and, if they stop using your property for that use, they must offer it back to you (or your heirs or beneficiaries) before selling it to anyone else. Should you decide to reacquire the property, your tax base goes back to what it was when they took the property in the first place.
The only loopholes I can see are that the act doesn’t apply in a state of emergency (which is declared by the Governor under specific circumstances), and it doesn’t “prohibit the use of condemnation powers to abate nuisances such as blight, obscenity, pornography, hazardous substances or environmental conditions, provided those condemnations are limited to abatement of specific conditions on specific parcels.” That leaves it open for the government to use condemnation to drive out adult bookstores, sex shops, etc., which seems to me to be a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I may not agree with what porn stores have to say, but I will defend to the death their right to say it. Still, this act may be amended and that provision stricken at a later date, should it become necessary.
Bottom Line: YES on 90.
I hope my logic and reasoning help you to determine which way you intend to vote this coming November 7th. Until then, the only way to waste your vote is to not cast it at all.
