Durka-Durka-Muhammed-Jihad!!
This is something I had intended to do about a month ago, but have procrastinated on long enough...especially considering that the election is next week.
Now, these are my opinion(s) on this propositions; they're what I'm thinking when I consider are these proposed changes good for me and/or good for California. Your opinion(s) might differ from mine and you might consider what I've written to be just chock-full-of-crap.
As the saying goes: 'Your mileage may vary'.
From the Secretary of the State of California, I offer up my opinion(s) on the propositions on the November 2, 2004 ballot:
Proposition 1A - Protection of Local Government Revenues.
YES
San Diego has for a long time been screwed over by Sacramento as far as taking tax revenues generated here and giving basically crap for support. Keep the money under local control.
Proposition 59 - Public Records, Open Meetings. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
YES/DUNNO
At least here in San Diego, the local city council has been having way too many 'closed-door' meetings and while the need for descression can be beneficial for some activities of government, it doesn't appear to be helpful down here. The City of San Diego is about a biscuit away from bankruptcy (like Orange County a few years ago) and is about to have a lot of its members indicted by Federal authorities, so IMO this 'closed-door' crap has to stop.
Proposition 60 - Election Rights of Political Parties. Legislative Constitutional Amendment
NO
Somehow this one slipped past the 'stupid' censors as it basically enacts current California election law(s). Anything that explicitly re-affirms common sense is something (at least as California propositions go) to be weary of.
Proposition 60A - Surplus Property. Legislative Constitutional Amendment
YES
The state is in a financial bind and this simply allows the state to unload useless assets that could be better utilized by other entities.
Proposition 61 - Children's Hospital Projects. Grant Program. Bond Act. Initiative Statute.
YES
I say yes based on the fact that the only oppostion on the official pamphlet is from some attorney and it was a weak argument. Additionally, the bond is for less than $1 billion.
Proposition 62 - Elections. Primaries. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
NO
Let political parties select their own candidates - not who party opponents would like to see fail. Let the candidates face each other based on their platforms, not how other parties can 'freep' the primaries.
This proposition is easily confused with Prop 60, which is useless.
Proposition 63 - Mental Health Services Expansion, Funding. Tax on Personal Incomes Above $1 Million. Initiative Statute.
NO
The main idea behind this is admirable, but I really have a problem with targetting people of a specific tax bracket to help cover the costs of something that should be dealt with by the Legislature in its normal work load.
Additionally, this sets a bad 'precident' for creating specific, targetted taxes/fees for other social service programs in the future.
Proposition 64 - Limits on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws. Initiative Statute.
LEANING ON NO
This proposition looks just confusing as Hell and I've always treated confusing issues on propositions with a metric ton of skepticism. If it doesn't make sense, vote no cause it can always be re-submitted for voter approval with language that is more clear.
Proposition 65 - Local Government Funds, Revenues. State Mandates. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
NO
Proposition 1A is an improved version of Prop 65. Vote NO on this and YES on Prop 1A.
Proposition 66 - Limitations on "Three Strikes" Law. Sex Crimes. Punishment. Initiative Statute.
NO
Just plain NO. I have ZERO sympathy for felons that whine about being locked up for committing 'non-felonies'. You commit a crime, you do the time. Period.
Additionally, I really don't like how the changes for 'sex crimes' is altered. IMO, anyone guilty of a sex crime should be just executed immediately.
Proposition 67 - Emergency Medical Services. Funding. Telephone Surcharge. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
NO
This is just like Proposition 63 - it's an additional tax that will pay for services that should be provided for by the normal legislative process.
The real source of this problem isn't within California - it's the Federal government that needs to deal with the illegals that use emergency room services as a clinic. Eliminate the drain on these services and there isn't a need for this tax or at minimum, have the Federal government pay the states (like California) for the services that we're required by law to shell out.
Proposition 68 - Non-Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion. Tribal Gaming Compact Amendements. Revenues, Tax Exemptions. Initiative Constitutional Amendments and Statute.
NO
Both Props 68 & 70 are confusing and as such will get my NO vote. If they're great for California, they'll be re-submitted with more concise language.
Proposition 69 - DNA Samples. Collection. Database. Funding. Initiative Statute.
YES/DUNNO
I am a little leary of this cause while I don't subscribe to the 'Big Brother' conspiracy theories, there is always room for a legitimate program to be abused and abusive to innocent people.
Proposition 70 - Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive Gaming Rights. Contributions to State. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
NO
See Prop 68 for reasoning.
Proposition 71 - Stem Cell Research. Funding. Bonds. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
YES
While I'm conservative leaning, I am not a hard-core Republican.
For the time being, I have no problem with utilizing all avenues of science to better the human condition.
Proposition 72 - Health Care Coverage Requirements. Referendum.
NO
The idea of 'motivating' business owners to provide health coverage for their employees is a good idea....on paper....it's counter-productive.
Business owners that are employing 18 employees will be exempt whereas if they hire one more person, they fall under the guidelines/regulations of this new law. An owner might not be able or willing to hire that one person just to be able to stay afloat. Now - multiple this one business owner times 100,000 - and you have a significant chunk of unemployed people.
California will take a while to recover from the anti-business environment of former-now-unemployed Governor Gray Davis....we don't need this to retard that re-development.
Nice work. I won't argue with you on 71 but you might want to take another look at 60. While it
Read more in Picks for 2004 California Props
nathalie said:
I agree with you on most of these. I, too, question Prop 71. I'm all for not banning stem cell re
Read more in Picks for 2004 California Props
jaws said:
Damn you Californians have a lot of props to vote on.
I only had two propositions to vote o
Read more in Picks for 2004 California Props
The Pirate said:
On Prop 71 you might want to check out the op-ed in the Boston Globe written by a pro-stem cell,
Read more in Picks for 2004 California Props
Comments on Picks for 2004 California Props
On Prop 71 you might want to check out the op-ed in the Boston Globe written by a pro-stem cell, but anti-Prop 71 advocate. (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/10/24/stem_cells_on_the_ballot/)
|| Posted by The Pirate, October 25, 2004 01:24 PM ||Damn you Californians have a lot of props to vote on.
|| Posted by jaws, October 25, 2004 02:52 PM ||I only had two propositions to vote on, one was issue 1 (same sex marriage) and a school bond issue in OH
I agree with you on most of these. I, too, question Prop 71. I'm all for not banning stem cell research, but $3 billion at a time when we are so strapped for cash?? is it really critically important at this time, or just politics? my rule of thumb is NO on any bond measure, with some exception for school bond measures. I don't want my tax dollars paying for something that can be funded in the private sector. if stem cell research is so promising for cures, then private companies can do it and get the glory that comes with it-- at least until our state is in better financial health. that ain't gonna happen for a while...
|| Posted by nathalie, October 25, 2004 06:18 PM ||Nice work. I won't argue with you on 71 but you might want to take another look at 60. While it seems silly that there is a proposition that restates existing law it is designed to offset the negitive effects of 62.
Check out the YES on 60 site here: http://www.yeson60.com/index.html
and the NO on 62 here:
|| Posted by Miller's Time, October 27, 2004 06:00 PM ||http://www.noon62.com/home/