2012 California Ballot Propositions
Once again, it’s time to take a look at the biennial crap that various idiots try to foist on us here in California at election time, known as the ballot propositions. This election there are ten of them. Let’s see what they’ve cooked up for us this year.
PROP 30: TEMPORARY TAXES TO FUND EDUCATION. GUARANTEED LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY FUNDING. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Increases taxes on earnings over $250,000 for seven years and sales taxes by ¼ cent for four years, to fund schools. Guarantees public safety realignment funding. Fiscal Impact: Increased state tax revenues through 2018–19, averaging about $6 billion annually over the next few years. Revenues available for funding state budget. In 2012–13, planned spending reductions, primarily to education programs, would not occur.
NO: California already has incredibly steep income taxes. The top rate of 9.8% hits at $38,000 per year. And the sales tax rate is already over 7%. This is just insane, and they want to make it…insaner. Hey, here’s an idea, how about we stop cops and CDF firemen retiring at 50 with 85% of their top salary? How about we randomly fire half the Administrators in our schools, who ,in many districts, outnumber the actual teachers? Or, how ’bout weekly tarring and feathering of state legislators until they figure out how to cut spending?
PROP 31: STATE BUDGET. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
Establishes two-year state budget. Sets rules for offsetting new expenditures, and Governor budget cuts in fiscal emergencies. Local governments can alter application of laws governing state-funded programs. Fiscal Impact: Decreased state sales tax revenues of $200 million annually, with corresponding increases of funding to local governments. Other, potentially more significant changes in state and local budgets, depending on future decisions by public officials.
NO: The California Democratic Party opposes it. I can’t imagine anything the California Democratic Party opposes that I would not automatically be for. Except maybe this. This seems like a disaster in the making. It’s so fricken’ complicated and gives so much power—including tax power—to unelected bureaucrats, that I can’t see how this could possibly do anything but make things worse. The GOP is for it, but the California Federation of Republican Women and some TEA Party groups are against it. This one is just all over the map. Absent something clearer and less complicated, I’m saying "No". There’s a way to fix Sacramento, but this ain’t it.
PROP 32: POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS BY PAYROLL DEDUCTION. CONTRIBUTIONS TO CANDIDATES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Prohibits unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. Applies same use prohibition to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations or government contractors. Prohibits union and corporate contributions to candidates and their committees. Prohibits government contractor contributions to elected officers or their committees. Fiscal Impact: Increased costs to state and local government, potentially exceeding $1 million annually, to implement and enforce the measure’s requirements.
YES: This is a similar bill to the one that Gov. Scott Walker got passed in Wisconsin. The unions that currently own Sacramento HATE it. They can go screw.
PROP 33: AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES. PRICES BASED ON DRIVER’S HISTORY OF INSURANCE COVERAGE. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Changes current law to allow insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company. Allows proportional discount for drivers with some prior coverage. Allows increased cost for drivers without history of continuous coverage. Fiscal Impact: Probably no significant fiscal effect on state insurance premium tax revenues.
YES: Right now, if you have auto insurance, and you switch companies, your new company can’t offer you a discount for being continuously covered. Now, this could mean that if you voluntarily stop driving for a while, your new rates won’t be discounted. The opponents act like this is a Big Deal, and the Democrats shriek in horror at the very idea. I, on the other hand, would like to be able to switch companies without having a big premium increase.
PROP 34: DEATH PENALTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Repeals death penalty and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Applies retroactively to existing death sentences. Directs $100 million to law enforcement agencies for investigations of homicide and rape cases. Fiscal Impact: Ongoing state and county criminal justice savings of about $130 million annually within a few years, which could vary by tens of millions of dollars. One-time state costs of $100 million for local law enforcement grants.
YES: I don’t have any philosophical problem with the death penalty. Some people need killin’. On the other hand, I have no great respect for the system of criminal justice here in California, either. For whatever reason, we just don’t have a very good system for ensuring that the only people we execute are people who actually need killin’. Until we do, we probably shouldn’t be killing anybody.
PROP 35: HUMAN TRAFFICKING. PENALTIES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Increases prison sentences and fines for human trafficking convictions. Requires convicted human traffickers to register as sex offenders. Requires registered sex offenders to disclose Internet activities and identities. Fiscal Impact: Costs of a few million dollars annually to state and local governments for addressing human trafficking offenses. Potential increased annual fine revenue of a similar amount, dedicated primarily for human trafficking victims.
NO: First, we already have stiff penalties against human trafficking. We’re pretty serious about it. But this goes way too far. It reminds me of the Federal law in place for the military, where if you go to a strip club, and it’s later found to be engaged inn human trafficking, you could go to jail for many, many years. It’s draconian, and unnecessary, and will result in a lot of innocent people getting labeled as sex offenders and human traffickers who never actually engaged in human trafficking. It’s a wild over-reaction to an admittedly serious problem.
PROP 36: THREE STRIKES LAW. REPEAT FELONY OFFENDERS. PENALTIES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Revises law to impose life sentence only when new felony conviction is serious or violent. May authorize re-sentencing if third strike conviction was not serious or violent. Fiscal Impact: Ongoing state correctional savings of around $70 million annually, with even greater savings (up to $90 million) over the next couple of decades. These savings could vary significantly depending on future state actions.
YES: OK, I’m starting to come off like some bleeding heart, soft-on-crime, 60s liberal here, but this is a better application of the three strikes law. Right now, a guy with two strikes could a life sentence if his third strike is having an ounce of weed on him. Any third felony counts as a third strike. This would limit the third strike to a violent felony, which is who we really want in prison, anyway. There’ve been some ridiculous third strike convictions here in CA, and this would stop that, while ensuring violent offenders get put away.
PROP 37: GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS. LABELING. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Requires labeling of food sold to consumers made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits marketing such food, or other processed food, as “natural.” Provides exemptions. Fiscal Impact: Increased annual state costs from a few hundred thousand dollars to over $1 million to regulate the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Additional, but likely not significant, governmental costs to address violations under the measure.
NO: More costly green crap. It’ll be a boon for trial laywers, make food in California more expensive, and will drive farmers out of the state, and small grocers out of business. Sheer idiocy.
PROP 38: TAX TO FUND EDUCATION AND EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Increases taxes on earnings using sliding scale, for twelve years. Revenues go to K–12 schools and early childhood programs, and for four years to repaying state debt. Fiscal Impact: Increased state tax revenues for 12 years—roughly $10 billion annually in initial years, tending to grow over time. Funds used for schools, child care, and preschool, as well as providing savings on state debt payments.
NO: I don’t have any kids. Give ’em gruel, and let ’em know in no uncertain terms that children are to be seen, not heard. Preferably with beatings. And get Sacramento’s hand out of my pockets. This state wastes a shocking amount of money, then when they come up short, somehow it becomes my problem.
PROP 39: TAX TREATMENT FOR MULTISTATE BUSINESSES. CLEAN ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY FUNDING. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Requires multistate businesses to pay income taxes based on percentage of their sales in California. Dedicates revenues for five years to clean/efficient energy projects. Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues of $1 billion annually, with half of the revenues over the next five years spent on energy efficiency projects. Of the remaining revenues, a significant portion likely would be spent on schools.
NO: Another tax. This time on out of state businesses, to force them to pay CA income tax if they do business here. Well, guess what, they just won’t do business here, you dolts. So, A) you won’t get the tax revenue you say you will, B) people in CA who work for those companies will join the ranks of the unemployed, losing us even more tax revenue, and C) if you do get any revenue, you’ll blow it on wind-powered solar sails, or some such nonsense. And if there’s another Solyndra-style black hole to pour money into, you can bet the rocket scientists in Sacramento will unerringly find it.
PROP 40: REDISTRICTING. STATE SENATE DISTRICTS. REFERENDUM.
A “Yes” vote approves, and a “No” vote rejects, new State Senate districts drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission. If rejected, districts will be adjusted by officials supervised by the California Supreme Court. Fiscal Impact: Approving the referendum would have no fiscal impact on the state and local governments. Rejecting the referendum would result in a one-time cost of about $1 million to the state and counties.
YES: Even the sponsors of the proposition have withdrawn their sponsorship. The CA Supreme Court has already kept the old Senate districts in place for 2012, thwarting the will of the people on getting the redistricting out of the hands of the Democrats in Sacramento. They’ll do it again in 2014 without it. Jeebus, this is such a corrupt state.
Well, that’s the run-down for this election. Now that you know how to vote properly, do your duty.