Posted by: Dale Franks on Friday, October 22, 2004 One of the interesting things about elections in California is the Ballot Initiative, a remnant of progressive Governor Hiram Johnson who implemented the initiative process at the beginning of the 20th century. This means that every election, all manner of wise and unwise things are floated about for presentation to the voters on the ballot. For some reason, this year's election is more full of such measures than most, and with the election less than two weeks away, I guess it's time to actually look at them, and see what this year's collection of political hacks and special interests are trying to shove down our throats. Now, you're probably asking yourself, "Why do I care? I mean if those weird Californians want to have some screwy ballot measure, what's it to me?" That's a good question, and so is the answer: California is a bellwether state. Those odd, granola-crunching, hippie ballot measures that show in California today will be showing up on ballot measures or on the floor of the legislature in your state in a few years. Once the kooks in California get them passed here, the kooks in your state will be all hot and bothered to get them written into law there. So, I thought you'd be interested to see what's coming your way. If you want more information about these measures, you can find them at the California Secretary of State's web site. With that said, let's get to it, because this will be a long, long post ____________________ PROPOSITION 1A: Protection of Local Government Revenues Recommendation: Yes So, here's the deal. The state government has, over the last twenty years or so, fueled a voracious appetite for spending by horking the tax revenues from local governments. The state usually cloaks such rip-offs from local governments as being necessary for education (It's for the children!). Now, since for some reason "education" is a magic word with California voters, a few years ago a proposition was passed that allowed the state to take local property taxes away from municipal governments, spend a good portion of it on education, then give the remainder back out to local governments as if Sacramento was doling out vials of its own blood. Similarly, the state has been doing this with sales tax revenues as well. Over and above the state sales tax, local governments have 0.25% - 0.5% local sales taxes, which the state collects. Rather than turning that money over to the local governments, Sacramento keeps it, spends what they want, then lets the local yokels have whatever is left. So, we have a situation is which the state is taking pretty much all local government revenues, spending about 1/3 of it in Sacramento, to fuel the legislative urges of the aging San Francisco hippies that run the state, then letting the rest go back to the local governments. Oh, and note, please, that this money is in addition to the corporate taxes the state collects: the 7.5% sales tax, and the state income tax, which reaches its maximum tax rate of 9.3% on incomes of $36,000. This gets local governments PO'd, because they are trying to pay for things like, you know, cops and firemen, while legislators in Sacramento get $500 per month so they can lease Escalades on the state's dime. And, it gets me PO'd, too. The only way to stop runaway spending in Sacramento is to cut off the flow of funds, and this is as good a place to start as any. PROPOSITION 59: Public Records, Open Meetings. Recommendation: Yes This is basically a "sunshine law" to make government more transparent, and its records more open and available. I don't see any reason why a state government should be secretive about practically anything, except for certain criminal trial matters, so I say, the more sunshine the better. I do love the arguments against it presented in the state's voter information guide by attorney Gary Wesley, though: Proposition 59 may be better than nothing, but it does not go far enough. The question is whether to vote "yes" and hope for more or vote "no" and demand more.Well, here's an alternative idea: Vote yes and demand more. Arguing that it doesn't go far enough so we shouldn't have it at all is just stupid. "Well our laws against rape and murder don't provide heavy enough punishments. So, we probably shouldn't have any laws against them at all." Right. PROPOSITION 60: Election Rights of Political Parties Recommendation: Yes I'm very conflicted about this one, especially in the current climate of electoral tricksiness. What this proposition essentially does is to guarantee that every political party has the right to nominate candidates for partisan office in a primary election and compete in a general election. Which is fine, as far as that goes. What it doesn't do, however, is lock down the law concerning how primaries are supposed to be held, which leaves the door open for the "open primary" or "blanket primary" systems to be imposed. On the other hand, some protection of the electoral system is better than none, just as some open government is better than none. Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good, here. PROPOSITION 60A: Surplus Property Recommendation: Yes In order to get us out of the financial crisis that the hippies in the legislature and the famously incompetent Governor Gray Davis (How incompetent? Well, he was a Democratic governor in a heavily Democratic state who got thrown out of office in a recall election last year. Do the math.) got us into by spending money like a drunken sailor on a Singapore shore leave, we had to borrow a bunch of money by selling bonds. Prop 60 would require that all proceeds from sales of surplus state property go directly towards paying off these bonds. That would save us potentially millions and millions of dollars in interest payments. If the bonds get paid off, the money then goes into the state's new "Rainy Day" fund, to be set aside in case of emergencies. Again, this measure doesn't go as far as it should. It doesn't, for example, force the state to sell off any of this surplus property. But, we can always do that next year. Do what you can, when you can. That's usually the best policy. (Note: This Proposition was originally part of Prop 60, but was separated by the Supreme Court since having it as part of Prop 60 violated the state's constitutional requirement that every ballot measure only address one specific subject.) PROPOSITION 61: Children's Hospital Projects. Grant Program. Recommendation: No It's for the Children! This proposition would authorize $750,000,000 in general obligation bonds, to be repaid from state's General Fund, for grants to eligible children's hospitals for construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping children's hospitals. 20% of bonds are for grants to specified University of California general acute care hospitals; 80% of bonds are for grants to general acute care hospitals that focus on children with illnesses such as leukemia, heart defects, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis. Well, sorry kids, but Uncle Gray already spent your hospital money. He thought it was more important to spend money we didn't have on things like allowing powerful state unions to have new contracts that allow their workers to retire after 3 years with 250% of their salaries, and we had to borrow $13 billion to make up for it. Now we have a credit rating on a par with Bolivia. See what happens when you spend all your money, and borrow and borrow 'til no one wants to give you any money anymore? Yes, kids, it would be great to see you all treated for your cystic fibrosis or your leukemia at the government's expense in majestic, impressively modern hospitals. Unfortunately, the Democrats already gave that money to the AFSCME unions of the state firefighters and prison guards. Now there's none left for you. Yes, it was nice to pretend that there was a magical supply of unending state money in Sacramento. But there wasn't, we spent it all, and now your hospitals are just gonna have to suck it up. Think about that the next time you're tempted to push the button marked "(D)". PROPOSITION 62: Elections. Primaries. Recommendation: No This would implement an open primary system in California where anyone could vote for anyone in any primary, regardless of party affiliation. Additionally, only the two primary-election candidates receiving most votes for an office, whether they are candidates with "no party" or members of same or different party, would be listed on general election ballot. There's a reason why only Louisiana has this type of bizarre electoral system: It's an extraordinarily bad idea. PROPOSITION 63: Mental Health Services Expansion, Funding. Tax on Personal Incomes Above $1 Million. Recommendation: No Essentially, this proposition requires an expansion of mental health services in the state, and funds it by increasing state income taxes on people who make more than $1 million per year. Oh, and it also has this little rider: it prohibits state from decreasing funding levels for mental health services below current levels. So, no matter much or how little money is needed for mental health programs, it ensures that the state's mental health bureaucracy never has to worry about losing their jobs through budget cuts, because it ensures we can never cut the program. And to pay for it of course, we'll use all the extra tax money generated by taxing the bloated plutocrats. As long as we assume, of course, that the bloated plutocrats will never, say, switch their residence to Arizona or Nevada, or to their ranches in Montana. This proposition encapsulates practically every idea of bad government: perpetual bureaucracy, class warfare, unrealistic revenue projections, the whole bit. PROPOSITION 64: Limits on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws. Recommendation: Yes Currently, the law in California allows anyone to sue a business for violation of consumer protection laws, even if they were not harmed by the violation. In the last year, this led to a couple of law firms opening up lawsuit mills. They would find technical violations of consumer protection laws, like clerical errors on auto repair bills or estimates, then they would initiate lawsuits on the businesses, while telling them they would be willing to settle out of court for, say, 20,000 bucks. One law firm in LA initiated these lawsuits on literally hundreds of businesses, and made hundreds of thousands of dollars in a few months, before the State Attorney General shut them down. This proposition limits an individual's right to sue by allowing private enforcement of unfair business competition laws only if that individual was actually injured by, and suffered financial/property loss because of, an unfair business practice. In addition, it requires private representative claims to comply with procedural requirements applicable to class action lawsuits. Currently, anyone can just walk into a courthouse and file a lawsuit, without meeting any requirements whatsoever, beyond the filing fee. This current state of affairs needs to change, and the old law replaced by this one. PROPOSITION 65: Local Government Funds, Revenues. State Mandates. Recommendation: No This proposition limits the state's power to take local tax revenues and fees away from local governments without voter approval. But, don't vote for it. It has been superceded by Prop 1A, which gives much better protection to local revenues. This is a bit confusing, actually. The League of California Cities initially put Prop 65 on the ballot. However, after that, Prop 1A made it to the ballot. So now the former supporters of prop 65 have abandoned it, and are now supporting Prop 1A. In other words, Prop 65 should be dead, but the law requires that it be placed on the ballot, because it qualified. So, let's kill it and move on. PROPOSITION 66: Limitations on "Three Strikes" Law. Sex Crimes. Punishment. Recommendation: No California has a tough--and many say overly tough--"three strikes" law. Most states that have three-strikes laws require that you be put away for 25 to life after committing three violent felonies. But not California. No, in California, if you commit two violent felonies, then the prosecutor can put you away for life if your third strike is spitting on the sidewalk. We've actually had a couple of cases like this where the felon's third strike was stealing a VCR tape from a store, or stealing a couple of snickers bars. And, I'm supposed to feel sympathy for the felon, why, exactly? What the proponents of this measure say is that the law is just too tough, and it's unfair to put violent felons away if their third strike is some sort of "minor" E felony. No, they are essentially arguing, before we put away a violent felon for life, we really do have to allow him to have that last rape or killing as his third strike. Otherwise, we're just being unfair. Color me unfair. PROPOSITION 67: Emergency Medical Services. Funding. Telephone Surcharge. Recommendation: No So, let me see if I understand this. You want to increase emergency medical care funding, and you want to pay for by taxing my telephone use? Yep, that's exactly right. Now, first of all, this violates a principle of taxation, namely that surcharge taxes are supposed to be used on something that is reasonably related to the item being taxed. So, you'd expect a tax on telephones to pay for, I dunno, use of public land for phone lines or cell towers, or something. Something to do with phones, anyway. This is nothing more than a case of the proponents saying, "Hmm. We need a lot more money for emergency medical care. What haven't we taxed yet?" Now, the thing is, we do need a lot more money for emergency medical care in California. You know why? Because we spend billions of dollars each year on it to provide medical care for illegal immigrants who use the emergency room as their primary care center, that's why. So, if you want to cut medical costs--and education costs, too, now that we're on the subject--how about enforcing our immigration laws? Oh, and there's a neat little rider to this prop, too. There are no limits to the surcharge fees that can be levied on business phone lines or cell phones. I'll give you one guess as to why that is... PROPOSITION 68: Non-Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion. Tribal Gaming Compact Amendments. Revenues, Tax Exemptions. Recommendation: No This is actually a pretty shoddy political trick. Ostensibly, this proposition offers the state the following: Authorizes Governor to negotiate tribal compact amendments requiring that Indian tribes pay 25% of slot machine/gaming device revenues to government fund, comply with multiple state laws, and accept state court jurisdiction.Hmm. Sounds good, right. Casinos will finally pay a big chunk in state taxes, and will accept state court jurisdiction. Wow, why ever would we vote against this? Normally, we might not, but the kicker is hidden in the small print: If compacted tribes don't unanimously accept required amendments within 90 days, or if determined unlawful, authorizes sixteen specified non-tribal racetracks and gambling establishments to operate 30,000 slot machines/gaming devices, paying 33% of net revenues to fund government public safety, regulatory, social programs.So, if the tribes unanimously agree to the Governor's offer, they have to pay 25% of all their revenues at all their casinos to the government. On the other hand, if they don't unanimously agree, then they get to build 16 new casinos, and pay 33% of the revenues from the new casinos to the state, while revenues from their existing casinos are untouched. And the key word in all of this is "unanimous". Now, knowing this, what would you estimate the chances are of the tribes coming to a unanimous agreement? This is nothing more than a transparent way to get a bunch of new casinos built without having to go through a lengthy approval process, while at the same time protecting their current casino revenues from state taxation. And that's why the sun will set in a blazing red sky to the east of Casablanca before the tribes agree unanimously to anything the governor offers. No, if the governor is to have any chance of getting meaningful revenues from the casinos, then you can't start off by letting them build 16 new casinos as a reward for breaking off negotiations. PROPOSITION 69: DNA Samples. Collection. Database. Funding. Recommendation: Yes This would change state law to require DNA samples be taken from anyone who is arrested for or charged with any felony. There are some questions about the constitutionality of such a law, but I'm not sure what the problem is. We already routinely fingerprint arrestees, take their pictures, and note their identifying marks and scars, so I'm not sure how taking a mouth swab is any great constitutional violation. The purpose of DNA sampling is precisely the same as fingerprinting or photographs: to identify the suspect with certainty. It is every bit as exculpatory as it is incriminating, so I don't have a problem with it. And I certainly have little sympathy for felons who may be caught for additional crimes thereby. PROPOSITION 70: Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive Gaming Rights. Contributions to State. Recommendation: No Evidently, the idea behind 70 was, "Hey, why be satisfied with 16 new casinos? Why not just go for the whole enchilada?" because that's what Prop 70 is. Here is what the proposition requires:
Well, at least Prop 70 is up front about what the tribes want vis a vis gaming in the state. They want it all, and no competition. Well, nice try, anyway. PROPOSITION 71: Stem Cell Research. Funding. Bonds. Recommendation: No This is the proposition that is pitting Arnold Schwarzenegger against the social conservatives in the Republican Party. But, even though I'm not a social conservative, I'm against it anyway. Look, If I'm not gonna authorize $700 million in bonds for the cancer children, I'm sure as hell not gonna buckle under and say OK to $3 billion in bonds for stem-cell research! Even if I were to grant, arguendo, that many wonderful cures from stem cell research were right around the corner--and despite John Edwards protestations, they aren't, but even if they were, I'd still be against it. We're broke. The well's dry. The pipeline's empty. We're hip-deep in hock as it is, and the Governator wants to go $3 billion further in the hole? Look, this might've been an interesting argument if this was 1996, and we had a $23 billion budget surplus. But it's 2004, we're $13 billion in the hole, and the promise of stem cells is still years, of not decades away. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Proposition 72: Health Care Coverage Requirements. Recommendation: No Not just no, but hell no. This is the state medical plan that was approved by the legislature last year but forced onto the ballot for approval because of the uproar it caused. Essentially, it requires every business in the state with 20 employees or more to provide health coverage to all employees, and to pay for 80% of that coverage, or to pay into a state fund to provide health coverage to employees through the state. The Chamber of Commerce had a cow when the legislature passed this, especially since it came at time when Workmen's Comp premiums were rising by 100% per annum. This will cost businesses billion, adversely effect employment, and literally drive businesses out of the state in droves. Look, no matter how you feel about the need for universal health coverage, making businesses responsible for it is just about the silliest way possible to do it. You cannot control costs if the person paying for a thing and the person who receives a thing are two different people. It was a stupid idea when FDR implemented employer health coverage, and it's a stupid idea now. Making it mandatory doesn't make it any less stupid. And, if it does serve as a small business killer, then the costs to the state will be astronomical. Last year, the state was crawling with economic development officials from Tucson, Albuquerque, Reno, Colorado Springs, etc., urging California businesses to move to those location where the economic mandates would be much less onerous. Gov. Schwarzenegger pleaded with businesses not to leave, asking them to give him a chance to make California a more business-friendly state. If this passes, then that will all be for naught. Oh, and good luck finding a job, too. ____________________ So, there you have it. I hope you found this explanation helpful. Now get out there and vote early and vote often! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TrackBacks | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Return to Main Blog Page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Comments For This Post | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Previous Comments to this Post |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Add Your Comment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| Vicious Capitalism |
Buy Dale's Book!
|
