Here is a summary of the props from November:
Prop 1A - PASSED
There are two kinds of taxes charged on gasoline. One is a “gas tax” (about 18 cents per gallon) that can only be spent on transportation projects. The other is a state sales tax (6 percent), which, until 2002, could be spent for purposes other than transportation.
In 2002, voters passed Prop 42, which required that the sales tax from gasoline must also be dedicated to transportation projects. However, it allowed the money to be used for general purposes when the state is in financial crisis. This has happened twice since 2003.
Prop 1a would essentially make it more difficult for the state to divert these sales tax revenues in the future. It limits the number of future diversions to twice in ten years, and prohibits any diversion of funds until all previous diversions have been paid off. It also requires that all diversions be paid back within three years (current law is five years).
I was against Prop 42, so my support for Prop 1a is a moot point. While I support the “gas tax” being used for transportation, I believe that the sales tax should stay in the General Fund. This is the case with the sales tax for everything else. So gasoline should be no different.
Plus, this prop is a Constitutional Amendment and, as such, deserves particular scrutiny. Should we really change our state’s charter for something like this? If passed, it will only limit our financial flexibility and that can’t be good. Vote NO.
Read the prop HERE.
PROP 1B - PASSED
This measure would allow the state to sell $20 Billion of general obligation bonds to fund transportation projects in these areas:
- Congestion reduction and Highway Improvements ($11.3 billion)
- Public Transportation ($4 billion)
- Goods Movement and Air Quality ($3.2 billion)
- Safety and Security ($1.5 billion)
Historically bonds were used to pay for major projects that last for at least a generation, under the theory that if it takes 30 years to pay off, the people here in 30 years should still be benefiting from it. That argument is crucial to rationalizing passing bonds, since, with interest costs, they end up costing $2 for every $1 spent.
The supporters of this measure claim that they are preparing this state for the future needs of our growing population, but most of the funding goes towards old solutions that are no longer feasible. The biggest chunk of money will be used to reduce congestion and increase capacity on state highways. But anyone living in Los Angeles, where the highways can't get any wider, can tell you that increasing capacity is a very short term solution. And where will we put all the new roads and highways?
We need drastic changes to our transportation system that include rethinking our city planning. This prop will not do that. Furthermore, it only gives $4 of the $20 billion to public transportation. That may seem like a lot, but statewide, it won't be much.
Prop 1B is possibly the most expensive bond measure in CA history. A cursory look at the funding behind the initiative brings up a long list of industries that are poised to make millions should it pass. This is "pay to play" budgeting, as usual. Vote NO.
Read it here.
PROP 1C - PASSED
This would allow the state to sell $2.85 billion in General Obligation bonds for the purpose of building low-income housing and emergency shelters for battered women.
Over half of the money is dedicated to developmental programs in urban areas and near public transportation. The programs would provide loans and grants for a variety of projects such as parks, water, sewage, transportation, and housing.
$625 million would be used to provide low-interest loans and grants to low and moderate income homebuyers. $590 million would provide similar loans and grants to local governments, nonprofits, and private developers to help fund construction of apartment buildings with units for low-income families. It will give priority to projects in already developed areas near existing public services and transportation. The remainder would go towards loans to develop homeless shelters and housing for farmworkers. The legislature would have the ability to reallocate much of these funds over time to ensure their effectiveness.
Since much of this money will be used for low-income loans, the price tag of this bond should be considerably less, as the loans are paid back. That makes this bond a better investment than most. Read it here. I'm voting YES.
p.s. My father has recently contacted me to urge that I vote No on this one. As a building contractor, he claims to have seen horrible abuses of the low-income housing system. I've included his comments in the comments section of this posting.
PROP 1D - PASSED
This would allow the state to sell $10.4 billion in General Obligation bonds to relieve public school overcrowding, repair older schools, and upgrade public college and university buildings. Some of the money will also be used to build new classrooms for state universities and community colleges.
Every year there is another bond measure to rebuild schools or libraries, and nearly every one passes. The state legislators put these on the ballot because everyone supports schools (and libraries). Over the past decade, we have approved $28.1 billion in state bonds for K-12 school facilities. About $3 billion remains to be spent (although we'll still be paying the debt for a long time).
In 1988, voters passed Proposition 98, which set a funding priority requiring that approximately 40 percent of all new tax revenue first be set aside for public education. If only they would pass a new tax, instead of throwing bonds at us every election. Vote NO.
PROP 1E - PASSED
This would authorize the state to sell $4.09 billion in General Obligation bonds to rebuild flood control structures and delta levees. $3 billion would go towards fixing levees and flood control systems in the Central Valley. The rest would fund local governments' flood control and stormwater management systems.
Earlier this year the state passed legislation to provide $500 million from the General Fund for emergency levee repairs and other flood control-related expenditures. That's how we should be paying for this.
Like the other props so far, most of the projects outlined in the funding are good and worthwhile. And I'll admit I was very tempted to vote yes on this one. However, there are redundancies between this one and Prop 84, and I like Prop 84 just a little bit more than this one. So I'll vote for that instead.
As a side note, I don't recall the state government bringing up our levees before Katrina made the things infamous. I may be cynical, but I wonder if this is a critical need, or an attempt to cash in on a tragedy. Either way, vote NO.
PROP 83 - PASSED
This proposition would introduce new restrictions and tougher punishment for sex offenders and child molesters. However, it is completely unnecessary. Nearly all of its provisions were signed into law a few weeks ago.
As the election draws near, legislators have been falling over each other to appear "tough on crime", and protecting children is the most politically appealing way to do it. The governor recently signed SB1128 which will increase the penalty for child rape to 25 years in prison. It will also allow possession of child pornography to be charged as a felony, extend prison sentences for Internet predators and lengthen parole terms for violent ex-felons to 10 years. Likewise, SB 1178 will require high risk sex offenders to wear electronic monitoring devices during their parole.
Republican legislators, frustrated that their version of this legislation didn't pass, put Prop 83 on the ballot, calling it "Jessica's Law" (after Jessica Lunsford, a nine-year-old who was killed by a sex offender who failed to register with the local police). This version differs from the legislation already passed in a few regards:
1) Under Proposition 83, all registered sex offenders would be required to undergo electronic monitoring for life, regardless of their offense or the likelihood that they will offend again. This would be true for non-violent offenders as well. It is a ridiculous waste of money.
2) The new legislation prohibits those convicted of a sex offence against a child from living within a quarter mile of a school (a half mile if the offender is high-risk). Prop 83 would expand the off limits area for low-risk offenders to 2000 feet around any school or park, and remove the requirement that the victim be a child.
3) Prop 83 would designate an offender as a Sexually Violent Predator after one victim, instead of two.
I am strongly opposed to legislation and initiatives that impose criminal sentences, as they take the independence and discretion away from the judges and prosecutors. That is why 1995 "Three Strikes Law" (Prop 184) has been such a disaster for the state.
The fact is that sex crimes against children are on the decline. More importantly, most child molestation is not done by a creepy new neighbor, but by a relative or family friend. This measure will do nothing to stop that from happening. Let us give the new legislation a chance, or perhaps we should try this. Either way, Vote NO.
PROP 84 - PASSED
Authorizes the state to issue $5.4 Billion in bonds for a variety of projects related to water resources - rivers, beaches, levees, watersheds, and parks and forests.
Here's how the funding breaks down:
- $1,535 million - Safe drinking water, water quality and other water projects
- $ 928 million - Protection of rivers, lakes, and streams
- $ 800 million - Flood control
- $ 580 million - Sustainable communities and climate change reduction
- $ 540 million - Beaches, bays, and coastal water
- $ 500 million - State parks and nature education & research
- $ 450 million - Forests and wildlife conservation
- $ 65 million - Statewide water management and planning
$1 billion would be divided among the twelve hydrologic regions in the state, which are identified in the California Water Plan, to address multi-regional needs and issues of statewide significance. Local projects that are already approved would be given priority in the
competitive process.
- These funds must result in a public benefit with preference for multi-benefit programs and projects, and services to underserved communities
- Every proposed activity or project to be financed must be in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
- Acquisitions of real property for any project will be from willing sellers
- Not more than 5% of the funds can be used for administration
PROP 85 - FAILED
This prop amends the state constitution to bar abortions for minors until 48 hours after parental notification. It makes exemptions for medical emergency, or judicial waiver.
Unlike the US Constitution, California’s charter explicitly guarantees an individual’s right to privacy. As a result abortion opponents have been unable to pass a parental notification law that passes constitutional muster. In 1996 a law of this sort was struck down by the state Supreme Court. In its decision the Chief Justice acknowledged that parents have the right to make most medical decisions for their children. However, he said, “because the decision whether to continue or terminate her pregnancy has such a substantial effect on a pregnant minor’s control over her personal bodily integrity, has such serious long-term consequences in determining her life choices, is so central to the preservation of her ability to define and adhere to her ultimate values regarding the meaning of human existence and life..., we conclude that a minor who is pregnant has a protected privacy interest under the California Constitution...”
So the people behind Prop 85 decided to change the constitution. Led by a Catholic newspaper publisher in San Diego, they have crafted an amendment that would remove this right to privacy for minors. The prop would not require parental consent, only notification.
I’ll admit that the prop may sound reasonable, especially when I ask myself how I would feel if my own daughter were seeking an abortion. I would want to know. However, I also believe that we cannot legislate family harmony, and we cannot assume to know the conditions under which a young woman must make her choices.
This prop is nearly identical to last year's failed Prop 73. The main difference is the removal of a definition of a fetus as "a child conceived but not yet born." It is an obvious attempt to eliminate women's access to safe and legal abortions. Vote NO.
Want to see for yourself? Here's the text.
PROP 86 - FAILED
This initiative would impose an excise tax of $2.60 on each pack of cigarettes sold in the state. The money would be used to fund a variety of health programs including emergency services, cancer research, and health care for the poor and uninsured.
The official analysis estimates that this tax would initially raise about $2.1 Billion, and decline as more people stop smoking. Some of the money would be used to backfill child development programs started by 1998's Prop 10, which would lose money as fewer cigarettes are sold. Almost half of the remaining funds would go towards paying hospitals for uncompensated costs for services to the poor and uninsured. The rest would go towards expanding the state's Healthy Families Program, anti-smoking outreach programs, and disease research. An additional provision would exempt approved hospitals from antitrust laws by allowing them to coordinate certain services with other hospitals.
My main concern about this measure is that it will hurt the poor far worse than anyone else. When you consider that a pack of cigarettes costs about $4 (87 cents of which is tax), $6.60 is an exorbitant increase. Those with the money will either absorb the cost or buy their cigarettes online. Others will turn to smugglers, whose business will surely grow if this passes. Furthermore, the expected drop in consumption of tobacco will hurt many small businesses.
On the other hand California taxpayers are paying about $8.6 billion annually in health care costs related to smoking. According to the California Department of Health Services, California is losing at least $1.5 billion each year in productivity due to smoking-related illnesses. Smoking remains the number one cause of preventable death and disease, as it kills 42,000 people in this state every year.
I don't smoke, but I know many people who do and I am loath to tell them what they can and can't do to their own bodies. But, if this proposition can accomplish its stated goal of reducing and preventing smoking among teens, perhaps the insult will be justified.
The main sponsor of this measure is a group called the CA Hospitals Committee on Issues, which is run by the CA Association of Hospitals and Health Systems. The main opponent is, of course, Philip Morris. Both sides completely overstate their arguments. Ignore anything they tell you and stick to the facts. Your Political Friend will be voting Yes.
PROP 87 - FAILED
California is the third largest oil producing state in the country, with a current output of 230 million barrels per year. Oil producers pay a fee of 6.2 cents per barrel in addition to local property taxes.
This proposition would establish a severance tax on oil production, although the exact amount of the tax is unclear. Depending on the final interpretation, it will vary between 1.5 and 6.0 percent of the gross value, which would generate between $225 and $485 million annually. This would be used to fund a $4 billion program with the goal of reducing petroleum consumption in the state by 25%. The money would go towards research and production incentives for alternative energy, alternative energy vehicles, energy efficient technologies, and education and training. No more than 2.5% of revenue can be used for administrative costs, and the severance tax would expire once the state has spent the $4 billion.
Of all the props on the ballot, this one has gotten the most attention, mostly because the oil industry is spending millions to defeat it. They are especially vexed by a portion of the measure that would prohibit them from passing the tax along to consumers.
The oil companies are pulling out any argument against this bill, but they all ring hollow. The fact is we must set ourselves on a path away from oil dependency. And, after a summer in which California based Chevron Corp. posted record quarterly profits of $4.4 BILLION, the oil companies can afford to share the cost. Vote YES.
PROP 88 - FAILED
This prop would institute a $50 per-parcel property tax, the proceeds of which would go to K-12 schools. The money (about $450 million) would fund class reduction, textbooks, school safety programs, facility grants, and data systems. $30 million would be transferred annually to the General Fund to offset a projected decline in income tax revenue (due to increased property tax deductions). No more than $1 million can be used for county administration of the parcel tax.
The way it is now, all property taxes are imposed by local governments. This would be the first property tax imposed by the state. The measure exempts senior and disabled homeowners from the tax. However, one problem with Prop 88 is that it locks in spending for programs that may or may not be needed by a school district (some may need textbooks, but would be required to spend the money on after school programs). Also $85 million would go to an "Academic Success" grant that would benefit charter schools that serve no more than 3.2% of the state's students.
Thanks to 1978's Prop 13, which reduced property taxes by 57%, California ranks 35th in per-pupil spending. This measure would bump us all the way up to 34th.
The strangest part about this prop is that its backers have stopped supporting it. Many teachers say that it does not raise anything close to what is needed. It's main sponsor Edvoice Inc., a Mill Valley-based independent expenditure committee, has decided to shift it's money into promoting Prop 1D.
I agree that this proposal is a pittance compared to what is needed. But, unlike the many bond measures, it does not involve deficit spending. And it will likely do more good than harm. That's a lot more than I can say for most propositions. I'll vote yes. But I won't be sad when it fails. Here's a good summary.
PROP 89 - FAILED
This proposition would institute a system in which candidates for state office may receive public campaign funding, paid for by a 0.2 percent increase in the corporate tax rate. Candidates applying for the funding must demonstrate popular support by collecting a certain number of $5 contributions (750 for assembly races, up to 25,000 for Governor). Once a candidate has accepted public financing, he can not receive any private donations, other than money from his party, which would also be limited by this measure. Those choosing to forgo public financing can collect private money, as they do today, although the limits on donations from individuals, lobbyists, and corporations will be much lower.
This proposition comes in response to the overwhelming corruption in evidence in our government. Campaign financing today is, essentially, legalized bribery. Candidates receive campaign donations for which they are expected to deliver favors once they get into office.
But imagine if those donations came from the taxpayers? Imagine if the elected official was obligated to deliver favors to us instead of special interests?
The courts have already ruled that private money is a form of speech, and as such, cannot be eliminated from the process. This measure is a brilliant solution. By making the public financing voluntary, wealthy candidates can still run their own campaigns, while those typically left out of the process will be able to run a credible race. The system is already in place in Arizona and Maine, with scaled down versions in New Mexico, North Carolina, and Massachusetts. It has brought diversity to to the process and allowed candidates more time to meet with their actual constituents instead of constantly seeking donors.
This measure is tested, it is reasonable, and it is overdue. Think of it as an investment in democracy. It was put on the ballot by the California Nurses Association. It is opposed by a coalition of business interests. Read more about it HERE.
Full disclosure: I have given money (about $100) to the CA Clean Money Coalition, one of the proponents of this initiative.
PROP 90 - FAILED
This constitutional amendment would require the state to pay property owners if it passes any laws that result in economic losses to the property. It would also limit the government's ability to take land through eminent domain (aka "condemnation").
The initiative rides on the wave of outrage after the 2005 US Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, in which the court ruled that the government can use eminent domain to take land from one private citizen and give it to another. In that case, a city took property from one private owner and turned it over to a corporation as part of a larger redevelopment plan. Their justification was that the economic benefits to the city that would result from the redevelopment qualified it as a "public use" under the Fifth Amendment.
This ruling was rightfully seen as an attack on private property rights. In response, Prop 90 would prohibit any land taken by eminent domain from being transfered to private use. It would also make it more difficult for a city to condemn an entire neighborhood, and would increase the compensation that the government must pay owners when it takes a property.
So far, the measure seems somewhat reasonable. But it is, in fact, a deadly Trojan Horse.
If passed, this proposition would require the state to compensate any property owner that is negatively effected by any new law or regulation. According to the analysis, "these laws and rules could include requirements relating, for example, to employment conditions, apartment prices, endangered species, historical preservation, and consumer financial protection." That means that any new consumer or environmental protection we consider, however justified, would have to pass a test as to whether or not we can pay for all the lawsuits that would result in it's institution. In the case of endagered species, the question would not be, "how can we save this animal from extinction?", but would instead become, "can we afford the legal fees?" In the case of air quality, the state would have to pay polluters if it required them to pollute less.
The predictable result is that most new protections will simply be abandoned, and that is exactly what the backers of this prop are counting on. This tactic has been a hallmark of the "wise use" movement, as well as "free trade" agreements such as NAFTA. It is a preemptive strike on our ability to protect ourselves in a changing world.
To downplay this concern, the proponents included some basic exemptions for situations involving public safety or a declared state of emergency. But they are vaguely written, and would likely be challenged in court.
Montanans In Action put up $600,000 to get this on the ballot. But the organization is actually a front group for a libertarian think tank called Americans for Limited Government (which gave an additional $1 million). It's chairman is the New York real estate magnate Howard Rich, who has funded dozens of astroturf organizations intent on promoting private property rights to the detriment of all other concerns.
Our government must have the flexibility to respond to changing conditions in the environment and the workplace. We cannot allow businesses to tell us when we can and cannot protect ourselves. And we certainly do not owe compensation to those who would damage our health and our environment.
Read the prop HERE.
Then throw up.
Then vote NO, NO, NO.
No comments:
Post a Comment