PROP 1 - PASSED
Proposition 1 would amend the California Constitution to establish a right to reproductive freedom, which is defined to include a right to an abortion and contraceptives.
Right now, Indian casinos in California are allowed to offer slot machines, lottery games, and card games. Prop 26 would expand that to roulette, dice games (such as craps), and sports betting. It would give them this very lucrative monopoly in California, while also creating a provision allowing them to sue any organization that violates state gambling limits.
The Yes on 26 Supporters, mostly tribes and racetracks, have spent more than $110 Million on this initiative. They expect to recoup much, much more if the prop passes. In return, the state will get more revenue in regulatory payments. However, much of that revenue will be eaten up by increased regulatory and enforcement costs, as well as new problem-gambling programs.
The NO on 26 campaign is funded by the "Card Clubs" and Online betting sites that want to grab the sports betting pie for themselves (via Prop 27).
To me, this isn't so much about whether sports betting should be allowed in CA, as it is in most other states. This is about putting in place a financial agreement between the casinos and the state that is written entirely by the casinos. Under this agreement, California would get 10% of the net profits from sports betting. That doesn't seem terrible, until you consider that many states get much more.
Your Political Friend is voting NO.
PROP 27 - FAILED
Prop 27 is like a remake of Prop 26, but with different villains. This time it's the "licensed gambling companies" who get to offer online sports betting. But they promise that they're totally gonna use the money to end homelessness!
Of course, the Prop would require a whole new level of bureaucracy that would eat up much of the new tax revenue. New funding would also be required for gambling addiction programs that would be needed because of, well, you know.
Even though it would allow tribes in on the action, most tribes are against it because the big winner of Prop 27 is out-of-state online gambling companies. Sports betting would be allowed on any computer or phone in the state, as long as the person is standing outside tribal lands (are they going to check our location)?
I should admit my personal bias here. I enjoy playing poker with friends, but I hate casinos. I find them depressing, desperate places. This prop will push casino culture into our phones and our computers. Are you ready for the explosion in advertising for online betting? Does anyone really believe that kids won't be playing?
In addition, if we are going to allow more gambling in our state, we should at least get a better deal- one that gets a bigger piece of the revenue and actually favors businesses in our state.
Your Political Friend is voting NO.
PROP 28 - PASSED
Prop 28 would require the state to provide additional funding to public schools for arts and music education. The funding amount would equal about $1 Billion, or 1% of the total school budget. Most of the money would be distributed to schools based on the number of students, with the remaining money going to schools based on their share of low-income students. The Prop would require most of the funding to be used to hire arts staff.
That's it, really. There are no hidden legislative tricks behind this initiative, and the goal is certainly desirable - give kids more access to art. The supporters behind the prop are the expected Democratic Party members and a few businesses that would directly profit, such as Fender Musical Instruments Corp. There is no argument submitted against the Prop, and no organization fighting it.
That is why it pains me to be against this Prop on the simple principle that we should not dictate the budget through the ballot. Prop 28 does not create any new funding source, so the money will come from the General Fund, meaning that something else will lose funding, and legislators will be further constrained in their ability to make economic plans for our future. Our discretionary budget is already too small. This will only make it worse.
People who vote Yes on Prop 28 will likely be doing so with the best intentions.
Nevertheless, Your Political Friend will be voting NO.
PROP 29 - FAILED
In the last three elections, we've seen as many propositions meant to punish Chronic Dialysis Clinics (CDCs). In 2018, Prop 8 tried and failed to cap the CDCs' revenues while forcing them to pay their employees more. In 2020 we rejected Prop 23, which would have required CDCs to have a physician on-site full time, along with other provisions.
This year's Prop 29 seeks much of the same, along with requirements that clinics disclose if any physicians have an ownership stake. It would also prohibit clinics from closing without state approval and prevent them from refusing treatment to patients based on source of payment.
Why do we keep seeing these initiatives? Are kidney dialysis patients being horribly abused by the dialysis centers that serve them? No. Prop 29 and the others are part of the Service Employees International Union's (SEIU) fight with the clinics in a labor battle that has nothing to do with patient health or safety.
Has there been an explosion of incidents of negligence at the clinics? No. Will reporting infection information to the state improve patient care? Maybe, but they're already required to do so. Requiring a full time physician or nurse practitioner on-site, playing lifeguard instead of providing care, will only increase costs and exacerbate our shortage of medical staff. If anything is certain, this Prop threatens to close down clinics and reduce patient access to life-saving treatment.
The only good part of this bill is the one requiring the big CDCs to treat patients regardless of their source of coverage. It's so good that the legislature actually passed a law in 2019 doing just that.
Your Political Friend is voting NO.
PROP 30 - FAILED
Prop 30 would require taxpayers to pay an additional 1.75% income tax on the share of their income over $2 million. That money would go towards two programs:
1) Electric Vehicle Programs - 80% of the revenue would be used to subsidize Zero Emission vehicles (ZEVs) for individuals and businesses, as well as funds to build new charging stations. About half of the money would be required to benefit heavily polluted and low-income communities.
2) Wildfire Response and Prevention - 20% of the revenue would be spent to hire, train, and retain state firefighters.
In August, CA approved a rule to ban the sale of new gas-fueled vehicles by 2035. That target is made up of gradual increases in the percentage of total vehicles that ZEVs must comprise - 35% by 2026 and 68% by 2030. This Prop would help us reach that goal, and the programs funding would not take money away from the General Fund. The additional income tax would sunset in 2043, or sooner if CA is able to drop its statewide greenhouse gas emissions before then.
Now, to address the arguments against it:
1) California is already pouring billions into EV programs.
Yes, as is the Federal Government, but IT IS NOT ENOUGH. Climate Change is an existential crisis and we need to stop acting like there is time to get used to the idea of doing something about it.
2) This will trigger an exodus of millionaires from the state.
Yes, that is a real danger. The top 1% pay nearly half the state's income tax revenue. Every one of them that leaves has a significant effect on our budget, and many have already fled, citing high taxation. Will 1.75% more on income over $2M break the wealthy camel's back? Maybe for some, but CA is still a beautiful place to live and Florida and Texas suck.
3) Lyft is promoting this initiative to get taxpayers to pay for their EV upgrades.
When CA announced the ZEV mandate, they also required that Ride Sharing Companies, like Uber and Lyft, become 90% EV by 2030. Of course, Lyft and Uber don't own any vehicles, so they're going to have to lean on their independent contractors (not employees, thanks to Prop 22) to get their own EVs. Will Prop 30 help Lyft? Yes, they'll benefit in an indirect way, but one in which we still get closer to meeting our state's mandate. Everyone wins.
Finally, let's not forget that CA is a massive emitter of greenhouse gasses, and more than 40% of our emissions are from Transportation. Also, the wildfires raging across our state every year release tons of greenhouse gasses. Prop 30 will address both those problems.
Your Political Friend is voting YES.
PROP 31 - PASSED
In 2020 CA legislators passed SB 793, which banned the sale of Flavored Tobacco Products and Tobacco Product Flavor Enhancers. These are any products that have a non-tobacco flavor such as fruit, mint, menthol, and others. The law does not ban hookah tobacco, cigars, or loose leaf tobacco.
Soon after SB 793 passed, a referendum on the new law qualified for the ballot, so here we are. A "Yes" vote means the law should go into effect, and a "No" vote means it shouldn't.
The No on 31 campaign is almost entirely funded by RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris, who also paid to get the referendum on the ballot, so let's just save ourselves some time and stop there.
Your Political Friend is voting YES.
No comments:
Post a Comment