2010 General Election - Part 2

This is Part 2 of my analysis of the 2010 General Election from Orange County, CA.

Propositions

Summary
Prop 19:  NO
Prop 20:  YES
Prop 21:  NO
Prop 22:  NO?
Prop 23:  YES!!
Prop 24:  NO!
Prop 25:  NO!!
Prop 26:  YES
Prop 27:  NO

Rationale

Prop 19:  NO -- A Yes vote would result in greater proliferation and availability of marijuana in CA.  Children will be able to much more easily acquire it without breaking the law.  It will be virtually impossible for the State to regulate or enforce any controls when marijuana is grown in private individuals' backyards.  Alcohol and marijuana are not the same:  Alcohol is intoxicating when abused and consumed in excess. The sole purpose of smoking pot is to get "stoned."  It's interesting how militantly opposed to tobacco smoking our society has become, while at the same time so strongly in favor of pot.

Prop 20:  YES -- I'm somewhat torn about this one.  On one hand I'm not convinced that this "Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission" is truly independent. How are they held accountable? How are they protected against political influence?  Theoretically, we should be able to hold our Representatives accountable by recalling or not re-electing them should they violate our trust.  However, when it comes to re-districting, this doesn't seem to work, and allowing the Fox to guard the hen-house is not a reasonable solution in the first place.  The Commission already exists for State districts; this measure just expands the juridiction of the Commission to Congressional districts.  Every Conservative I know is in favor of this one.  I lean in favor of it, but not strongly.  The NO position is endorsed by the California Teachers' Association, the Sacramento Bee, and the Sierra Club...Even more reason to vote YES.

Prop 21:  NO -- The State of CA is virtually broke.  Due to the depression, revenue is down. But CA overspent on unnecessary projects and now is scrambling for money.  Rest assured, legislators will find my a myriad of ways to squeeze more money out of the taxpayers. Let us not foist another tax increase upon ourselves!  There are other, more appropriate options for the State Parks:  1) Transfer the Parks under Private ownership and control, or 2) Fund the really important Parks from current revenues (if they're really necessary, they'll find a way to do this), or 3) Drop the rest entirely and let private parties buy up the land.  Go away you money-sucking leeches!  A No-Brainer.

Prop 22:  NO? -- Still undecided on this one.  But, based on the Ground Rules above, my default position for propositions is NO.  On the surface, this looks like a good prop--it claims to prohibit Sacramento from raiding Local sources of revenue.  But Conservatives are mixed on this, as there are reportedly other unsavory provisions hidden within.  I will continue to study this issue; If my vote changes, i'll update this post.

Prop 23:  YES!! -- Temporarily (unfortunately, not permanently) suspends implementation of AB32, the "Global Warming Final Solutions Act."  That legislation is not only unnecessary but, even worse, is an attempt by the CA government to overreach, and impose restrictive regulations in the name of "climate change."  The effects will be to drive the nail into the coffin of the CA economy. If AB32 goes into effect, jobs will be lost and, I suspect, we will witness another mass exodus of employers and taxpayers out of CA to other, more friendly states.  Too bad Prop 23 bill only temporarily suspends this insanity.

Prop 24:  NO! -- California already has about the worst business climate in the nation. Employers and employees have left CA in droves to seek greener pastures elsewhere.  While other states are trying to lure employers, CA is trying to drive them out by increasing their taxes.  Businesses do not pay these taxes--we do:  through increased prices, lower wages (or fewer jobs), and lower investment returns (i.e., 401(k) value).  Another No-Brainer.

Prop 25:  NO!! -- This Proposition is not about passing an on-time Budget.  Removing the 2/3 requirement from passing a Budget deprives us of an essential Check and Balance in our Legislature.  If this prop passes, liberal legislators will be able to pass through extravagant spending with no opposition. And to pay for this, they will be able to more easily foist upon the taxpayer all sorts of new "creative" tax schemes (described as "fees," "assessments," and what have you). The fact that all the Teachers' Unions are in support of this prop is another strong motivation to oppose it.  This is about the biggest No-Brainer on the ballot.

Prop 26:  YES -- Call a Tax a Tax.  Currently, government officials across the state have been raising taxes on us by disguising them as "fees."  This Proposition helps re-classify as taxes those revenue increases that are actually taxes, making it more difficult to enact without a public or 2/3 majority vote.  I'm voting YES to stop this insanity.


Prop 27:  NO -- A Yes vote would rescind the current re-districting scheme and restore the original, politician-led re-districting that results in gerrymandering districts for state offices in order to keep politicians in power.  While I'm not convinced about the aforementioned "Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission," I also know that the politicians can't be trusted to do this themselves.  I'm voting NO to leave it as it is.

Part 3 will be a brief analysis of my votes for State and Local offices...

2010 General Election

As everyone is fully aware from the yard signs, attack ads, and sound-bite debates, Election Season is almost over.  In fact, with only one week left to go before the General Election, now is the time to figure out how you're going to vote (if you haven't already).  I live in Orange County, in southern California--once a bastion of Conservatism in a largely Left-leaning state.  Now, it seems, I'm one of the few traditional conservatives left.  In case you're interested, here's how I'm going to vote, along with some of my rationale.

First, I'll start with the CA State Propositions and local Measures.  This first post outlines the Ground Rules for how I vote.

Propositions 

Ground Rules:  I largely follow my good friend Brant's groundrules for voting on Propositions. (His explanations are great! Read them.) These lay a groundwork for my vote and help to break ties. In summary, the rules are as follows:

1. Default position is NO.  New laws generally restrict liberty.  Therefore, the burden of proof for the necessity of a law lies with the proponents of the measure.
2. Bond measures are held with even greater suspicion.  Bonds are a way for the government to take out a loan on the backs of the tax-payers. California already over-spends and over-taxes. If our legislators haven't already budgeted for it, then we probably don't need it.  The burden of proof is especially high for the proponents. I have never voted in favor of a bond measure.
3. Measures similar to other measures already passed are held with greater suspicion.  How many times have we had new measures to "fix the schools" or "clean up the enviornment?"  If the previous measures didn't work, what's so special about this one?
4. NO on anything that attempts to raise money for vital services.  Politicians can't be allowed to pay for their pet projects with budgeted revenue and then cry to the taxpayers that there's no money left to cover vital services like fire and police. Voting yes gives in and lets the politicians have their way with the taxpayers.

The next post will provide my brief analysis of each proposition and measure. Stay tuned...