Prop 7 – RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION

My Summary: From the LA TImes: “Require public and private utilities to obtain at least 20% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010 and 50% by 2025.”

My Opinion: This is probably one of the most dangerous measures on the ballot, because the unforeseen economic impact could be HUGE.

First, renewable energy sounds nice, but it will only work when it’s economically viable. I’ve actually read about installing solar panels on your house. There’s a big upfront cost, but in the long run it can actually be a good economic decision, and there are people that do it. That’s how renewable energy should grow and succeed…through private means, not a stupid ballot measure that forces it upon energy companies when it’s not even a good economic decision.

I don’t enjoy spending $200 during the summer when we run the air conditioner, and I sure as heck wouldn’t enjoy paying more because the stupid energy is coming from a windmill farm that is causing prices to soar. They’ve got to be joking when they say 50% by 2025, because it sure is making me laugh!

A good solution is building nuclear power plants, but even the proponents of this bill are trying to paint nuclear power as wrong. In their for arguments: “We can do better than dirty coal, nuclear power, and offshore drilling.” No, we really can’t right now…because if we could, someone would be doing it.

Bottom Line: Renewable energy will become a greater part of our energy plan as it makes sense economically. Let the private sector figure this out, and stay the heck away government.

I am voting NO on Prop 7.

Make sure you visit Geeky Weekly for his take on Prop 7.

Prop 6- POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING

My Summary: It would increase state funding for police and other law enforcement entities by $365 million (to $965 million total). Increases penalties for some gang related issues.

My Opinion: Funding for law enforcement is one of those areas where I think the government should be spending a good portion of its resources. In comparison to some of the other ballot measures, this one is relatively cheap, but there are a couple things that bother me.

The first is state money being spent on the local level. I don’t like it when the federal government is doing things that should be done at the state level, and I don’t like it when the state is doing things that should be done on a local level. Granted some of the money would go to things like the Sheriffs or prisons which have more of a statewide role, but state money shouldn’t go to a local police entity unless it really needs to. I’m also not a huge fan of the guaranteed increase in money. I can imagine law enforcement deciding they need more money in another 5 years, and that the $965 million they would currently be receiving after this measure was no longer “enough.”

I’d like to come back to a recurring theme…why does this have to be done through a proposition? If law enforcement groups need more money, they should work with their local governments. If other specific statewide groups are underfunded, that shouldn’t be remedied with a proposition. I’m all for law enforcement funding…but not like this.

Bottom Line: This is the first time I’m going to disagree with Mr. McClintock. Even he says this is a mixed bag, and I don’t want to vote for it just to get a few good things. This however, is the first one where I could really vote either way, but I’m inclined to vote against it.

I am voting NO on Prop 6.

Make sure you visit Geeky Weekly for his take on Prop 6.

Prop 5- NONVIOLENT DRUG OFFENSES. SENTENCING, PAROLE AND REHABILITATION

My Summary: This proposition would dedicate $460 million in annual state spending to “improve and expand treatment programs for persons convicted of drug and other offenses,” with spending to increase with inflation.

My Opinion: Let’s see….George Soros supports this, and MADD is against this. I wonder who I will side with?

I don’t buy into the idea that there are a bunch of harmless drug addicts clogging our prisons. Steve Cooley, the LA County District Attorney even said “No first-time offender arrested in California solely for drug possession goes to prison—ever.” So what is this bill accomplishing?

From the voter’s guide arguments against: “Proposition 5 shortens parole for methamphetamine dealers and other drug felons from 3 years—to just 6 months.” That’s a big deal…and stupid. The proponents want you to think it’s about old guys smoking weed in their garage or something, but why does it let drug dealers off the hook so easy?

Bottom Line: I have no sympathy for the druggies.

I am voting NO on Prop 5.

Make sure you visit Geeky Weekly for his take on Prop 5.

Prop 4 – WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY

My Summary: From the LA Times summary: “Amend the state Constitution to bar abortions by unemancipated minors until 48 hours after a physician notifies the minor’s parent or legal guardian. Permit notification to certain adult relatives if a doctor reports the parent to law enforcement or a child protective services agency.”

My Opinion: I think this is common sense. A complex and potentially harmful procedure shouldn’t be done on someone’s underage child without the parent even knowing about it. I could go on and on about how I don’t think abortions should be available to minors at all, but that’s not even up for debate. What is being voted on is whether or not parent’s have the right to know if doctor’s are performing operations on their young daughters.

Of course the argument against this is that young pregnant women will fear their parents finding out, and then they will get a coat hanger and shove it up their wee wee and accidentally kill themselves. Or if they’re slightly more intelligent, they’ll find a guy named Smooth in the back of a tattoo parlor who will do it for them. Honestly though, and this might sound harsh, but if someone is stupid enough to do that, in the not too distant future they’ll probably end up getting themselves killed anyways do to sheer stupidity. Let’s see if that ruffles any feathers. (I’m giving it all I got!)

Bottom Line: If I have a daughter some day, and in the unfortunate event she became pregnant and went to try and get an abortion, I at least deserve to know. The government doesn’t get to make decisions for our families.

I am voting YES on Prop 4.

Make sure you visit Geeky Weekly for his take on Prop 4.

Prop 3 – CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL BOND ACT

My Summary: This is a bond measure just shy of $1 billion dollars. Of the nearly $1 billion dollars, “80 percent of bond proceeds go to hospitals that focus on children with illnesses such as leukemia, cancer, heart defects, diabetes, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis.” The other 20 percent go to UC hospitals for “acute care.”

My Opinion: This is probably going to be one of the more boring propositions. Obviously it’s a bond measure, and I don’t support it. How stupid is it that funding for private hospitals has to be done through a ballot measure? I’ve got two great reasons to vote no. Here’s the first, straight from the argument FOR the prop.

Construction costs are increasing and cannot be financed with the $750-million bond that voters approved in 2004.

The last big government handout wasn’t enough, so now they need more? Nice try. The best part is that they haven’t even spent all of that money. The major donors is also a good list to look at to decide who thinks this bond is important. The major donors are:

Childrens Hospital Los Angeles; Children’s Hospital of Orange County; Miller Children’s Hospital at Long Beach; other nonprofit children’s hospitals that could receive grants from the bond money.

If you’ve ever needed an example of “special interests,” it doesn’t get much better than this. I think the initial reaction people have is that these hospitals must be strapped for cash, and OOOH the poor little dying children! From everything I’ve read, these hospitals don’t need this money to keep their doors open. They’ve still got money from the last bond measure, and their greedy little pockets are already looking for more.

Bottom Line: First strike is that it’s a bond measure, and second strike is that no one can explain to me how sickly little children will be dying in the streets without this bond.

I am voting NO on Prop 3.

Make sure you visit Geeky Weekly for his take on Prop 3.

Prop 2 – STANDARDS FOR CONFINING FARM ANIMALS

My Summary: I’ll take this straight from the voter guide: “Requires that calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely.”

My Opinion: First of all, I think there is a clear distinction between humans and animals. Animals shouldn’t be tortured, but I don’t think they are equivalent to humans. So is there really a problem with animal treatment? From what I’ve read California law already calls for the humane treatment of animals, so I’m leery of why we need a ballot proposition to fix this “problem.” A ballot proposition seems like a stupid way to address this. Why not do it in the legislature where the politicians could work with poultry and dairy farmers? Personally, I think it’s somewhat of a power grab by animal rights activists. An ad on tv shows a forklift rolling a cow over on the ground. Obviously that’s unacceptable, and it’s probably against California law right now, but why do they show that in the commercial when the bill is about animal housing? To tug at your heart strings and make the farm, dairy, and poultry people look evil. That’s disingenuous.

I actually find the economic effects more compelling. I’ll copy and paste a couple I found at Ballotpedia:

A May 2008 study by Promar International that was commissioned by opponents to Prop. 2 estimated the fiscal impact of the measure on the California agriculture industry and consumers. This study concluded:

* 95% of the California egg industry and accompanying economic output would be lost by 2015.
* The total current economic output of the industry is $648 million and 3,561 jobs.
* Egg production costs would increase by 76%.

There was also a UC Davis study that estimated the cost of eggs would increase by 25%, but it would be a mute point because most of the egg producing farms would just move out of state. Overall the impact to the California economy would be a big negative. Instead of getting our eggs from our local economy, we would get more from out of state than we do now, and possibly Mexico.

Bottom Line: I don’t think an issue like this should be decided by a poorly worded proposition. If the legislature thinks this is a big issue, then they can duke it out and make some laws (that’s their job!).

I am voting NO on Prop 2.

Make sure you visit Geeky Weekly for his take on Prop 2.

As the first in a series of posts, let me give you a little background on what we’re doing, and where I come from when I decide how to vote on ballot measures.

Everyday for the next 12 days Geeky Weekly and I will post about the props in order at right around 6 pm. Now I’ve got a baby, and I know Geeky Weekly has a life, so if they don’t come at precisely that time, you’ll have to forgive us. We’re posting these completely independent of each other, so it will be interesting to see if there are any differences of opinion.

Before I post about Prop 1A, let me give you a little background on my approach. For the most part, if a ballot measure has the word “bond” anywhere in it, I usually vote no. In case you don’t know how bonds work, it’s basically the government taking out a loan. They sell the bonds now at a certain price, and then pay them back later with interest. I’m not sure if all bonds are sold at the same promised interest rate, but as you’ll see in this post, the bond measure for Prop 1A costs twice as much as it should (because of interest). I understand that for some “big” projects it makes sense to take out a loan, much like a homeowner doesn’t usually buy a house outright, but takes a loan and makes payments. The problem with California selling more bonds, is that we’re broke! Until Sacramento makes healthy spending decisions, there is no way I can support a bond measure that will saddle us with moe debt in the future.

Beyond bond measures, most propositions are either social issues or “fluff.” For the social issues, I of course lean to the conservative side, so you won’t be surprised there. For the “fluff” factor, anybody and their mother can get a proposition on the ballot, and I can’t remember seeing one in the last eight years that makes government bureaucracy smaller. So unless something about it strikes me as an important issue, I’m probably a no on anything that just adds to the size of government because some self-interest felt it needed to be on the ballot.

With all of that being said, here are the main places I’m looking to for how to vote. A great resource for a conservative point of view is Tom McClintock. You can also read the pro and con arguments in the Voter Guide. I’m even looking at the LA Times, but mainly because it lists a lot of donors, which can be a good indicator of whether or not I agree.

Now on to the props!

Prop 1A – SAFE, RELIABLE HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN BOND ACT

My Summary: This would authorize the sale of $10 billion dollars in bonds to help fund a bullet train between Orange County and San Francisco. The estimated cost of the actual train is $45 billion.

My Opinion: There are a couple problems with this, the first being that it’s a bond measure. The $10 billion dollars in bonds will end up costing $20 billion. As a state we already have over $100 billion in bond debt, so should we really approve more? My other problem is, do we really need this? Like many in So Cal I’m stuck thinking about how far I want to live from work because the freeways are so congested, but instead of fixing that issue we’re trying to spend money on a bullet train? Are there that many people that need to commute between San Fran and LA? I highly doubt it. My last big problem is, I can’t find where the other $35 billion dollars is supposed to come from. From the voter guide: “Section 8(e) says the bond funds are “. . . intended to encourage the federal government and the private sector to make a significant contribution toward the construction…” So they want they state to go further into debt, when they don’t even have the rest of the money to complete the project? The whole thing sounds like a joke.

Bottom Line: This is a prime example of why the government is so pathetic at accomplishing anything. Until Sacramento can balance the books, I refuse to support bond measures. The proponents of the prop claim that it won’t raise taxes, but don’t be fooled. If it weren’t for the $100 billion in debt we are right now, there would be no budget crisis. The ballot measure itself might not raise taxes, but when it saddles the state with debt, someone will have to pay for it. Right now I don’t trust the politicians in Sacramento to cut anything, and when push comes to shove, the only alternative is to raise taxes.

I am voting NO on Prop 1A.

Make sure you visit Geeky Weekly for his take on Prop 1A.