Here’s a big post to finish up the props! I’ll probably make a final post on Monday to cover a couple other things and give some final thoughts before we vote on Tuesday.

Prop 11 – REDISTRICTING

My Summary: Right now the legislature gets to draw district lines. This would give the power to a 14 person panel, consisting of five democrats, five republicans, and four others.

My Opinion: One of the major opponents is the California Democratic Party, and the opponents argue that this is a “Republican power grab.” Hahaha! So when the Democrat controlled congress gets to draw the lines for the districts electing them it’s OK, but when that power is given to a much more objective board of non-elected people, it’s a power grab? That’s hilarious.

Bottom Line: I’m strongly supporting this one. People that are being elected shouldn’t be allowed to draw the districts for the voters electing them. That’s a huge conflict of interest.

I am voting YES on Prop 11.

Prop 12 – VETERANS’ BOND ACT OF 2008

My Summary: Provides low interest rate loans to veterans so they can buy houses.

My Opinion: This one is also a no-brainer. If you read the arguments against the prop, it’s basically an endorsement! Their biggest complaint is that the money should only go to people who were in battle basically, as if those veterans are more valuable than the ones who served and didn’t go into battle.

Bottom Line: Tom McClintock co-authored this one, and they’ve done an act like this 26 times in the last 85 years.

I am voting YES on Prop 12.

Measure R – Half-cent sales tax hike for transportation in L.A. County

My Summary: Would raise the sales tax in LA County to 8.75%. The increased tax revenue would go to a number of projects, including expanding a subway.

My Opinion: Tax increases! You know how the state is broke and there isn’t enough money for anything? Instead of cutting back on stupid programs we’ll just raise taxes! Yay!

I don’t like this measure because a ton of money is going towards a subway…

The MTA says that could be enough to extend the line from its terminus at Wilshire Boulevard and Western Avenue to Westwood. The route hasn’t been decided, but a recent MTA study recommended that the subway follow Wilshire to Beverly Hills, swing south to Century City and then north to Westwood.

Meh, that’s something I’ll never use, but I’m supposed to spend more in taxes to make it happen.

Bottom Line: Raising taxes for mass transit during an economic downturn doesn’t sound like a good idea to me.

I am voting NO on Measure R.

Make sure you visit Geeky Weekly for his take on Prop 11, 12, and Measure R.

Prop 9 – CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. VICTIMS’ RIGHTS. PAROLE.

My Summary: Straight from the voter guide…

• Requires notification to victim and opportunity for input during phases of criminal justice process, including bail, pleas, sentencing and parole.
• Establishes victim safety as consideration in determining bail or release on parole.
• Increases the number of people permitted to attend and testify on behalf of victims at parole hearings.
• Reduces the number of parole hearings to which prisoners are entitled.
• Requires that victims receive written notification of their constitutional rights.
• Establishes timelines and procedures concerning parole revocation hearings.

My Opinion: I probably won’t spend a ton of time on any of the remaining props, but I like this one. The reduction in parole hearings sounds like it’s well overdue and could save money. I read this at ballotpedia:

Proposition 9 would save money because under the current system, taxpayers are spending money to fund hearings for criminals who have little chance of release. For example, supporters of Prop 9 argue, “‘Helter Skelter’ inmates Bruce Davis and Leslie Van Houten, followers of Charles Manson, convicted of multiple brutal murders, have had 38 parole hearings in 30 years. That’s 38 times the families involved have been forced to relive the painful crime and pay their own expenses to attend the hearing, plus 38 hearings that taxpayers have had to subsidize.”

I also like the idea of the victim’s families having increased rights during bail and parole hearings.

Bottom Line: Tom McClintock supports this one. Murderers shouldn’t be released on bail without letting the victims family know.

I am voting YES on Prop 9.

Make sure you visit Geeky Weekly for his take on Prop 9.

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.

Prop 87 - Alternative Energy. Research, Production, Incentives. Tax on California Oil Producers. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute

My Summary: Straight from the voter guide: "Tax of 1.5% to 6% (depending on oil price per barrel) on producers of oil extracted in California. Prohibits producers from passing tax to consumers."

My Opinion: More taxes! Once again, higher taxes are a bad thing. How producers would be prohibited from passing it on to consumers, I have no idea. It’s simple economics, as Tom McClintock points out: "When you tax something, you get less of it and the price goes up." These taxes would supposedly go to researching alternative fuels and such. My opinion on this topic is this: private business will handle it. If it is economically feasable to use alternative fuels, private business will be there to turn a profit. Aside from private business, the only alternative fuel policy I would support is a government sponsored, nationwide program like Brazil has done with ethanol. Little pet projects like this prop are just a waste of money.

Bottom Line: I went 26 days between my last two fill-ups, so I don’t think gas prices or alternatives are really that necessary. If Toyota can turn a profit with a Prius, they will. If not, it doesn’t make any sense.

I am voting NO on Prop 87.

2006 California Election Page