Skip to comments.Tom on the California 2012 Propositions (McClintock recommendations)
Posted on 09/24/2012 12:28:54 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
Prop 30: Your Wallet or Your Kids. NO
Either approve $36 billion in higher sales and income taxes or else Gov. Brown threatens to shoot the schools. Don't worry, the income taxes are only on the "very wealthy," but it turns out the "very wealthy" include many small businesses filing under sub-chapter S, meaning lower wages, higher prices and fewer jobs. California already has one of the highest overall tax burdens in the country and yet has just approved a budget to spend $8 billion dollars more than it's taking in. Moral of the story: it's the spending stupid.
Prop 31: Rotting Mackerel by Moonlight. NO
This one shines and stinks. On the shiny side, it moves us toward performance-based budgeting, restores certain powers to the governor to make mid-year spending reductions and requires new spending to be paid for. On the stinky side, it provides a two-year budget cycle that makes fiscal gimmickry all the easier and locks into the Constitution an incredibly anal process for local communities to adopt "Strategic Action Plans" serving such open-ended new age objectives as "community equity" and nudges them into establishing regional governments to push this agenda. The purpose of local governments is to provide basic services, not to pursue utopian four-year plans.
Prop 32: Cutting The Piggies Off From The Trough. YES
In the "It's About Time" category, this measure would finally prohibit unions, corporations, government contractors, and state and local governments from deducting money from employees' paychecks for political purposes without their express written consent. As Jefferson wrote, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." This puts an end to this despotic practice.
Prop 33: Rewarding Responsible Drivers. YES
Here's a no-brainer: should car insurance companies be allowed to offer a discount to drivers who maintain continuous coverage? No, it's not a trick question. Under California's convoluted law, if you switch auto insurers you can't qualify for the continuous coverage discount. This measure says you can.
Prop 34: Lifetime Room and Board (and Sex-Change Operations, too) for Murderers. NO
This abolishes the death penalty for first-degree murder. Enough said.
Prop 35: Red Light on Human Trafficking. YES
Prop 35 greatly expands the definition of "Human Trafficking" (already illegal), and greatly increases existing penalties. The problem is real and growing and needs stronger sanctions, although there are some provisions in Prop 35 that make it ripe for prosecutorial abuse, including limiting the ability of defendants to cross-examine witnesses and broadening the definition of trafficking to include those who never had contact with the victim. On balance, though, the good outweighs the bad.
Prop 36: Gutting Three Strikes. NO
After many years of rising crime rates, Californians finally struck back with the three-strikes law. It is actually a two-strikes law: after two serious or violent felonies - in which one has murdered, assaulted, raped, robbed or pillaged his fellow citizens - he is on notice that any further misconduct will remove him from polite society. Prop 36 would require that the third strike also be a serious or violent crime, giving dangerous criminals yet one more opportunity at atrocity. The Left predicted that "Three Strikes" would have no effect on crime - in fact, crime rates have plummeted. When it ain't broke, don't try and fix it.
Prop 37: Spit it Out. NO
This is the latest effort of the Nanny Left to tell us what to eat. It requires foods that contain any ingredients resulting from biotechnology advances to carry the scary warning: "GENETICALLY ENGINEERED." There is not a shred of evidence that biotechnology is the least bit dangerous - it often reduces the need for pesticides. To avoid branding their products with the Scarlet Warning, food processors would have to prove that every scrap and crumb in their fare is devoid of biotechnology or face crushing lawsuits. Grocery prices high enough yet?
Prop 38: Pay More, Get Less. NO
Not to be outdone by Prop. 30, this measure heaps $120 BILLION of new income taxes on those earning more than $7,316 (the new millionaires and billionaires of California's impoverished economy). It's for the schools, of course. No doubt these dollars (which families would just waste on necessities) will be as well spent as the staggering fortune that we're already shoveling into the sclerotic school system.
Prop 39: Tax Us Before We Hire Again. NO
This is a $1 billion per year tax increase on California businesses to subsidize a whole new generation of Solyndra scams. But remember, businesses don't pay business taxes; they only collect them from employees through lower wages, from consumers through higher prices, or from investors through lower earnings. Prop 39 might be bad news for California's employees, consumers and investors, but it's great news for the Nevada Chamber of Commerce.
Prop 40: Your GOP Donations At Work. YES
This is a monument to the stupidity of some Republican Party leaders, who spent nearly $2 million of party funds to qualify - and then drop - this referendum to overturn the Senate reapportionment because several state senators didn't like their new districts. They had hoped to run in their old seats, but after qualifying the initiative found out they couldn't anyway. A "Yes" vote affirms that the new non-partisan Citizens Redistricting Commission works.
California: November 2012 Statewide Ballot Measures
Which is the Molly Munger new school tax?
He blew that one big time. Whatever one thinks about it, this is an effort to tell us what we are eating, not an effort to tell us what to eat.
Big difference. It's just an effort to give consumers information about what is in a product so they can decide whether or not to spend their money on the product. Imagine that!
And no matter how hard some try to twist and distort that reality, giving the consumer the necessary information to make a purchasing decision is the conservative position.
"The regionalist transformation now being quietly pressed on California is exactly [what] President Obama has in mind for America should he win a second term. In California and America both, the 2012 election could open the door for a regionalist movement in hot pursuit of a redistributionist remaking of American life."
Tom’s got it right, especially about sleeper #31.
I concur with tom.
Prop 31 hangs out a carrot to hide the bad stuff.
The PROP 25 that said no pay for congress till the budget is passed also gave them a simple majority to pass a budget. Now the dems have no reason to even talk to republicans about the budget. They know how to write props for suckers in this state and their targets are uninformed conservatives.
Thank you for posting.
I agree on all except #37 (the labelling GM foods). That said, I am of such a fury at the stupidity of California voters over the years (as a former resident of the state who escaped last year) that I almost think the state deserves its punishment and the worst outcomes possible. My one demand is that the federal government never bail out California and make it abide its own choices.
If you want non-GM food, go to your grocery store, demand it, and then don't bitch about the prices.
Sheesh is right, when someone who claims to be a conservative can't grasp the concept that in a free society, consumers have a right to know what sort of product is being offered for sale. And they have right to spend their money on the product of their choice, for whatever reasons they make their buying decisions.
Really weird to see all these so-called conservatives assume the role of Big Brother and say: we know what's best. Don't ask questions; just take what we've decided is fine for you to consume. That's how Stalin and Mao did it in their time.
Oh really? Well there's a problem with your thesis, "conservative."
In a free society, process and formulary information is private property. It is the discretion of the OWNER to tell you about what he owns that you want to buy. Until you pay for both the product and that information, there is no sale and the product remains the property of the vendor. You can ask the vendor to tell you that information, and refuse to buy it if they don't. If there are enough customers like you, you can watch him go out of business if he won't. That's how liberty works.
Instead, you want the all powerful State to force the producer to tell you everything about his product whether it matters to your safety or not and whether you choose to buy it or not.
You had options you choose not to exercise. You could have hired a third party you trusted to assess that information, a business possessing a record of keeping trade secrets while accurately assessing concerns about product safety. You've been doing the same for decades with everything from lightbulbs to computers, including appliances that could kill you if they were unsafe. Somehow, you didn't need a schematic. The reason is that you hired Underwriters Labs to go in there and check out the product. It's a VOLUNTARY system that works fine and has for nearly a century, but now it's not good enough for you.
Really weird to see all these so-called conservatives assume the role of Big Brother and say: we know what's best.
You are the one playing Big Brother here, because you want the government to pry into everybody's business because you don't trust their products, you don't accept their guarantees, and you don't take their insurance despite the waters boiling with lawyers all around them. Nope. You want the State to enter their laboratories, steal their proprietary information and tell it you, whether the differences are material or not, whether you understand them or not.
I have done more than anyone on this forum toward replacing regulatory government with private property free enterprise solutions. Seriously. You'd better check my FR page before shooting off your mouth, as I own the first patent for a business method in free market environmental management. I've put my job on the line to force my employer to obtain environmental permits, despite having two new babies and a new house in the midst of a recession. I have been engaged in native plant habitat restoration for 23 years, starting before a single university ever offered the specialty. I've given up over $1.5 million in salary to do that work.
I tell you now, you quite clearly have no idea how free enterprise works, much less what "conservative" even means.
I don't even know why I bother with power freaks like you.
You're talking nonsense and using a lot of words to do it. A couple of the requirements of a free market are that both the sellers and buyers have perfect knowledge as to product and price. Information must be available to all participants.
That's a requirement of a free market along with many others. To the extent that participants choose to deviate from it, they are moving towards some sort of market rigged to the advantage of some participants at the expense of others.
Unreal that you can't grasp the simple, free market concept that all buyers and sellers should have knowledge of the product and price, and that they either agree on a deal, or they don't. You're advocating something, but you're not advocating a free market. You want to restrict access to the knowledge of the products offered, and so do the big ag corporations. They want to withhold certain information because they know some consumers will not buy GMO food.
This from Wiki on Free Markets:
Perfect information - All consumers and producers are assumed to have perfect knowledge of price, utility, quality and production methods of products.
And it's not just in Wiki. I learned it a few decades back in college econ courses.
And you've not only aligned yourself with Stalin and Mao, but also with Nancy Pelosi. Remember: "You'll have to pass the bill to find out what's in it"?
The U.S. Department of Agriculture as well as the California Department of Public Health already have the responsibility of assuring that food is healthy and safe. Voters don’t need to adopt additional oversight when there are existing public agencies funded to do that.
Consumers will be forced to bear the costs of the new requirements including costs of litigation brought on by lawyers lined up at the courthouse doors.
Half of all food products in the grocery store already contain genetically modified ingredients to no demonstrable ill effect on consumers.
If you want unmodified products you should shop at a natural foods market and spare the rest of us the expense of your purchasing decisions.