YES on Prop 30 Taxes earnings over $250,000 for 7
years and imposes 1/4 cent sales tax for 4 years raising ~ $6 billion/yr to
mainly fund schools (89% to K-12, 11% to community colleges).
NO on Prop 31 Establishes 2 year budget. Gives local gov't enormous powers to not
comply with state laws.
NO on Prop 32 Stops payroll deductions for
politics. Actually an assault on unions
cleverly disguised to seem even handed.
NO on Prop 33 Allows insurance companies to set
prices based on whether driver continuously had insurance for past 5
years.
YES on Prop 34 Replaces death penalty with life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole
NO on Prop 35 Increases prison sentences for
trafficking, broadens definition of sex offenders and requires sex offenders to
disclose all internet usernames (Note many organizations liberal or otherwise
are Yes on 35).
YES on Prop 36 Revises 3 strikes law to only impose
life sentences if the third strike is a serious or violent felony conviction
(with some exceptions).
YES on Prop 37 Requires genetically engineered foods
to be labeled.
NO on Prop 38
Munger's tax proposal uses sliding scale
increases to raise ~ 10 billion/year.
YES on Prop 39
Requires multistate businesses to pay income taxes based on their percentage of
sales in CA, as opposed to the current tax code where they pay the smaller of:
either sales or a percentage based on number of employees, facilities etc. in
state.
YES on Prop 40
Approves the recently drawn districts enacted by the Citizens Redistricting
Commission. The No on 40 has suspended
their campaign.
YES on A This is
an advisory vote (it's just looking for voter opinion) that indicates whether
you would support changing the CA constitution and the LA County Charter to
make the position of LA County Assessor an appointed position instead of an
elected position.
NO on B Requires
adult films to obtain a public health permit, have performers use condoms,
provide training courses and a written exposure control plan.
YES on J Extends the
1/2 cent sales tax that was approved by Measure R in 2008 for an additional 30
years, (from the current end in 2039 to ending in 2069).
Why I came to these decisions and some endorsements
YES on Prop 30 This is Governor Brown's tax proposal,
most of which will go to fund schools and
the only one which will stop the 6 billion spending "trigger cuts"
from being enacted later this year if this proposition does not pass. (5.8 billion of the trigger cuts are to
schools.) Prop 38 won't kick in until
2013 which will be too late to offset the cuts. Prop
30 will increase taxes on incomes between $250,000-$300,000 by 1%,
$300,000-$500,000 by 2% and over $500,000 by 3% for 7 years, thereby affecting
only the top 1% of voters. It will
impose a 1/4 cent sales tax for 4 years.
The money goes into the general fund and will increase the minimum
guaranteed amount that goes to schools, however some of the money will not go
to schools. It also requires the State
to pay local government for increased costs associated with implementing laws
in 2011 but closes the wasteful State reimbursement to local governments for
posting meeting notices. Our schools have been decimated by 20 billion
in cuts during the last 4 years. We must pass this proposition. Between prop 30 and 38, only the one with the
most votes will go into effect.
YES on 30: Every progressive organization as well as
most newspapers throughout the state (LA Times. San Francisco Chronicle, San
Jose Mercury News, etc., ACCE Action,
AFSCME Council 57, APEN (Asian Pacific Environmental Network), Bend the Arc:A
Jewish Partnership for Justice, CA Democratic Party, CA Labor Federation, CA
Partnership, CA Federation of Teachers, Courage Campaign, CREEDO Action,
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of CA, PresentePAC+, Working Californians
NO on Prop 31
Totally misguided "reforms" that: establish 2 year budget cycle,
prevent spending of more than $25 million unless offset by identified revenue
or other cuts, requires performance reviews of all state programs and allows
local governments to override state law.
Two of these "reforms" are especially problematic. The first is the $25 million spending cap
that would make it difficult to restore funding to programs decimated by
previous budget cuts, for instance in education, and in general will make it
more difficult for the legislature to pass anything. The second is that it transfers authority to
local counties and cities if they have approved plans (as well as $200 million to develop those plans)
to administer state-funded
programs. This could lead to local
governments overriding environmental laws with no effective way to prevent
abuse. Also the rebuttal argument points
out that the proposition is so vague and contradictory, it will lead to years
of expensive court battles instead of the reform it's looking for.
NO on 31: ACCE Action, AFSCME Council 57, Bend the
Arc:A Jewish Partnership for Justice, CA Democratic Party, CA Labor Federation,
CA Partnership, CA Federation of Teachers, Courage Campaign, PresentePAC+,
Working Californians
NO on Prop 32
Stops payroll deductions for political purposes. Since businesses do not collect payroll
deductions for political use, this proposition primarily affects unions who
do collect dues from payroll
deductions. The unions would in essence
no longer be able to contribute to candidates.
At the same time corporations can give as much as they want as long as
the money doesn't come from payroll deductions.
This is an assault on the working class dressed up as finance reform.
NO on 32:
League of Women Voters of CA, Common Cause, CA Clean Money Campaign, ACCE
Action, AFSCME Council 57, APEN (Asian Pacific Environmental Network), Bend the
Arc:A Jewish Partnership for Justice, CA Democratic Party, CA Labor Federation,
CA Partnership, CA Federation of Teachers, Courage Campaign, CREEDO Action,
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of CA, PresentePAC+, Working Californians
NO on Prop 33 Allows insurance companies
to set prices based on whether the driver has had continuous insurance for the
last 5 years. (Basically the same
Mercury Insurance initiative that was rejected in 2008.) This will end up raising insurance rates on
drivers who have not had continuous insurance even if they are new drivers,
haven't owned a car, were too sick and weren't driving for a while, etc. It is 99% financed by Mercury Insurance chairman George Joseph who has spent $16 million on
Prop 33.
NO on 33:
almost all the papers including the San Jose Mercury News and LA Times, ACCE
Action, Bend the Arc:A Jewish Partnership for Justice, CA Democratic Party, CA
Labor Federation, CA Federation of
Teachers, Courage Campaign, CREEDO Action, PresentePAC+, Working Californians
YES on Prop 34
Replaces death penalty with life imprisonment without the possibility of
parole. Applies retroactively to persons already sentenced to death. Also requires convicted killers to work while
in jail with earnings going to their victims and earmarks $100 million for
police grants to solve rape and murder cases.
I am morally against the death penalty especially when we consider that
innocent people are also killed. Since
1973, 141 people have been released from death rows throughout the country due
to evidence of their wrongful convictions. There were 3 exonerations in
CA. There is also tremendous racial
disparity. Even though blacks and whites
are murder victims in nearly equal numbers of crimes, 80% of people executed
have been for murders involving white victims.
Besides the moral issues, there are practical benefits. The biggest is cost. The measure would result in a cost savings to
state and local governments of approximately $100 million/year growing to $130
million after a few years. These result
from lower court and litigation expenses as well as reducing prison costs.
YES on 30: ACCE Action, AFSCME Council 57, APEN (Asian
Pacific Environmental Network), Bend the Arc:A Jewish Partnership for Justice,
CA Democratic Party, CA Labor Federation, CA Partnership, CA Federation of
Teachers, Courage Campaign, CREEDO Action,
PresentePAC+, Working Californians
NO on Prop 35
Increases prison sentences and fines for trafficking, broadens definition of
sex offenders and requires sex offenders to disclose all internet ISPs,
usernames and screen names. (NOTE that many groups on the right and left
are yes on PROP 35). Although increasing prison sentences for labor and sex
trafficking may seem fair, there are several major problems with this
measure. First, it broadens the
definition of human trafficking to include crimes related to the creation and
distribution of obscene materials depicting minors. For example, an offender who is simply
selling magazines could be considered a trafficker even if they had no contact
with the minor depicted. Someone
receiving financial support from normal consensual prostitution such as a son,
friend or landlord could be labeled a human trafficker. The measure also
requires all sex offenders (which will now include any kind of trafficking) to
provide the names of their internet providers, and identifiers (email addresses,
usernames, screen names) to police.
Unlike other crimes in which you do the time and then regain a place in
society, sex offenders are punished for life, having to register with their
address, employer address and other information annually (or every 30 days if
homeless). Unfortunately some of these
sex offenders are punished for very minor infractions or worse, innocent people
have plea bargained to a lesser offense to avoid trial but still must register
as sex offenders. Rather than working
with sex worker communities to stop real human traffickers , Prop 35 unjustly
sweeps too many people into the criminal system. This is a great article http://www.psmag.com/legal-affairs/prop-35-case-act-undermines-victims-rights-48314
written by 3 legal
experts who have worked with victims of human trafficking who argue that Prop
35, a laudable effort to address sex
slavery, will actually set back existing efforts to fight the trade.
No on 35: LA
Times, San Francisco Bay Guardian, Cindy Liou, a staff attorney at Asian
Pacific Islander Legal Outreach, located in the Bay Area. Asian Pacific
Islander Legal Outreach works with trafficking victims, Perla Flores, a program
manager at Community Solutions in Morgan Hills, Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic
Club,California Council of Churches, San Francisco Rising, Bernal Heights
Democratic Club, California Association for Criminal Justice, Peace and Freedom
Party
YES on Prop 36:
Modifies three strikes law such that if the third strike is a non serious,
non-violent felony, then the prison term will be twice the usual term for the
offense as opposed to the currently required 25-life sentence. Allows judges to resentence existing felons
if third strike not serious or violent. Maintains life sentence if prior
strikes were for rape, murder or child molestation. Other exceptions to the shorter sentence for
some drug, sex and gun related felonies.
This measure is a step in the right direction to reverse the abuses that
have happened since 1994 where people have received life sentences for
possessing small amounts of drugs or petty theft. Make
the punishment fit the crime and save $90 million/year in prison and parole
operations. It will help unclog
overcrowded prisons and reduce the number of severe cases of injustice.
Yes on
36: Most
newspapers such as Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Sacramento
Bee, San Jose Mercury News, La Opinion, San Diego Union Tribune,etc., Most law enforcement officials such as Steve Cooley District Attorney of
Los Angeles County, George Gascón District
Attorney of San Francisco City and County, Charlie Beck Police Chief of
Los Angeles, Jackie Lacy Chief Deputy District Attorney of Los Angeles
County, Bill Bratton Fmr. Chief of Police of Los Angeles, Civil Rights
Organizations, Labor Organizations Progressive Organizations and Faith Based Leadership, just too numerous to list separately. (see http://www.yeson36.org/endorsements)
YES on Prop 37:
Requires labeling on raw or processed genetically engineered (GE) foods. Prohibits labeling of such food as
"natural". Exempts foods that
are: organic, unintentionally produced with genetically modified organisms (GMO),
made from animals that are fed with GMO food, restaurants and alcohol. Unfortunately
some organic foods can contain GMO due to GM seeds and pollen blowing onto
their farms, especially getting in to feed stock for organic diary. Due to this, I wish that the measure did not
exempt organic food. However this is a
good step in the right direction that will lead to the giant agro companies
using less GMO foods and/or educating the public more about GMOs and perhaps finally sponsoring some studies
to look into their effects on humans. In
Europe which has required labeling since 1977, most companies prefer to not use
GE ingredients rather than label. The
measure will not increase food prices per se because food suppliers routinely
change their labels and there is a reasonable phase-in period. However, the fact that they may start using
non GMO ingredients may lead to higher prices (maybe up to $300 or $400 per
family per year). As expected, No on prop 37 is being financed
by Monsanto, Dupont, and some of the large food corporations such as Kellog, PepsiCo, Nestlé, ConAgra Foods and Coca-Cola.
Yes on 37: California Nurses Association, California
Democratic Party, California Labor Federation, United Farm Workers, American
Public Health Association, Consumers Union, Sierra Club, Whole Foods Market,
California Church IMPACT, Organic Consumers Association, Center for Food
Safety, Consumer Federation of America, Mercola Health Resources, Public
Citizen, MoveOn and Food Democracy Now and over 3000 other organizations
NO on Prop 38: Prop
38, funded almost exclusively by its proponent, wealthy civil rights attorney
Molly Munger is the alternate tax proposal to Prop 30. It increases personal income taxes on a
sliding scale from 0.4% for lowest earners to 2.2% for those earning >$2.5
million for a total revenue of ~$10 billion/year. For the first 4 years, 60% of the revenue
goes to K-12 schools, 10% to early childcare and 30% to pay down the debt.
Thereafter 85% to schools and 15% to early childhood. My main problem with this measure is that it
will not prevent the $6 billion trigger cuts to our schools that are scheduled
for later this year. It also does not
help the state community colleges. Between
Prop 30 and 38, only the one with more votes will be enacted. Although I like many things in this
proposition, particularly money for early childcare and education, I worry that
its complexity could lead to unintended consequences. It allocates funds based on number of
students, what grades they are in and if they are low income and also specifies
certain restricted uses on some of the funds.
The measure would shift spending decisions to local districts and make
them more accountable which may or may not be helpful. It also requires the
State to implement a rating system and training program to evaluate the early
childhood programs. Anyway, I wish we could have some of the good things from
this proposal but I think Gov. Brown has held us hostage and we need to support
his Prop 30.
No on 38: Most
newspapers such as Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Sacramento
Bee, San Jose Mercury News, San Diego
Union Tribune, ACCE Action, APEN (Asian
Pacific Environmental Network), , CA Democratic Party, CA Labor
Federation, Working Californians
YES on Prop 39
Requires multistate businesses to pay income taxes based on their percentage of
sales in CA, as opposed to the current tax code which requires that they pay
the smaller of: either their sales in CA, or a percentage based on number of
employees, facilities etc. in state.
This closes a gigantic corporate tax loophole enacted at the end of 2009
which incentivizes companies to keep property and employees outside of CA since
they can then get favorable tax treatment.
This also gives those multistate companies an unfair advantage over CA
companies who pay full freight. It would
bring back ~ 1 billion in revenue/year and grow over time. Of this amount, half of the revenue, capped
at $550 million, would be spent to fund projects that create energy efficiency
and clean energy jobs in CA for the first 5 years. This measure would bring both dollars and
jobs back to CA.
Yes on 39: Many
newspapers such as Los Angeles Times,
Sacramento Bee, San Jose Mercury News, La Opinion, All environmental
groups, Many social justice groups, Labor and even some business organizations. See http://www.cleanenergyjobsact.com/about/coalition/
YES on Prop 40
Approves the recently drawn districts enacted by the Citizens Redistricting
Commission (created by 2008's Prop 11).
This proposition had been sponsored by politicians unhappy with the
redistricting. However since they lost
in the State Supreme Court, they have suspended their campaign and are no
longer asking for a NO vote.
Los Angeles County Measures
YES on A This is
an advisory vote (it's just looking for voter opinion) that indicates whether
you would support changing the CA constitution and the LA County Charter to
make the position of LA County Assessor an appointed position instead of an
elected position. A friend pointed out
that both appointed and elected positions in government are prone to influence,
either by those who give campaign money or by being indebted to those that
appoint them. This seems to be the case
with the current LA Assessor, John Noguez, who is on an indefinite leave while
the District Attorney’s Office looks into allegations that tax bills were
slashed for the assessor’s campaign contributors. It would be better if
this position was just a civil servant position for someone rising through the
ranks. That being said, I would rather
have an appointed Assessor, as I think that is less susceptible to corruption,
so I am Yes on A.
NO on B Requires
adult films to obtain a public health permit, have performers use condoms,
provide training courses and a written exposure control plan. Violation of the
ordinance would be subject to both civil fines and criminal misdemeanor
charges. This measure will drive porn
either out of LA (at least part of the industry will go) with a huge economic
toll or underground where there is no testing or industry regulations. Currently porn actors are tested for HIV
monthly. This is a colossal waste of
taxpayer money that will actually send health inspectors to porn shoots instead
of dealing with actual health threats. Here
is a No on B ad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roTnYtd_l7E&feature=youtu.be
and this is a Huff post article that contains a cute No on B spoof http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/19/porn-stars-jessica-drake-_n_1980663.html?1350658706
No on Measure B: LA
Times
YES on J Extends the
1/2 cent sales tax that was approved by Measure R in 2008 for an additional 30
years, (from the current end in 2039 to ending in 2069). This would allow transit managers
to borrow money on the bond market in the near future to be repaid from
anticipated tax revenues that would roll in after 2039, which should allow them
to accelerate construction on at least some of the 15 projects that are already
in the works. It should also add local
construction jobs now.
Yes on J: LA Times,
Daily News, Pasadena Star News and other tiny papers
No comments:
Post a Comment