California Election, November 2006

Finally had a chance to read through all the voter information this weekend. Here's a rundown.

My Vote — Proposition — Reasoning

• No — 1A — The State government has already borrowed money from the 2003-05 budgets. At the current schedule, they have to pay that loan off within a 2007-09 time frame. This proposition, if it passes, allows them to not pay the money back until June 30, 2016. Sorry, but pay the money back now like you are supposed to.


• No — 1B — Only a small portion of this money is going to public transit. In L.A., that's where the money really needs to be spent, so I cannot back any transportation bill that doesn't focus on this.


• Yes — 1C — This looks like development for people who actually need it, and in the areas that need it.


• No — 1D — I'm all for education, but this one would lift earthquake-safety regulations for community colleges. No thanks, I'd like everyone to survive an earthquake, even the people who cannot afford high-end educations.


• No — 1E — The costs here just seem too high and misallocated. I have this sinking feeling that agribusiness should be footing most of this bill, not us.


• No — 83 — I'm confused as to why this is a constitutional amendment. Shouldn't these things be covered by law already? These are the kinds of laws that politicians jump at so they can put it on their record. If they haven't passed it themselves, there is a reason. Most importantly for me, though, is the fact that this proposition openly throws the idea of reform out the window. Once you have committed a crime, you must always pay for it?


• Yes — 84 — This is a hesitant Yes. It seems broader in scope than 1E, and most of it sounds good. My one concern: the exemption for emergency water. Why?


• No — 85 — This is anti-woman, plain and simple. Only the most backwards of societies allow men to force women on this decision.


• Yes — 86 — How can a tax on tobacco be bad thing? It may not be the best place to put the money, but experience has shown us that if we don't pre-allocate the money, it will be misappropriated.


• Yes — 87 — How can a tax on oil companies be a bad thing? Sure, they've been lowering gas prices for a couple of months to make use think they are swell guys, but no one is fooled by that.


• No — 88 — I hate regressive taxes, and this is one. It disproportionately affects small property owners more.


• No — 89 — The problem isn't with how campaigns are funded, and fiddling with this a little more isn't going to make any serious kind of difference. At best, this proposition shifts a little more money to one group of warmongers over another. None of these parties have proposals that aren't fundamentally anti-worker.


• No — 90 — We don't need restrictions on eminent domain, especially if it makes it harder to get more parks and public transit. Reality is that the government usually only seizes property from poorer folks, and this wouldn't change that at all.