California Proposition Voter Guide (My Opinions, My Beliefs)

30.   Prop 30-Temporary Taxes to Fund Education (Jerry Brown’s Tax Plan)Initiative Constitutional Amendment

• Language of Proposition: Increases taxes on earnings over $250,000 for seven years and sales taxes by ¼ cent for four years, to fund schools. Guarantees public safety realignment funding. Fiscal Impact: Increased state tax revenues through 2018–19, averaging about $6 billion annually over the next few years. Revenues available for funding state budget. In 2012–13, planned spending reductions, primarily to education programs, would not occur.
• My Vote and Why: No…No…No…100x No. This a misleading proposition with Sacramento holding schools hostage if we AGAIN dont raise taxes. It happens every year, with no fix or even stoppage of the bleeding issue which is that our schools are under-performing and 80% of schools budget goes to teachers and administrators salary’s and pension fund. It also uses the tactics of  a tax increase against the “rich” who already pay 40% of the income taxes in this state, because they know that people will vote to tax anyone but themselves. In fact they dont even mention the sales tax increase in their radio ads. Besides all that the biggest issue with this is that all the ads claim politicians cannot get their hands on the money, and that the money is going to be used for the schools to help their hemorrhaging budget. Both of these are a lie and for the same reason. This Prop puts the money into California’s general fund…essentially letting the income to become available to be put anywhere. David Crane a financial expert and economic advisor says that almost 100% of revenue would go to the insolvent teachers pension fund. DO NOT BE FOOLED BY THIS PROPOSITION, IT GARUANTEES NOTHING TO YOUR  KIDS AND SCHOOLS, AND EVERYTHING TO SHADY POLITICIANS TRYING TO FILL PROMISES THEY SHOULDNT HAVE MADE. http://unionwatch.org/tag/prop-30-tax-money-will-go-to-fund-california-teachers-pensions/

31.   Prop 31- State Budget. State and Local Government Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute

• Language of Proposition: Establishes two-year state budget cycle. Prohibits Legislature from creating expenditures of more than $25 million unless offsetting revenues or spending cuts are identified. Permits Governor to cut budget unilaterally during declared fiscal emergencies if Legislature fails to act. Fiscal Impact: Decreased state sales tax revenues of $200 million annually, with corresponding increases of funding to local governments. Other, potentially more significant changes in state and local budgets, depending on future decisions by public officials.
• My Vote and Why: No. Overtly convoluted, and confusing. It’s really a battle over tax revenue and budgets, but is so hard to understand that it feels like its hiding something as politicians always try to do in lots of language. It also gives the Governor way to much control over the budget in so called times of “crisis” and since we seem to always be in a “critical” time… I am voting NO here. It is also opposed by Californians for Transparent and Accountable Government

32.   Prop 32- Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Contributes to Candidates.Initiative Statute.

• Language of Proposition: Prohibits unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. Applies same use prohibition to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations or government contractors. Prohibits union and corporate contributions to candidates and their committees. Prohibits government contractor contributions to elected officers or their committees. Fiscal Impact: Increased costs to state and local government, potentially exceeding $1 million annually, to implement and enforce the measure’s requirements.
• My Vote and Why: YES over and over again. If there was on proposition I have had to think long and hard about it was this one, and every time I reconsider my position, I find myself supporting this more and more. Do not let the ads fool you, as they point to unions being singled out by this prop. It contains both restrictions for Unions and Corporations… yes AND CORPORATIONS if they fall under this practice of donating other’s money without consent. Sacramento is controlled by Union power and it is even evident in proposition 30. Because so many politicians have pandered to these machines to stay in office, the state is slowly being dripped dry of its economy. High taxes, poor business environment, and more people leaving than coming in. In my opinion,  it is immoral for Unions, and Corporations to deduct pay from employees and then turn around and donate that money to politicians. Many times these employees may disagree with how their money is being spent and cannot do a thing about it. I know many people in Union control jobs and I have heard countless times how frustrated they get because they know that some of their money is going to support things which is against their wishes. This doesn’t stop all campaign donations, but it forces these Unions and Corporations, if they do so, to get permission to use an employee’s money as part of their donations. If consent is a big deal in any time of law, or contract, why shouldn’t these employees have the right to decide where their money goes?  Lets “Level the playing field” to use a phrase of those in unions,  for those who get no representation by those same unions. It is for these same reasons that I would support a Right to work law. This Proposition is also supported by Jon Coupal of Howard Javis Taxpayers Association, and Hon. John Arguelles who is a retired former judge of the CA supreme court.

33.    Prop 33- Auto Insurance Companies. Prices Based on Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.

• Language of Proposition: Changes current law to allow insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company. Allows proportional discount for drivers with some prior coverage. Allows increased cost for drivers without history of continuous coverage. Fiscal Impact: Probably no significant fiscal effect on state insurance premium tax revenues.
• My Vote and Why: Yes. Why should you lose your continuous coverage discount because you switch companies? Especially when so many on the road are not even insured. Let’s make car insurance a bit more affordable.

34.    Prop 34- Death Penalty. Initiative Statute.

• Language of Proposition: Repeals death penalty and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Applies retroactively to existing death sentences. Directs $100 million to law enforcement agencies for investigations of homicide and rape cases. Fiscal Impact: Ongoing state and county criminal justice savings of about $130 million annually within a few years, which could vary by tens of millions of dollars. One-time state costs of $100 million for local law enforcement grants.
• My Vote and Why: No. While for a lot of people this becomes a moral issue, I am of the belief that once you commit a serious enough crime to land you in this area, you have forfeited your rights and humanities responsibility to you. This may seem like and “eye for an eye” type response, but our nation was founded on freedom and the ability to anything but infringe upon the rights of another person, therefore if you do so your rights, based on your actions, have been forfeited, of course that’s my opinion. Back on topic we go. This proposition doesn’t take on the real issue with the death penalty, which has turned into a endless wheel of appeals and retrials. That is the real issue, the state needs to streamline and harden its rules on appeals in order to not allow for them unless there is a case of new evidence or misinformation to limit the money going to pay lawyers who will take any case just to make a dollar. Now to those who say it is cheaper to put people away for life, and have the taxpayer care for them for the next 20-60 years, to you I say this. This state recently spent taxpayer money to revamp a death chamber and we have catered to the inmates on too many occasions spending tax dollars where they don’t need to be spent. Lets address the real issue here and talk about stream lining the appeals of the death process and not the act itself. This would save us years of taxpayer dollars by making this process work efficiently.

35.    Prop 35- Human Trafficking. Penalties. Initiative Statute.

• Language of Proposition: Increases prison sentences and fines for human trafficking convictions. Requires convicted human traffickers to register as sex offenders. Requires registered sex offenders to disclose Internet activities and identities. Fiscal Impact: Costs of a few million dollars annually to state and local governments for addressing human trafficking offenses. Potential increased annual fine revenue of a similar amount, dedicated primarily for human trafficking victims.
• My Vote and Why: YES. Making penalties harsher for human trafficking is a no brainer. It may not solve the issue but the act of committing this crime is reprehensible and should be punished severely.

36.    Prop 36- Three Strikes Law. Repeat Felony Offenders. Penalties. Initiative Statute.

• Language of Proposition: Revises law to impose life sentence only when new felony conviction is serious or violent. May authorize re-sentencing if third strike conviction was not serious or violent. Fiscal Impact: Ongoing state correctional savings of around $70 million annually, with even greater savings (up to $90 million) over the next couple of decades. These savings could vary significantly depending on future state actions.
• My Vote and Why: NO. This is a ludicrous proposition seeking to ease the penalties of three strike offenders, if their third strike wasn’t serious or violent. The issue is what if their other strikes were? How does the third offense become the most important factor as opposed their criminal record as a whole. On top of that there are studies that say for every offense that a criminal is caught for, there were often multiple for which went unpunished. This pandering to people who have no concern for the rights of others is grotesque and wrong. Lets protect those who abide by the law and not those who cannot stay out of trouble.

37.    Prop 37- Genetically Engineered Foods. Labeling. Initiative Statute.

• Language of Proposition: Requires labeling of food sold to consumers made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits marketing such food, or other processed food, as “natural.” Provides exemptions. Fiscal Impact: Increased annual state costs from a few hundred thousand dollars to over $1 million to regulate the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Additional, but likely not significant, governmental costs to address violations under the measure.
• My Vote and Why: NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. This on its face seems like a great idea, labeling foods that contain genetically engineered foods so that you can be a well informed buyer. Here are the problems.  This will not only open the door for huge litigation fees against grocers, and farmers and stores, but it will cause an unnecessary rise in food prices because it is the stores because of the added cost to producers. This proposition also contains exemptions for special interests that would allow things like dairy milk to be exempt but soy milk to be labeled, dog food to be labeled, but fresh meat not to be…etc. This is preposterous and insane. DO NOT BE FOOLED BY A FAIRY TALE PROPOSITION. Can we really afford to pay more at the grocer, with the shape of the economy and the lack of fiscal responsibility in Sacramento already? I know I cannot, and especially not for a largely flawed proposition.

38.    Prop 38- Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs. (Molly Munger’s Tax Plan)  Initiative Statute.

• Language of Proposition: Increases taxes on earnings using sliding scale, for twelve years. Revenues go to K–12 schools and early childhood programs, and for four years to repaying state debt. Fiscal Impact: Increased state tax revenues for 12 years—roughly $10 billion annually in initial years, tending to grow over time. Funds used for schools, child care, and preschool, as well as providing savings on state debt payments.
• My Vote and Why: No. It includes a tax increase that our state cannot afford at this time…however (I say this with a disclaimer) if you want to support schools by raising taxes and guarantee that the money goes where it is supposed to, vote yes on 38 and not on 30. This proposition in writing states that the money will go to schools and education programs, something that prop 30 does not do. With that said, California has some of the highest taxes in the nation, as well as a horrible business climate, and more people are leaving the state, than coming in. California simply has to come up with other ways to help the schools, not by holding them hostage in front of taxpayers, and until we tell Sacramento we’ve had enough, they will continue to do so.

39.    Prop 39- Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statue.

• Language of Proposition: Requires multistate businesses to pay income taxes based on percentage of their sales in California. Dedicates revenues for five years to clean/efficient energy projects. Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues of $1 billion annually, with half of the revenues over the next five years spent on energy efficiency projects. Of the remaining revenues, a significant portion likely would be spent on schools.
• My Vote and Why: NO…NO….NO!!! This takes away businesses right to choose the most advantageous way to be taxed on their income. In a state where the business climate is one of the worst in the nation, where Campbell Soup and Comcast both pull large parts of their companies out , we cannot afford to make an even worse climate for those who keep the economy afloat. California cannot afford to keep punishing businesses, there is nothing left to say.

40.    Prop 40- Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum.

• Language of Proposition: A “Yes” vote approves, and a “No” vote rejects, new State Senate districts drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission. If rejected, districts will be adjusted by officials supervised by the California Supreme Court. Fiscal Impact: Approving the referendum would have no fiscal impact on the state and local governments. Rejecting the referendum would result in a one-time cost of about $1 million to the state and counties.
• My Vote and Why: YES…YES…YES. This would keep the Citizens Redistricting Commission drawing the lines and not the politicians in Sacramento. Over about 4 years, this commission has been empowered to more evenly divide district lines to make races more equal and less politician friendly. We need to keep this commission empowered to help create more balance in this state, that already has a near 1 party control. It is also supported by Hold Politicians Accountable. Let us keep the power with the citizens not with politicians.