Investigating the CA PROPS
for those interested
OOPS! Mislabeling of Props 3 & 4 fixed. I actually managed to skip Prop2, Standards for Confining Farm Animals. Check back for that.
ThanQ! for catching my goof, Water!
--------Original Post---------
[Those out of state might take note of Prop 5 - with your favorite cast of ...characters! coming your way soon!]
NB I’m kinda scattered with new puppy duties right now {more on that anon} so I’m waaay behind on this. Apparently it’s gonna come piece by bit so here’s what I’ve got so far. I’ll keep updating and cleaning up this post, so check back - daily. OK - done. Tell me what *you* think.
Thanks for bearing with me!
--------
PROP 5—NO
Remember Prop 36? - this is the second movement. It reads like “The Free-Range Meth-Addicts’ Bill”.
First thing to hit me: “Major funding by Bob Wilson and George Soros”. Also onboard, “Barbara Lee(D - CA), Maxine Waters(D - CA), Henry Waxman(D - CA)
Let’s explore these major backers a bit:
George Soros, $1,400,000;
Jacob Goldfield [Soros’ hedge fund chief investment officer], $1,400,000.
Bob Wilson, $2,100,000;
John Sperling [chairman of the Apollo Group, founder of the University of Phoenix part of the Soros, Peter B. Lewis [Progressive Ins.] Sperling political alliance to defeat GW Bush], $1,000,000;
The Rockit Fund [lobbying firm supporting voting rights for ex-felons, and “immigration reform” legislation], a New York City-based organization, $500,000.
The Drug Policy Alliance Network [Soros-funded spin-off of his Open Society Institute], $400,000
But, aside from that “guilt by association” shibboleth, the Prop. itself, is bunk. Big Buck Bunk.
--Requires California to expand and increase funding [that, right there, is enough—CA hasn’t got the $$$] and oversight for individualized treatment and rehabilitation programs for nonviolent drug offenders and parolees.
--Reduces criminal consequences ... Limits court’s authority to incarcerate offenders ... Shortens parole for most drug offenses ...
It would create havoc in the lives of addicts, particularly meth users, by putting off negative legal consequences and prolonging the addiction. It takes upwards of two years to adequately deal with an addiction: the shorter probation removes a significant motivator.
________________________________
PROP 6 —YES
-- any youth 14 years or older who is convicted of a gang-related felony would be tried as an adult
--increases penalties on violating gang injunctions, use/sale of meth, firearms by felons
-- recipients of public housing funding must have criminal background check
--Eliminate bail for illegal aliens charged with violent or gang-related felonies.
In 2007 violent crime, including the murder rate, had dropped to less than half its 1992 level. Property crime fell 44 percent in the same 15-year period. This would help it stay that way.
________________________________
PROP 8 — YES
“Whether ya like it or not!!!”
--Gavin Newsome
‘nuff sed.
ADDENDUM: It’s not that I wish to prevent gay people from forming lifelong relationships and commitments; I’m in favor of that. But the No on 8 side is already lying about what rights they “do not have” or “will be denied.” That makes me suspicious. Check the CA Domestic Partnership Law—As of 2007, California affords domestic partnerships all of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law (Cal. Fam. Code §297.5). So what’s the dealio?
It’s the “mandatory compliance” part that gets to me.
_________________________________
PROP 1A—NO
Approve the issuance of $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds to partially fund a $40 billion, 800-mile high speed train from San Francisco to Anaheim, California [in about 2 hours and 40 minutes] to be completed in 2030 [est]
Taxpayers would pay $19.4 billion over 30 years to cover bond costs
This prop was amended by the legislature to give all high-speed rail corridors, including the route through Altamont Pass, an equal opportunity to compete for a share of the $9 billion.
California’s bonds are danged near junk now—who’s gonna buy this?!? Whoinhell needs a train to Disneyland?
_________________________________
PROP 2 3—NO
Children’s Hospital Bond Act
authorizes $980,000,000 in bonds, to be repaid from state’s General Fund, to fund the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children’s hospitals ...annual payment $64 million a year ... total cost $2 billion over 30 years.
More state debt now? mmmmm… NO.
________________________________
PROP 3 4—YES
Abortion Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative
Would prohibit abortion for unemancipated minors until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent, legal guardian or, if parental abuse has been reported, an alternative adult family member.
________________________________
PROP 7—NO
All electric utilities (including municipally-owned utilities) will be required to provide half of their electricity from solar and clean energy facilities by 2025. Current law requires the state’s investor-owned utilities (Edison and PG&E, for example) to reach 20 percent renewable energy by 2010.
Prop. 7 is so poorly written that it could hurt the cause of renewable energy in the state.
________________________________
PROP 9—YES
Victims of crime rights; including restitution, notification and participation of victims in criminal justice proceedings, lengthening the parole hearing wait for lifers from five to 15 years.
Mostly, because it seems previous victims’ rights props haven’t done the job. Only partially because of who opposes it: California Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers, California State Council of Service Employees PAC, The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Los Angeles Times ...
________________________________
PROP 10—NO
5 billion in bonds paid from state’s General Fund—costs of about $9.8 billion over 30 years
T. Boone Pickens and Oklahoma natural gas tycoon Aubrey McClendon have been spending millions on TV ads pushing their national so-called “Pickens Plan” for U.S. Energy Independence funding this. Would give a “rebate” for purchase of a Toyota Prius.
More debt? Nuh uh.
________________________________
PROP 11—YES
t would change the authority for establishing the district boundaries of the California State Assembly, California State Senate, and Board of Equalization from elected representatives to a 14-member commission.
Under current law the legislature draws its own districts which results in a 99 percent of incumbents being re-elected.
Accountability to voters?!? What a notion!
________________________________
PROP 12—YES
authorizes issuance of $900 million in bonds to create a fund that assist veterans who are purchasing farms, homes and mobile home properties ... California began the veterans’ home loan programs in 1922. There have never been any costs to the taxpayers under the previous authorizations.
For veterans? No cost? This is the kind of “economic stimulus” I can support.
What you have labeled as Prop 3 is actually Prop 4: Waiting period and what you have labeled as Prop 3 is actually Prop 2: 980 million.
Posted by on 10/28/08 at 11:10 AMProp 1A: Did you notice the difference between the original prop 1 and 1A? Almost identical, except for the name: changed from “High Speed Rail Bonds” to “Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act”. The other change was that they added more routes.
First off, $20 billion? I don’t think so. “Light Rail” has never been self-supporting. Amtrak certainly isn’t. I heard the other day that for Orange County’s bus sytem, the fares cover 21% of the cost.
I’m with you on the rest. I missed the Soros link to P.5. Anything he’s for, I’m agin’.
People seem to think that when they vote for bond issues, money magically falls from the sky like autumn leaves.
This is the most depressing election I’ve ever been through.
How fif you find the Soros connection to P.5? It’s certainly not in the voter’s guide. (I probably should read NewsMax more at election time.)
Posted by ZZMike on 10/28/08 at 12:23 PMI don’t live in California, but if I did, would any of these measures involve me taking it up the butt whether I wanted to or not?
I’m against that. I vote no.
Posted by Hog Whitman on 10/28/08 at 04:00 PMOddly enough ZZMike, I caught it on their radio ad. Confirmed it by googling. It’s a part of his campaign to legalize all drugs, beginning with decriminalization. He’s quite open *cough* about that part of his doings.
Posted by Claire on 10/28/08 at 06:02 PM“... part of his campaign to legalize all drugs, ...”
What better way to destroy a society. First, get rid of marriage, then make sure the State takes over for the family, then legalize drugs, ...
Then People Who Know What’s Best For Us can step in and take over.
Posted by ZZMike on 10/29/08 at 09:41 AMBingo, ZZ…
Posted by Claire on 10/29/08 at 11:11 AM
Next entry: Words Mean Something
Previous entry: SHOCK!!
