California Propositions
November 2008
by Tony Medley
Proposition 1A:
Provides for a bond issue of $9.5 billion to fund pre-construction and
construction of a California high speed rail system. The first phase
would be for local trips, like LA-Riverside-San Diego. There would be no
train from Los Angeles to San Francisco, for instance.
My recommendation: Yes.
This is what government is supposed to do, make expenditures to improve
transportation, which is woeful in California.
Proposition 2:
Treatment of Farm Animals. Statute. This
requires that calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs
be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up,
fully extend their limbs and turn around freely.
My recommendation: Yes.
It won’t cost much and it’s a small price to pay to ensure that we live
in a humane society that takes the welfare of animals into
consideration, although I don't like the dishonest and misleading TV ads
supporting the measure.
Proposition
3:. Children’s Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program. Statute.
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.
My recommendation: No.
Prop 61 in 2004 was approved that sold $750
million for this same purpose. California is choking in debt. Recipients
of funds like the $750 million they were authorized four years ago must
realize that the deep pockets don’t exist anymore and make do with what
they have. Sure, it's hard to vote against bonds for children's
hospitals. I've been through Children's Hospital in Los Angeles and it
tugs on your heart strings. But they just got $750 million! This can’t just continue to go on and on forever.
Proposition
4: Waiting Period and Parental
Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Constitutional
Amendment. Changes California Constitution to prohibit
abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies
minor’s parent or legal guardian.
My
recommendation: Yes. A minor needs
her parents’ permission to have a tonsillectomy, or any other medical
procedure. But the abortion industry wants no such requirement for an
abortion, a far more serious operation than a tonsillectomy. Without
this Amendment, California would have the ridiculous position that a
minor needs parental permission for any medical procedure except an
abortion. All this measure does is require that abortionists notify
parents 48 hours before performing such an operation. Since it’s a
Constitutional Amendment, it’s beyond the jurisdiction of the California
Supreme Court to overturn. A yes vote on Proposition 2, along with a
“no” vote here would say that the life of a farm animal is more
important than that of an unborn infant.
Proposition
5: Nonviolent Offenders. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation. Statute.
Allocates
$460,000,000 annually to improve and expand treatment programs for
persons convicted of drug and other offenses. It limits court authority
to incarcerate offenders who commit certain drug crimes, break drug
treatment rules or violate parole.
My recommendation: Yes.
When I was clerking for a federal district court judge we had the
criminal calendar and time after time a defendant would plead guilty and
when it came time for sentencing would plead to be put in a drug
rehabilitation program because it was drugs that “made him do it.” Alas,
there was no such thing in the federal system. It’s true that drug
addiction causes a lot of California’s violent crime, but this measure
seems to throw taxpayer money at a problem that cries for personal
responsibility. This is a tough vote, but maybe this would be a
worthwhile expenditure of taxpayer money if it will reduce recidivism in
non violent crime. Despite California’s appalling deficit, I’m willing to
give it a try.
Proposition 6:
Requires minimum of $965,000,000 each year to be allocated from state
General Fund for police, sheriffs, district attorneys, adult probation,
jails and juvenile probation facilities. Some of this funding will
increase in following years according to California Consumer Price
Index. Makes approximately 30 revisions to California criminal law, many
of which cover gang-related offenses. Revisions create multiple new
crimes and additional penalties, some with the potential for new life
sentences. Increases penalties for violating a gang-related injunction
and for felons carrying guns under certain conditions.
My recommendation: Yes.
This is a lot of money, almost $1 billion in the first year alone, but
just a couple of the measures show that it toughens our criminal law:
1.Prohibiting bail to illegal immigrants who are charged with violent or
gang crimes; 2. Imposing a 10-year penalty increase on gang offenders
who commit violent felonies. There are other measures, but criminals are
out of control in California, and, like Prop. 1A, this is an appropriate
use of taxpayers’ money, although I can't figure out why it would cost
so much of it. On the flip side, a vote against it would be fiscally
prudent and would require supporters to come up with a measure that was
much less expensive.
Proposition 7:
Requires utilities, including government-owned utilities, to generate
20% of their power from renewable energy by 2010, a standard currently
applicable only to private electrical corporations.
My recommendation: No.
Didn’t we learn our lesson when we scrapped a Public Utility system in
1996 that worked well for 100 years because of an irresponsible
legislature, which passed a convoluted deregulation bill at midnight
when only one legislator, Steve Peace (who was pushing for it), said he
understood it, enabling Enron and unscrupulous deregulated traders to
trash our electricity deliver system? This is another silly, unworkable
idea and it should see the trash heap.
Proposition 8: Changes
the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples
to marry in California. Restores the law to what it was, that only
marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
My recommendation: Yes.
The people of the State of California have already voted on this once
and passed it overwhelmingly with 61% in favor. The will of the people
was overturned by four politically-motivated judges who arrogantly
disregard the people and democratic process. This doesn’t “change” the
law; it merely restores it to what the people wanted before four judges
thought they knew better. The narrow decision of the California Supreme
Court isn’t just about “live and let live.” State law may require
teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about
marriage. (Education Code § 51890.) If the gay marriage ruling is not
overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is
no difference between gay marriage and
traditional marriage. Gay couples already have all the rights given to
married couples, so this won’t deprive them of any of those rights.
Proposition 9: Requires
notification to victim and opportunity for input during phases of
criminal justice process, including bail, pleas, sentencing and parole
and establishes victim safety as consideration in determining bail or
release on parole, among other victims’ rights measures.
My recommendation: Yes.
Arrogant judges and parole boards with a political agenda don’t care
about victims. This requires them to care about victims. Among the
rights granted by this measure are: 1. Require that a victim and the
victim’s family’s safety must be considered by judges making bail
decisions for accused criminals; 2. Mandate that crime victims be
notified if their offender is released; 3. Require victims be notified
of parole hearings in advance to ensure they can attend and have a right
to be heard, among many others. Victims should have more rights than a
criminal who victimized them and this measure gives those rights to
them.
Proposition 10:
Provides $3.425 billion to help consumers and others purchase certain
high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles, including natural gas
vehicles, and to fund research into alternative fuel technology.
My recommendation: No.
This is another lunatic idea involving government and taxpayer money
(and a lot of taxpayer money) in an issue that should be solved by
private industry. The market solves problems like this. Ford and GM
ignored developing gas-efficient cars and they are both on the brink of
bankruptcy. They will come to their senses and develop cars that will be
able to complete with foreign makers who are developing such cars.
Government should stay out of it and California can’t afford it anyway.
Proposition 11:
Changes authority for establishing Assembly, Senate, and Board of
Equalization district boundaries from elected representatives to 14
member commission.
My recommendation: Yes,
but I don’t like it. Gerrymandering districts is the way Democrats
have stayed in power in California and the way they dominated Congress
from 1954-1994 and it has no place in a democratic republic. But
appointing commissioners isn’t the answer, either, although it’s better
than legislators picking their own district lines (but only slightly
better; the commissioners would be appointed by politically connected
“government auditors,” who would be almost as biased as a legislator).
In order to placate Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who wants to stay
in power in Washington no matter what the people want, it excludes
Congressional districts. My solution is simple and would be effective: Pass a law requiring that
all districts be comprised of four boundary lines that are straight and
meet at 90° right angles. That way nobody could gerrymander anything.
But that makes too much sense.
Proposition 12: This
act provides for a bond issue of nine hundred million dollars
($900,000,000) to provide loans to California veterans to purchase farms
and homes.
My recommendation: No.
These Cal Vet bond acts have been going on since 1922. With our
all-volunteer armed forces, our
veterans have been compensated appropriately, and taken care of medically.
They should compete in the marketplace equally on their own without
government support. Because of our all-volunteer armed forces now, this type
of support is obsolete. We have to cut spending and this is one place to
start because this is a benefit that is no longer appropriate.
|