Here is how I plan to vote on the 12 CA propositions next week. My analysis is not very deep due to the constraints of time and the fact that none of these propositions is likely to have an ever lasting impact - if something truly horrible gets passed (or something worthy is denied), people will try again and try to undo the damage/missed opportunity.
BTW, I am running a poll about some of the props on the right. Please vote if you feel like it.
Prop 1a (High Speed Rail): NO
I like trains and the idea of a high speed train from SD to Sacramento/SF is appealing. However, I think we could do with more local transportation before we invest in this very costly infrastructure project. It has a wide range of supporters including the Governor and the two CA senators (Boxer & Feinstein), but I suspect they are more interested in the job creation prospects.
Prop 2 (Standards for confining farm animals): YES
The main argument against this seems to be that egg farming could move out of the state to either Mexico or neighboring states where regulations are not as strict. I don't care much for this argument. CA has always led the way when it comes to progressive reforms. I see this as another such example.
Prop 3 (Funding for Children's Hospitals): YES
Deserving project. Main argument against is that it is not fiscally prudent in these tough times. I buy that somewhat and actually would be open to re-considering this vote. If it fails this time, this prop will show up again.
Prop 4 (Parental Notification for Abortion): NO
This really applies to teens who are between 16 & 18. It adds further liability for doctors who are already under pressure from pro-life groups. I do believe parents have the right to know, but the evidence from similar regulations in other states has not been positive.
Prop 5 (Expand treatment programs for non-violent drug offenders): YES
This is another good idea that is under pressure due to the current fiscal constraints. I believe strongly in rehabilitation (influenced no doubt by all the 'criminal as under-dog' shows and movies that I have seen). The clincher was that the prison guards union has contributed almost 2 million to defeat this prop.
Prop 6 (Increased funding for law enforcement): NO
This prop mandates funding for certain law enforcement activities and increases the minimum penalty for certain crimes. I don't think our crime problem is because of insufficient punishment. This is one I can live without, especially in these fiscally constrained times.
Prop 7 (Requirement for use of renewable sources for utilities): NO
This prop looks tempting - should not CA be setting the standard for generating power from renewable sources? However, the prop doesn't look well thought out and is opposed by a wide coalition of groups including both environmental groups (such as the Sierra Club) and alternative energy companies. Edison and Sempra have contributed about 13 mil each to defeat this, which would normally cause me to almost reflexively say 'Yes", but I am going with the opposition on this one.
Prop 8 (Gay marriage ammendment): NO
This is an easy choice for me. Clearly there is a lot of passion about this one. Every day there are groups of people at various intersections holding up signs in favor of this prop. Today I had to smile when I saw a lonely 'NO' supporter holding up his solitary sign in the midst of a group of 'Yes' placards at the intersection of Mira Mesa and Camino Ruiz. The idea that the purpose of marriage is to procreate is so ingrained that it often accepted as gospel. Marriage is merely a societal construction. Today it is imbued it with a sacred glow when most older societies see it mostly as a practical arrangement. Ironically, it is this very desirable quality invested in marriages that makes it more appealing to those denied that right.
Prop 9 (Victim notification during trial): NO
Victims already have considerable rights during all phases of criminal trials. They don't need additional rights.
Prop 10 (Rebates for buying alternative energy vehicles): NO
I don't really get this. It sounds kind of good, but is bank rolled by a Texas billionnaire (T.Boone Pickens) who has massive natural gas holdings that will benefit from this passing. Doesn't smell right.
Prop 11(Re-districting authority taken away from the legislature): YES
I hate gerrymandering and while this proposal has flaws, it is a step in the right direction.
Prop 12(Loans for Veterans to buy houses): NO
Again, tempting to say yes, but it is too much money and for too narrow an interest group.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
First, the good news: the 2024 March primaries do not feature a Prop related to dialysis clinics. This can't last of course, but let&...
-
I was feeling anxious, tense even. It was Jan 23rd, the day before the 2010 Carlsbad Marathon and I had a sense of foreboding - surely somet...
-
The outing was taking longer than expected. It was the penultimate day of our short trip to Japan and Prem, Malini, and I had left early fo...
5 comments:
Very good summary, my comments...
1a: yes... most of the mass transit programs are longer term investments and you need to start somewhere. The infrastructure costs will come down if more transit programs get implemented.
4: still not sure...it's a no from doctor's view, yes from parents. How does it affect the child? Would a yes force them to run to tijuana to get abortion?
7: Yes...the reason electricity companies oppose this is that the cost of production is lower with conventional means. They are looking at short term operating profits. By forcing them to increase clean energy production, they will bring economies of scale to those industries and cost will eventually go down. This is similar to stricter emission standards.
In response to Prem:
1a: This is not really a mass transit solution - it is for travel between cities.
7: I see this as good intentions, poorly implemented. Look at all the folks against it apart from the power cos.
In response to Rajesh:
1a: I prefer the term "mass transit" to "public transportation, as the later has a connotation that the state runs it. Right now, we don't have alternatives to driving or flying. My first thoughts were...why not sfo to sd? We already have amtrak. Besides, going inland will potentially boost economies of some of the smaller towns on the way.
7. Agreed, but the intention and direction are good. If this passes, then power companies will bring viable alternatives to the table and negotiate with the government. This is similar to 911 mandates for cell phones, or going back in time, seat belts in cars. You need to draw a line and the market will converge to it.
I thought you would be a SURE "YES" on Prop 8;
As a registered Republican, I have to state for the record that I'm voting for Obama. Not particularly because I believe he will bring about any real change, or because I believe in the Democrat platform, but because I can't vote for McCain of '08. Not to come across as too pessimistic on Obama -- I think he is an excellent candidate -- but I saw how the Repblicans screwed up the country when they controlled all branches of government in 2000, and I did't want to be screwed by Democrats next. But I can't vote for McCain!
As for the props, I'm pretty much with Rajesh, except for 3. I support 3, and also 1a, but not this year, and maybe not the next 3-4 years.
On Prop 8, I'm conservative, and in general don't think that we should, as a culture, equate living arrangements that don't support procreation with one that does, but I can't vote yes for this prop for two big reasons: 1) the government has no business getting in this mess, 2) I hate the holier than thou religious right and their scare mongering tactics.
Post a Comment