November 2, 2004

This is being written while listening to Eminem's Mosh...

Tonya and I are doing our sample ballot... Here is what we think and why...

  • 1A - Yes - 1A says that money raised by municipalities and counties stay in those counties. Currently, arnie is funding the state by taking money from municipalities. This is his way of avoiding raising state taxes. But this doesn't solve any problems. This just means that municipalities are going to have to raise more money through taxes or enforcement of local codes (read parking tickets). Municipalities generally don't have surpluses in there budget so their choice is to offer less in local services, or to more money. Why is raising local taxes better then raising state taxes?
  • 59 - Yes - 59 gives access to government decisions and documents. While the federal government is working hard to become less transparent lets make it hard for the state to do that same things. Currently, the federal government is over turning the freedom of information act and passing laws whose text is not publicly available. This will stop the state from doing the same.
  • 60 - Yes - 60 admittedly doesn't do much. The only real opposition to 60 are the people that want 62. However, even the proponents of 60 say that it isn't as strong as it should be. Basically is does no harm, and helps a little if 62 passes.
  • 60A - Yes - 60A again doesn't do much. It says that if the state sells surplus property that money goes to pay back the bonds used to balance the state budget. This doesn't require the sale of the surplus. It would be good to start paying off arnies insane bonds to get the debit of the state under control.
  • 61 - Yes - 61 gives money to children's hospitals for capitol improvements. That means new buildings, new xray machines, new radiation machines, new furniture...
  • 62 - NO - Yes, there are measures we are voting against... 60 is for open primaries. This would allow incumbent parties to game the primaries. Take this year, Ca republicans could have all voted for Sharpton in the Ca primary rather then bush since bush was running basically unopposed. In a presidential election it just makes California look more crazy, however, in a gubernatorial election that would mean the final decision would come down to Sharpton or Bush. While I still don't think I would vote for Bush it would certainly chase away undecided voters.
  • 63 - Yes - 63 taxes people with more then $1Million in personal income in the name of mental health. Due to lack of funding for mental health people with problems are better off getting arrested and going to jail where they will have access to mental health professionals then not. This situation is shameful and needs to be fixed.
  • 64 - No - 64 places restrictions on the enforcement of the unfair business competition laws. It tries to limit people who can levy suits to those that can prove immediate financial impact. It still allows the government to use these laws for the public good but that means any case you can't get the DA to take and you can't prove the financial impact of would be illegal. This does huge damage as these laws include environmental laws. The opposition throws the boggieman of frivolous law suites around.
  • 65 - Yes - This is 1As first draft hopefully at least one of these will pass.
  • 66 - Yes - This brings three strikes back into reality. Being against mandatory sentencing we wish it did more. However, it does mean that a man with a troubled early life can no longer be sentenced to life in prison for getting caught with drugs 20 years later or shop lifting a few CDs.
  • 67 - Yes - Well, after 911 bush praised our first responders for how much they did at ground zero to save people. Over the course of the next few years he took the federal money out of the system to pay for his wars and his tax cuts. This puts some of the money back in the system. On the personal note as one that has used the emergency medical services and will undoubtedly use it again I think it should be well funded.
  • 68 - No - 68 allows gambling in non-tribal facilities. I'm against this. This is a way of putting the tribes in a vice. They are technically sovereign tribal nations however, this measure says, submit to being taxed or we will allow others to compete so we can tax them. This is a strong arm tactic that allows more gaming in Ca. I'm in general against gaming in Ca, and I'm against screwing the tribes. Weren't the blankets with small pox enough?
  • 69 - NO!!!!! - This allows anyone arrested on suspicion of any crime to be added to the DNA database. It says all felonies and some other crimes compel DNA samples. This is almost as bad as the patriot act. This flies right in the face of self incrimination as as soon as someone is added to the database it is compared to unknown samples from all open crimes. Arrest != guilt. I know most people have forgotten this, but many people get arrested only to have the charges dropped. This is also most impacting of poorer people. As it doesn't appear that a failure to be convicted automatically removes your DNA from the system. This means that if you don't have a lawyer on your side with your all your interests in mind once your are arrested you are in the system for good.
  • 70 - Yes - We are for 70 for a few reasons. 1) It limits gambling to tribal casinos. While it removes current restrictions as to what games are allowed this will still limit the Nevadaization of California. 2) We have shit on the tribes for 300 years of so, I think anything we can do for them is good. 3) In exchange for exclusive rights they are going to pay California some money. This will help with the current budget problems.
  • 71 - Yes - We are for 71. Stem cells are cool. So far scientists in the know seem to think that they have HUGE potential. We are currently using adult stem cells for some cool things, fetal stem cells have even bigger promise. This also helps give biotech a reason not to leave California. These funds aren't for national or international work but for work based in California. This protects Ca's hold on high tech innovation.
  • 72 - Yes - This gives more people health care. This is good. Until we have uniform national healthcare we need to do what ever we can for people. Too many children are born with our insurance, too many people get sick and don't get proper care because of lack of health care. This is a start.

Remember if you don't agree with us your are stupid! ;-)


[Posted with ecto] Posted by pqbon at November 2, 2004 12:13 AM | TrackBack