I apologize for the delay in completing my run-through of the propositions. However, I was extremely fortunate to attend the South Bay Lincoln Club luncheon today and listen to my good friend, Stephen Frank, run through them for us. As most of you know, Stephen Frank is a political genius and watchdog who may very well be the best we have at critiquing and analyzing ballot measures like these, as well as executive and legislative action from our legislators. (It's no coincidence I have subscribed to his RSS feed in the left column of this blog from Day 1.)
After talking with Stephen today and listening to his review, I am now prepared to run down the remainder of the propositions for you. I'm going to start where I left off with Proposition 4, as my analysis of the first three was accurate, and run through the next three.
Prop. 4
Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Don't let any side spin about this proposition fool you. This is a modified version of the original Parental Notification measure, relaxed in some ways in order to obtain what is hoped to be the necesary majority vote. These are the relevant changes:
- Consent is not required; only notification. The form of notification is either personal written or via mail;
- Medical emergencies;
- another adult family member can be notified if the minor submits a written statement that she fears physical, sexual or emotional abuse from a parent;
- a waiver could be granted by a juvenile court.
Some have asked me if I'm comfortable with all of these exceptions. What I'm less comfortable with is the current state, where no exception is needed because the procedure can be done without ANY notification.
The simple fact that Planned Parenthood, which I believe is simply an organization dedicated to performing as many abortions (especially minority abortions) as possible, is working hard to oppose this proposition tells me that it's better than what exists now and I urge a YES vote on Proposition 4.
Prop. 5
Nonviolent Drug Offenses. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation. Initiative Statute.
Expands drug treatment programs to allow those committing major drug offenses, including meth dealers and other drug felons, to opt out of most of their jail time in exchange for a "commitment" to attend drug treatment programs. Here's the problem - those that attend these programs instead of jail time have a higher rate of committing more drug offenses. (How many celebrities can you think of that have gone through these programs?)
Guess who's supporting this proposition? Owners of treatment centers that will be funded through this proposition. Big surprise!
Know who opposes it? Among others, L.A. County District Attorney, the Honorable Steve Cooley, and State Senator Jeff Denham, the target of the "Don Perata" recall against Republican senators who opposed higher taxes. These two outstanding Republicans have the credibility to convince me - NO on Proposition 5.
Prop. 6
Police and Law Enforcement Funding. Criminal Penalties and Laws. Initiative Statute.
This measure is a comprehensive anti-gang and crime reduction measure that specifically targets the gangs that prey on our children and on the immigrant communities. Specifically, provisions include:
- prohibiting bail to illegal immigrants that commit violent or gang crimes;
- imposes an additional 10-year penalty on gang offenders that commit violent crimes;
- requires convicted gang members to register with local law enforcement every year for five years following conviction or release from custody;
- increases penalties for manufacture or sale of meth, to match that of cocaine;
- additional 10-year penalty for felons that carry loaded or concealed firearms in public; and
- increased penalties for multiple acts of grafitti.
This measure was written by State Senator George Runner, after consultation with Jamiel Shaw, Sr. (father of Jamiel Shaw, Jr., the outstanding football player that was brutally gunned down by Pedro Espinoza, illegal Mexican gang member, simply for being black), and is endorsed by our own L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca.
This is a close state version of the "Jamiel's Law" we're trying to pass in the City of Los Angeles, and will go a long way toward reducing the ability of gangs to "import" members through illigal immigration.
Vote YES on Proposition 6.
More to follow soon...
Showing posts with label propositions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label propositions. Show all posts
Friday, September 19, 2008
Sunday, August 31, 2008
California State Propositions 2008 - Part 1
As promised, I am planning to go through each of the California State propositions and my personal voting recommendation for each. I may skip a few in order to do a full posting dedicated to those; currently, I plan to skip Proposition 4 (Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Constitutional Amendment), Proposition 8 (Limit on Marriage. Constitutional Amendment) and Proposition 11 (Redistricting. Constitutional Amendment and Statute) because there are strong cases for each side that should be addressed.
I should be able to go through the rest in order, so here is Proposition 1:
Proposition 1: SB 1856 (Chapter 697, 2002). Costa.
Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century.
This is the result of the famous trip that Speaker Nunez made to France, in which his traveling expenses later came into question. Not wanting to have that lavish trip bear no fruit, we now get the chance to vote on a European-style train system from Northern Ca to Southern. One of our Republican heroes in the Legislature, Assembly member Bob Huff, was one of the token Republicans on the trip, and spoke to us at the Peninsula Harbor Republican Club meeting in June about the differences between the questions by Democrats and those by Republicans throughout the trip. From Huff's presentation, I have two questions for those supporting this bill:
1) If we're going to implement a European train system, don't we need a European power source to ensure it doesn't cause rolling black-outs throughout the state? (Or are the Democrats So used to causing these black-outs that they simply want us to get used to them as a condition for living in California?)
- By the way, when our Republican assembly members asked the Europeans this question, they stated that they were able to implement this transit system primarily because they had a robust NUCLEAR power system in place. But I guess we'll just generate the extra electricity needed for this system through wind...maybe we can just rig sails on the trains!
2) If we're in a budget crunch already and need to find $15B+ in spending reductions, is this really the right time to be spending on luxury infrastructure like this?
- This will be a question for all of the bond measures, for which the answer, if the need for the measure is not "this is an emergent need", will always be "NO".
I am urging a "NO" vote on this proposition.
Proposition 2 : 1274. Treatment of Farm Animals. Statute.
"Requires that an enclosure or tether confining specified farm animals allow the animals for the majority of every day to fully extend their limbs or wings, lie down, stand up, and turn around. Specified animals include calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens, and pregnant pigs. Exceptions made for transportation, rodeos, fairs, 4-H programs, lawful slaughter, research and veterinary purposes. Provides misdemeanor penalties, including a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Probably minor local and state enforcement and prosecution costs, partly offset by increased fine revenue. (Initiative 07-0041.)"
After doing research on the websites of both the supporters and the opposition of this proposition, the issue boils down to the issue of "increased humanity for farm animals" beyond the strict laws already in the California statutes, versus the establishment of "optimal breeding and egg-laying conditions for farm animals", even if they are conditions one would not necessarily endure themselves. When both labor unions like the General Teamsters Local Union 386 & the United Food & Commercial Workers Western States Council join with the California Small Business Association and a bi-partisan list of state legislators in opposing this, there must be a significant impact to one or more essential industries in the California economy. IN this case, my research found that the egg-laying industry in California, one of the last truly robust ones that the liberals haven't yet driven out. Proposition 2 is a risky, dangerous and costly measure banning almost all modern egg production in California, through enforcement of its overly-strict requirements. It was written by animal activists who are part of the "animals are people too" theology, which is probably all I really needed to say to over half of you reading this.
But now you have more objective facts, which is a better basis for me urging a "NO" vote on this initiative.
Proposition 3 : 1271. 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. Designates that 80 percent of bond proceeds go to hospitals that focus on children with illnesses such as leukemia, cancer, heart defects, diabetes, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis. Requires that qualifying children’s hospitals provide comprehensive services to a high volume of children eligible for governmental programs and meet other requirements. Designates that 20 percent of bond proceeds go to University of California general acute care hospitals. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: State costs of about $2 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($980 million) and the interest ($1 billion) costs of the bond. Payments of about $67 million per year. (Initiative 07-0034.)"
I have heard much less about this proposition, and there is little on the web on it, except that the California Children's Hospital Association Initiative Fund paid consultants over $1 million to gather the signatures to place it on the ballot. With $980 million in principal and over $1B anticipated in interest to pay this off, this is a perfect example of a measure that should "earn your vote" before you support it. Research in Cal-Access shows that almost ALL of the over $5 million raised for this initiative comes directly from the very same hospitals claiming to have the urgent need for this bond money.
Hey, here's a thought...spend the lobbying money on your own improvements. What this "fund committee" has basically done is a shake-down of the children's hospitals throughout California to place an initiative on the ballot to add another $1.98B to our ballooning $15B+ deficit.
I am urging a "NO" vote to this blatant attempt to pull on the heartstrings of Californians and add almost $2B more to our state deficit.
I should be able to go through the rest in order, so here is Proposition 1:
Proposition 1: SB 1856 (Chapter 697, 2002). Costa.
Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century.
This is the result of the famous trip that Speaker Nunez made to France, in which his traveling expenses later came into question. Not wanting to have that lavish trip bear no fruit, we now get the chance to vote on a European-style train system from Northern Ca to Southern. One of our Republican heroes in the Legislature, Assembly member Bob Huff, was one of the token Republicans on the trip, and spoke to us at the Peninsula Harbor Republican Club meeting in June about the differences between the questions by Democrats and those by Republicans throughout the trip. From Huff's presentation, I have two questions for those supporting this bill:
1) If we're going to implement a European train system, don't we need a European power source to ensure it doesn't cause rolling black-outs throughout the state? (Or are the Democrats So used to causing these black-outs that they simply want us to get used to them as a condition for living in California?)
- By the way, when our Republican assembly members asked the Europeans this question, they stated that they were able to implement this transit system primarily because they had a robust NUCLEAR power system in place. But I guess we'll just generate the extra electricity needed for this system through wind...maybe we can just rig sails on the trains!
2) If we're in a budget crunch already and need to find $15B+ in spending reductions, is this really the right time to be spending on luxury infrastructure like this?
- This will be a question for all of the bond measures, for which the answer, if the need for the measure is not "this is an emergent need", will always be "NO".
I am urging a "NO" vote on this proposition.
Proposition 2 : 1274. Treatment of Farm Animals. Statute.
"Requires that an enclosure or tether confining specified farm animals allow the animals for the majority of every day to fully extend their limbs or wings, lie down, stand up, and turn around. Specified animals include calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens, and pregnant pigs. Exceptions made for transportation, rodeos, fairs, 4-H programs, lawful slaughter, research and veterinary purposes. Provides misdemeanor penalties, including a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Probably minor local and state enforcement and prosecution costs, partly offset by increased fine revenue. (Initiative 07-0041.)"
After doing research on the websites of both the supporters and the opposition of this proposition, the issue boils down to the issue of "increased humanity for farm animals" beyond the strict laws already in the California statutes, versus the establishment of "optimal breeding and egg-laying conditions for farm animals", even if they are conditions one would not necessarily endure themselves. When both labor unions like the General Teamsters Local Union 386 & the United Food & Commercial Workers Western States Council join with the California Small Business Association and a bi-partisan list of state legislators in opposing this, there must be a significant impact to one or more essential industries in the California economy. IN this case, my research found that the egg-laying industry in California, one of the last truly robust ones that the liberals haven't yet driven out. Proposition 2 is a risky, dangerous and costly measure banning almost all modern egg production in California, through enforcement of its overly-strict requirements. It was written by animal activists who are part of the "animals are people too" theology, which is probably all I really needed to say to over half of you reading this.
But now you have more objective facts, which is a better basis for me urging a "NO" vote on this initiative.
Proposition 3 : 1271. 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. Designates that 80 percent of bond proceeds go to hospitals that focus on children with illnesses such as leukemia, cancer, heart defects, diabetes, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis. Requires that qualifying children’s hospitals provide comprehensive services to a high volume of children eligible for governmental programs and meet other requirements. Designates that 20 percent of bond proceeds go to University of California general acute care hospitals. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: State costs of about $2 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($980 million) and the interest ($1 billion) costs of the bond. Payments of about $67 million per year. (Initiative 07-0034.)"
I have heard much less about this proposition, and there is little on the web on it, except that the California Children's Hospital Association Initiative Fund paid consultants over $1 million to gather the signatures to place it on the ballot. With $980 million in principal and over $1B anticipated in interest to pay this off, this is a perfect example of a measure that should "earn your vote" before you support it. Research in Cal-Access shows that almost ALL of the over $5 million raised for this initiative comes directly from the very same hospitals claiming to have the urgent need for this bond money.
Hey, here's a thought...spend the lobbying money on your own improvements. What this "fund committee" has basically done is a shake-down of the children's hospitals throughout California to place an initiative on the ballot to add another $1.98B to our ballooning $15B+ deficit.
I am urging a "NO" vote to this blatant attempt to pull on the heartstrings of Californians and add almost $2B more to our state deficit.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
California Proposition Strategy - "Earn Your Vote or Else"
Many of you are rightfully questioning the number of propositions on ballots each election day, and have figured out the Democratic strategy for getting important propositions crowded in with nanny legislation and expensive bond measures. Where some of you have taken the "when all else fails, vote no" in order to ensure our legislators can't "do more damage", it's critical to get the word out about those propositions we DO need passed in order to hold legislators more accountable to you the voters.
While I am currently working on a quick black-and-white slate form for assembly district precinct chairs to customize for their specific areas, I will ensure the recommended voting for the 12 propositions is included to distribute. But I will need the help of all of you to spread the word. Even better is to help spread the strategy I hope all of us will adopt: Propositions should "earn your vote" in order to be considered. So far, only three propositions have earned my support. I will break these out in separate posts to hopefully make the case and earn your support as well.
Over the next few weeks, unless other local news rises to a level of immediate need in reporting, I plan to dedicate my next few posts to specifically discuss each proposition. You're both welcome and encouraged to forward these comments throughout your statewide friends and family, and to post comments about whether you feel I'm on the right track or should consider a different position. While the overwhelming majority of this blog's readers are Republican, I know I have some Independent and Democratic readers, including RPV City Council member Tom Long (I didn't say they were all "fans"! LOL!). I welcome comments from all sources, and so long as there is no profanity or personal attacks, I allow the comments to be posted without edit. I feel it's important for all of us to see and participate in the comment dialogue.
If you'd like to prepare a position on a particular proposition, send me a word document at stammiam@yahoo.com, and if I agree with the position, I'll gladly post it with your name as a "special guest blogger".
Let's get these propositions vetted on behalf of our fellow Californians!
While I am currently working on a quick black-and-white slate form for assembly district precinct chairs to customize for their specific areas, I will ensure the recommended voting for the 12 propositions is included to distribute. But I will need the help of all of you to spread the word. Even better is to help spread the strategy I hope all of us will adopt: Propositions should "earn your vote" in order to be considered. So far, only three propositions have earned my support. I will break these out in separate posts to hopefully make the case and earn your support as well.
Over the next few weeks, unless other local news rises to a level of immediate need in reporting, I plan to dedicate my next few posts to specifically discuss each proposition. You're both welcome and encouraged to forward these comments throughout your statewide friends and family, and to post comments about whether you feel I'm on the right track or should consider a different position. While the overwhelming majority of this blog's readers are Republican, I know I have some Independent and Democratic readers, including RPV City Council member Tom Long (I didn't say they were all "fans"! LOL!). I welcome comments from all sources, and so long as there is no profanity or personal attacks, I allow the comments to be posted without edit. I feel it's important for all of us to see and participate in the comment dialogue.
If you'd like to prepare a position on a particular proposition, send me a word document at stammiam@yahoo.com, and if I agree with the position, I'll gladly post it with your name as a "special guest blogger".
Let's get these propositions vetted on behalf of our fellow Californians!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
