Matt Pontificates on California Propositions

Obligatory Rant

Yuck, another year of "direct democracy" in California, wherein a bunch of special interests with money hire paid signature gatherers to stick items on the ballot that would create even more Constitutional constriction that further prevents the legislature from doing its job by removing any flexibility whatsoever.

In general, I'm a "VOTE NO ON EVERYTHING" voter because I don't like the idea of moving what should be legislative business via an end-around. Reading California's Constitution is like reading the fine print in a credit card statement, times 10,000. It's not "constiutional" about general principles for the most part, it's a series of fairly trivial clauses that have been stuck to the ship of state like so many barnacles over the years. No wonder state government moves so slowly through the water.

My Position on 2008 California State Props

1. High Speed Rail Bonds - YES. This is the rare bond measure I'll support, because the best thing we can do to SAVE money in highway transportation costs, not even to mention gasoline, is to improve the state's rail infrastructure. Most of the money gets pumped back into the local economy, anyway. The legislature put this on here because of some other constitutional provision.
   
2. Standards for Confining Farm Animals - NO. It's not that this doesn't make sense - it does - but this is a classic example of something that should be sensibly handled by the legislature. I listened to a debate about this issue on the radio and was aggravated by the completely specious arguments on both sides of the issue. Yes, this is a gateway piece of legislation for the more extreme animal rights elements that totally ignores real market economics and most farm conditions. And yes, the No crowd are a bunch of egg industry shills.
   
3. Children's Hospital Bond Act - YES. Sadly, another example of money that should be issued normally by the state for needed infrastructure that somehow must go before the voters. I just wish this was done in a semi-rationalized way of picking out projects as we go along.
   
4. Waiting Period for Minors before getting an Abortion - NO. Yet another attempt by the Right to Lifers to restrict abortion rights. The reason why notification laws are INSANE is that in 98% of the cases, the reason why a minor wouldn't talk to her parents is because she fears them, sometimes due to criminal abuse.  The YES crowd is trying to create the impression this is about "stopping sexual predators". A bigger load of horse manure I've never heard.
   
5. Non-violent Drug Offenders reform - YES. Here's one that will never pass through the legislature because of the craven attitude of most legislators. Basically provides the drug treatment programs and de-incarceration statues we should've had all along. Again, this will SAVE MONEY because of the lower load on the prison system as a result. I'm sure it doesn't stand a chance in hell of passing, it makes far too much fiscal and public policy and medical sense.
   
6. "Police and Law Enforcement Funding"- NO. Might as well be called "don't spend money on education in a tight budget year" proposition. This would constitutionally enshrine minimum spending levels, forever, for public safety. No one's arguing police and fire services should be cut. The unions here are just trying to take public safety funds off the table during budget debates. I don't think any area should be off the table. Suppose crime goes down in 20 years? Or the fire codes result in fewer fire hazards? We'd have to amend the constitution again to make adjustments. No sense at all here. It will probably pass by 15%.
   
7. Renewable Energy Initiative - YES. Another oddity for me, a yes vote that would mandate government-owned utilities generate 20% of their energy from renewable sources by 2010. This is the same standard we've applied to private companies, it only seems fair to hold government to the same standard.
   
8. Ban on Gay Marriage. NO. Selfishly: Gay marriages don't hurt anybody, they solve a lot of current legal problems, and they bring more taxpayers into the normal system we have for domestic arrangements. I have no understanding why some people can't distinguish between civil marriage, which this addresses, and religious marriage, which this does not. If you feel "married" by going to city hall but wouldn't feel "married" in a church ceremony, maybe I could see splitting hairs here. But in fact most of the religious belief that is in favor of Prop 8 and against gay marriage seems to me like they recognize the primacy of the religous and family services over that of the role of the state in the matter. Ultimately this is either about prejudice or about churches wanting to have control over matters left to the state, constitutionally, concerning private domestic arrangements.
   
9. "Victims RIght" - NO. Everything that the "YES" side is campaigning for is already part of California law. The secret provisions of this prop go to, yes, Prison construction. Another cynical ploy by the simply awful prison industry in this state (prison guards' union included) to make more crime a profitable part of the economy.
   
10. Alternative Fuel Vehicle Subsidies - NO. $5 billion in direct subsidies for purchasers of one type of car? There are better ways of getting alternative fuel to market. There's nothing here that wouldn't prevent a Californian from buying a Prius with a state subsidy and turning around and selling it out of state for a profit at taxpayer expense. Why not simply put back in the solar installation tax credit that recently expired? That provided a great incentive for permanent energy installation on a microlevel that didn't involve weird subsidies of specific industries. Just a hare-brained approach to our common problem.
    
11. Legislative Redistricting - NO. What a horrible idea - putting THE essentially democratic process, determining legislative boundaries, into the hands of an unelected commision. The gridlock in Sacramento has little to do with districts as they currently are and a lot to do with the constitutional amendment passed some time ago requiring a 2/3 majority for any state budget. This is a thinly-disguised effort by the Republican party to try to control the legislature, Tom DeLay style.
    
12. Veterans' Bond Act of 2008. A billion dollars to help veterans buy farms and homes? Veterans' benefits are a federal matter. There's no discretion in the measure to restrict this aid to needy or disabled veterans -- anybody qualifies. Should the state be in the business of giving money out for public service? If that's the case, why not for teachers or nurses? This one was put on the ballot by the legislature, not by petition initiative, and seems like it's petty pandering. No, I'm not opposed to Veteran's benefits. I think they should be increased at the federal level. I oppose starting to add layers of benefits at multiple layers of government. It's a mismatch between obligation and governmental entity.