California Propositions 2010

Here's how I'm voting on the 2010 propositions on Nov 2. As of this writing, my decisions are based on the (extremely small) amount of research I've done. I will update this post as my opinions change, so feel free to comment and tell me how wrong I am.

YES on 19: Makes it legal to possess less than an ounce of marijuana. People are already using marijuana, so let's go ahead and make it legal -- and tax it! I know there are a lot of issues with this law, and it may not hurt the Mexican drug cartels as much as we want it to. But I still would rather it be legal.
YES on 20: Don't allow legislators to draw their own districts. Seems like a pretty simple choice to me.
YES on 21: Adds $18 to the cost of owning a car, to fund state parks and wildlife conservation. I'm kind of indifferent on this one but $18 isn't THAT much and our state parks can probably use the money.
NOT SURE on 22: Prevents money that belongs to local government from being taken by the state. If there is money that is supposed to go to local governments and local projects, then the state shouldn't be allowed to take it just because they can't find their own source of funding. But according to the "No" arguments, that funding is NEEDED for important things like police and firefighters. Sounds like the way our state works is super broken and I can't tell if a "Yes" or a "No" on this will make it any less broken.
NO on 23: This would suspend a law passed in 2006 that would get the state to reduce emissions by 2020. I feel like reducing emissions is a good thing, so no on this one.
NOT SURE on 24: Something about taxes and businesses. I can't tell if this affects small businesses that really need the tax break, or huge ones that frankly don't. I need to read more about this one.
YES on 25: Punishes the state legislators by taking away their paycheck if they don't pass the budget (which is admittedly pretty mean, but I think they'll survive, because they'll be pretty unlikely to be super late like they always are now) and more importantly makes it so that a majority of the legislature needs to pass the budget, not a 2/3 supermajority. Maybe if this passes, we won't pay all our state employees in IOUs.
NO on 26: Makes it harder to create/increase certain taxes by requiring a 2/3 vote of the legislature or voters, instead of a simple majority. Look, I know taxes suck, but I feel like if we require a 2/3 vote to increase pretty much ANY tax, then we'll never get anything passed.
NO on 27: This is pretty much the exact opposite of Prop 20 -- it gives all the power to draw district outlines back to the legislators.

So there you go. Tell me how super wrong I am on the above points, or help me with my "not sure" ones. Also, just sayin': Almost all of the official pro and con groups are called "Citizens For Lower Taxes" or "Taxpayers Against Evil Things" or "Just A Bunch Of Totally Reasonable Everyday People Who Are Totally Reasonable, We Promise, And Are In Favor Of Things That Everyone Loves Like Ice Cream And Puppies. I Mean, You Don't Hate Puppies, Do You?" It's a little sketchy, am I right?

1 comment:

Chrispy said...

Seriously, these front groups are infuriating me. It's one thing for corporations to be able to spend unlimited quantities, but to be able to do it all entirely confidentially? Bullshit.

Anyway, I'm with you on all those, so the only extra opinion I can add would be on 24... It closes some "loopholes" or "credits," depending who you ask. Currently companies can carry past losses as deductions against current taxes and things like that. So, yes, it would raise taxes on business which should be avoided ideally, but these were breaks included as part of the 2008 CA budget negotiations. So these things have only been here for the last two years, and I'd like to make the tax policy a bit more common-sense and restore it to how it was before.