The Freedom Minute

PROP 6 – Vote NO

This Proposal:

This measure, the POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING. CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND LAWS. INITIATIVE STATUTE would mandate an increase of $365 million (a 60% increase) in the amount of funding the State provides to local law enforcement and includes a requirement that certain criminal justice program spending increase annually with inflation. The measure also increases criminal penalties for certain crimes related to gang participation and recruitment and some drug offenses, as well as creates some new felonies and misdemeanors. Prop 6 makes numerous other changes to current laws relating to California’s criminal justice system.

The fiscal impact of passing this proposal would be to cost taxpayers billions of dollars due to increased funding mandates and increased mandatory incarceration of criminals. These increased costs would be paid for by either cutting funding to other programs or raising taxes.

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote NO. While this proposal sounds good on its face, when you look deeper, there are many reasons to oppose its passage. First, the one size fits all approach of mandatory sentencing is almost always a bad idea. Judges need to be given the latitude to sentence criminals according to the individual situations and facts of each case. Also, this proposition makes numerous other changes to existing California laws. While some changes might be improvements, many definitely would not. Therefore, passing this proposition would, overall, make our criminal justice system worse, not better.

In addition, simply mandating a 60% increase in funding to local law enforcement and then mandating an additional annual increase is not necessarily going to make anyone safer. This proposition has no requirement that the funds allocated be used to hire any new police officers nor does it require that the funds be used for programs that are proven to reduce crime. Funding for crime reduction programs must be evaluated on their merits and then funding levels increased for those programs that are working while cutting funding for those that are not. Under Prop. 6, the largest increase in funding is for “Citizens Options for Public Safety,” a program reviewed by the state’s independent Legislative Analyst and found to have “no definable goals” and “no identifiable results.”

Finally, since Prop 6 doesn’t pay for itself, taxes would have to increase or funding would need to be cut for other items in the budget such as schools, healthcare, and other vital programs.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 6

October 28th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, State Government | no comments

PROP 5 – Vote YES

This Proposal:

This measure, the NONVIOLENT DRUG OFFENSES. SENTENCING, PAROLE AND REHABILITATION INITIATIVE STATUTE would divert certain persons convicted of nonviolent drug offenses into treatment programs rather than incarceration.

Specifically, the proposition would:
• Allocate $460,000,000 annually to improve and expand treatment programs for persons convicted of drug and other offenses.
• Limit court authority to incarcerate offenders who commit certain drug crimes, break drug treatment rules or violate parole.
• Substantially shorten parole for certain drug offenses but would increase parole for serious and violent felonies.
• Create a 19 member board to direct parole and rehabilitation policy.

The fiscal impact of passing this proposal would be to save taxpayers billions of dollars. Savings in excess of $1 billion annually due primarily to reduced prison and parole operating costs would be offset by an increase in state costs over time possibly in excess of $1 billion annually primarily for expanding drug treatment and rehabilitation programs. There would be an additional savings in excess of $2.5 billion due to decreased costs for prison facilities.

Background:

The state operates 33 state prisons and other facilities that had a combined adult inmate population of about 171,000 as of May 2008. The costs to operate the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in 2008–09 are estimated to be approximately $10 billion. The average annual cost to incarcerate an inmate is estimated to be about $46,000. The state prison system is currently experiencing overcrowding because there are not enough permanent beds available for all inmates. As a result, gymnasiums and other rooms have been converted to house some inmates. Addiction and substance abuse are major driving forces for the current overcrowding crisis. Over the past two decades, the number of incarcerated nonviolent offenders has more than tripled—from 20,000 in 1986 to over 70,000 in 2006. About 20% of prisoners in California are incarcerated for a drug offense.

Proposition 36, a ballot measure approved by the voters in November 2000, established a drug treatment diversion program for offenders who are convicted of specific crimes designated as nonviolent drug possession offenses. Under Proposition 36, an offender can be sentenced to probation and treatment, instead of prison or jail. Some parole violators are also eligible for Proposition 36 diversion. Proposition 36 limits when and how sanctions, such as jail or prison time, are imposed on offenders who violate the conditions of their drug treatment programs or commit new drug possession crimes. That program has graduated more than 84,000 people and saved California taxpayers over $1.5 billion since 2001. Proposition 5 would expand that program.

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote YES. Drug addiction should be treated for what it is, a health issue rather than a law enforcement issue. This proposal would save billions of taxpayer dollars and free up much needed prison space for real criminals. Although opponents claim that Prop 5 would allow drug dealers and felons to avoid jail, this is a distortion of the truth. Offenders convicted of a serious or violent felony are not eligible for diversion. Prop 5 only impacts nonviolent drug offenders and does not prohibit judges from using their discretion. Under Prop 5, a nonviolent offender with a drug problem may be diverted to treatment, if the judge finds that drugs motivated the nonviolent crime and that drug treatment would be in the best interests of public safety. The offender does not make that call—the judge does.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 5

October 27th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Civil Rights, Election, State Government | no comments

A Shameful Waste of $25Million

What would you do with $25Million? How many people could you feed, house, clothe? How many underprivileged children could you give a chance at a better life? How much good could $25Million do in the world?

Well apparently, there’s a group of people in our society who can think of nothing better to do with $25Million than to squander it in an attempt to institutionalize discrimination against another group of citizens. I’m of course talking about Proposition 8, put forward to circumvent a recent California State Supreme Court ruling recognizing that homosexual couples have the same right to marriage equality as everyone else. As recently reported by the LA Times, the backers of Prop 8 have raised over $25Million in their quest to pass this initiative which would amend the State Constitution to eliminate that right.

Now I’m a firm believer that people should be free to spend their money as they see fit, but I also believe I have the right to publicly criticize them for their choices. Especially when that choice amounts to an attack on one of the most fundamental rights we have in this country, the right to be treated equally under the law. For, whatever you might personally believe about homosexuality, or whatever arguments you might have in favor of or against Prop 8, this proposed constitutional amendment is about one thing and one thing only: requiring the state to treat one class of citizens differently than another class of citizens. As a society, we’re supposed to have grown beyond that type of narrow-mindedness. We’re supposed to have left the days of racism, gender bias, and religious intolerance behind us.

And yet there are still those who would use the power of government to restrict other people’s rights rather than to protect their rights. To these people I say this – your actions are shameful and the antithesis of every principle this country was founded on. In the same way that it is wrong to discriminate against people of color, of different religions, of different genders, it’s wrong to treat same sex couples differently under the law than you treat heterosexual couples. These are human beings with the same right as you to fall in love, marry, and live out their lives in peace and freedom. Regardless of whether or not you like how this group has chosen to live their lives or whether their choices make you uncomfortable or don’t fit in with your sense of morality, your right to disapprove does not trump their fundamental right to be treated the same as everyone else.

And spending $25Million, money that otherwise could be used towards the betterment of society, in order to ensure that others are treated differently, is simply wrong. Shame on you.

October 21st, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Civil Rights, Election, State Government | one comment

PROP 4 – Vote NO

This Proposal:

This measure, the WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY INITIATIVE amends the State Constitution to require, with certain exceptions, a physician to notify the parent or legal guardian of a pregnant minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion involving that minor. This measure does not require a physician or a minor to obtain the consent of a parent or guardian, only to notify them. The requirement for notification would be waived in cases of medical emergencies or if the pregnant minor successfully petitions a court to approve a waiver. In addition, if the minor states in writing that she fears physical, sexual, or severe emotional abuse from a parent who would otherwise be notified, and her fear is based on a pattern of such abuse of her by a parent, the physician could notify an adult family member instead of notifying the minor’s parent. Any person who performs an abortion on a minor and who fails to comply with the provisions of the measure would be liable for damages in a civil action brought by the minor, her legal representative, or by a parent or guardian wrongfully denied notification.

Background:

In 1953, a state law was enacted that allowed minors to receive, without parental consent or notification, the same types of medical care for a pregnancy that are available to an adult. In 1987, the Legislature passed a law to require minors to obtain the consent of either a parent or a court before obtaining an abortion. Legal challenges were brought, and the law was never implemented. In 1997, the California Supreme Court ultimately found the law unconstitutional. Proponents of this initiative are now attempting (as they have numerous times in the past) to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling by changing the State Constitution.

Arguments:

Proponents claim that this constitutional change would protect pregnant minor females by allowing a family member to know of their medical situation and be informed about risks to their health and safety. Furthermore, they argue, California law requires a parent to provide written consent in person before a minor can use a tanning salon but a minor can get an abortion without a family member being notified.

Opponents claim that in the real world, not all teens live in homes where communication is possible, and even in the best homes, many teens aren’t able to talk about something as sensitive as pregnancy and believe they can’t go to their parents for help. These girls can feel scared, trapped, and desperate. Instead of seeking the counseling and safe medical care they need, they may choose an unsafe, back alley, illegal abortion, go across the border, or even contemplate suicide. Furthermore, opponents of this measure charge that those backing this proposal are exploiting fears to advance their own political agenda and that their real goal is to eventually outlaw abortion.

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote NO. If passed, Prop 4 could do more harm than good. The motives of the proponents of this proposition are suspect and it appears designed to deter pregnant teens from seeking an abortion under the threat that their parents would be notified. It is also likely that many pregnant teenagers from abusive homes would be unable to satisfy the requirements for waiving the notification. Teens could be put in a seriously dangerous predicament – pregnant with nowhere to turn. This would likely cause some teens to attempt to circumvent the law and turn to risky alternatives such as crossing the border into Mexico or adjoining states, obtaining an abortion from unqualified individuals, or attempting to self induce an abortion. Furthermore, there is no indication that this proposal is necessary to address any problems that actually exist. I further find the “tanning salon” argument to be specious. Just because a law exists that requires parental notification for minors’ use of tanning salons, it does not mean that such a law is either necessary or effective and we shouldn’t use it as the precedent for the enactment of other laws. In addition, Prop 4 would potentially cost the public several million dollars annually for health and social services programs, court administration, and state health agency administration. In light of the potential to cause additional hardship on pregnant teenagers and no evidence of any substantial benefit from its enactment, this proposition should be rejected.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 4

October 17th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, State Government | no comments

PROP 3 – Vote NO

Background:

There are four general obligation bond measures on the November 5th ballot, totaling $16.8 billion in new authorizations. Bond financing is a type of long-term borrowing that the state uses to raise money for various purposes. The state obtains this money by selling bonds to investors. In exchange, it agrees to repay this money, with interest, according to a specified schedule. Generally, the total cost over the life of a bond issuance is about twice the authorized amount since interest must be paid in addition to the principle. Note also that for each bond measure approved, a portion of the state’s annual revenues must be set aside for debt-service payments on the bonds and therefore are not available for other state programs. This means that in order to pay for any bond measure approved, the legislature would either have to raise taxes or cut expenses elsewhere in the budget.

This Proposal:

This bond measure is called the CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL BOND ACT. It provides for a bond issue of $980 million to fund the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children’s hospitals.. The total cost of approving this bond measure would be about $2 billion to pay off both principal ($980 million) and interest ($933 million). Proposition 61, which voters approved at the November 2004 statewide general election, has authorized the sale of $750 million in general obligation bonds to provide funding for children’s hospitals. As of June 1, 2008, about $403 million of the funds from Proposition 61 had been awarded to eligible hospitals. This means that there are still untapped funds from that bond issue yet to be used.

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote no. The State of California is currently facing a huge budget crisis and in order not to run out of money is being forced to offer for sale billions of dollars of new general obligation bonds. There has also been speculation that the State may have to borrow billions of additional dollars from the Federal Government in order to remain solvent. Incurring any additional debt for anything but the most essential infrastructure is unwise and irresponsible. In addition, since an almost identical bond measure was approved by voters just four years ago and about half that money remains unspent, this new bond initiative is unnecessary. Furthermore, the institutions which will receive these funds are not impoverished. Several are part of the well-funded University of California system, and the others have substantial private and foundation support. Finally, whenever anyone uses “the children” as an issue, I become highly suspect. This is no exception. There is no indication that children’s hospitals suffer from a critical lack of funding. Singling these institutions out to receive special funding seems unfair at a time when many other institutions will be denied funding for their needs.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 3

October 16th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, State Government | no comments

PROP 2 – Vote NO

This proposition is called the STANDARDS FOR CONFINING FARM ANIMALS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Beginning January 1, 2015, this measure prohibits with certain exceptions the confinement on a farm of pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. Under the measure, any person who violates this law would be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment in county jail for up to six months.

Proponents claim that this measure would stop cruel and inhumane treatment of certain food animals by requiring that they be kept in cages large enough for them to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely.

Opponents claim that this measure would ban modern housing systems for egg-laying hens. In addition, they claim that implementing Prop 2 would drive California family farmers out of business or out of state where regulations are more lax, raising the cost of California eggs.

The independent Legislative Analyst states:

Compared to current practice most commonly used by California farmers in the affected industries, this measure would require more space and/or alternate methods for housing pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens. As a result, this measure would increase production costs for some of these farmers. To the extent that these higher production costs cause some farmers to exit the business, or otherwise reduce overall production and profitability, there could be reduced state and local tax revenues. The magnitude of this fiscal effect is unknown, but potentially in the range of several million dollars annually.

This is the relevant text of this proposal:

PROHIBITIONS. In addition to other applicable provisions of law, a person shall not tether or confine any covered animal, on a farm, for all or the majority of any day, in a manner that prevents such animal from:
(a) Lying down, standing up, and fully extending his or her limbs; and
(b) Turning around freely.

——-edit 10/28/08———

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote NO. While I previously took no stance on this issue, upon further research and reflection, I believe this measure would be bad for our economy and unfairly burden egg producers in California. Furthermore, I find that the campaign being waged by the proponents is somewhat misleading and uses emotion rather than good science to make its point. While certainly no one thinks it’s ok to abuse animals, the claims that the treatment of hens on egg farms rises to the level of cruelty is unsupported. Furthermore, we need to be careful of transferring our sense of “comfort” onto animals. For example, if you forced a human to continue standing indefinitely, that would be abuse, but for horses, it is the norm. Therefore, it is often difficult to know the “comfort level” of the animals in question and making law based on our emotional reactions is almost never a good idea. Finally, if some one truly objects to the how egg producers treat their animals, they can choose not to buy their products and only purchase “cage free” eggs. Since it’s unclear that these animals are being mistreated, I’m recommending a no vote on this issue.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 2

My previous comments:

My recommendation is to vote your conscience. If you feel it is inhumane to confine food animals in such a way that they are not able to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs at all times, then you should vote yes.

If you feel that State law which currently requires that animals confined in an enclosed area be provided with an adequate exercise area, and permitted access to adequate shelter, food, and water is sufficient or that the economic hardship that might be imposed by this measure outweighs the benefits, you should vote no.

October 16th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, State Government | 3 comments

PROP 1A – Vote NO

This is the first in a series of posts explaining the various initiatives on the November ballot in California.

Background:

There are four general obligation bond measures on the November 5th ballot, totaling $16.8 billion in new authorizations. Bond financing is a type of long-term borrowing that the state uses to raise money for various purposes. The state obtains this money by selling bonds to investors. In exchange, it agrees to repay this money, with interest, according to a specified schedule. Generally, the total cost over the life of a bond issuance is about twice the authorized amount since interest must be paid in addition to the principle. Note also that for each bond measure approved, a portion of the state’s annual revenues must be set aside for debt-service payments on the bonds and therefore are not available for other state programs. This means that in order to pay for any bond measure approved, the legislature would either have to raise taxes or cut expenses elsewhere in the budget.

This Proposal:

This bond measure is called the SAFE, RELIABLE HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN BOND ACT. It provides for a bond issue of $9.95 billion to establish high-speed train service linking Southern California counties, the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley, and the San Francisco Bay Area. This is for train service between cities, not for local commuter train service. The total cost of approving this bond measure would be about $20 billion to pay off both principal ($9.95 billion) and interest ($9.5 billion). However, it is important to note that this bond measure would fund only the first phase of the project. The total cost to develop and construct the entire high-speed train system would be about $45 billion, so additional funds would be needed.

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote no. The State of California is currently facing a huge budget crisis and in order not to run out of money is being forced to offer for sale billions of dollars of new general obligation bonds. There has also been speculation that the State may have to borrow billions of additional dollars from the Federal Government in order to remain solvent. While high speed train service may be a desirable goal for California, it would be irresponsible to incur additional debt at this time.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 1A

October 16th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, State Government | no comments

Get Mad as Hell and Don’t Take it Anymore

In case you haven’t heard, another AIG subsidiary, International Lease Finance Corp., threw a lavish party at the Smithsonian just 4 days after US taxpayers bailed out parent AIG to the tune of $85 billion.

Read the story here.

This is in addition to the now infamous $443,344 spa retreat at the exclusive St. Regis Monarch Beach Resort for executives of AIG subsidiary, AIG American General, which prompted Barack Obama to suggest during Tuesday’s debate that the Treasury should demand the money back and fire the executives.

And this week the feds agreed to loan AIG another $37.8 billion. If you want to make your voice heard on how your tax dollars are being wasted, go to this link to look up the contact information for your congressional representatives.

Make a phone call if you can. It’s much more effective than an email.

October 10th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Federal Government | 2 comments

It’s Bizzaro World on the Campaign Trail

I guess if you live long enough, you see everything. This week, John McCain proffered a multi-billion dollar plan to have the federal government buy up all the home mortgages in the country that have fallen into default and then revalue them to current home values. A plan that would put us billions more into debt and reward the lenders who made bad loans and the homeowners that got themselves into mortgages they knew they couldn’t afford.

Did I mention that the plan was put forward by John McCain, the REPUBLICAN candidate for president? And guess who’s opposed to the government intervening in this way. Yeah, “that one”, the Democratic contender. If I’m not mistaken, aren’t the Republicans supposed to be in favor of smaller government and less intervention in the free market? And isn’t it the Democrats who have traditionally been accused of being the “tax and spend” party? And isn’t this the same John McCain who pretty much made his career on being a fiscal conservative, the watchdog for your tax dollars?

Apparently not. Apparently we’re living in some kind of election year Bizzaro World in which up is down, left is right, and Republicans are Democrats. Except, of course, when it comes to keeping the government out of your bedroom and other personal business. Then they’re still Republicans.

October 10th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Federal Government | no comments

Is John McCain Your Friend?

Ok, I admit ahead of time that this post is a bit snarky, but I think I’m entitled to publicly express a completely personal reaction to one of the candidates. And considering the outright distortions and fear mongering coming from the McCain camp, this post will probably seem mild by comparison.

I’m completely turned off by John McCain’s overuse of the phrase “my friends”, as in: “My friends, what we have to do with Medicare is…” During the last presidential debate, he said “my friends” a total of 22 times out of about the 24 times he had the floor. In fact, he uses the phrase so much that internet posters, even those that support his bid for the White House, often refer to him as John “my friends” McCain.

I know why this bothers me. It reminds me of how slick used car salesmen will call you “my friend” even though they don’t even know you. When someone does that, their insincerity shines through and I’m constantly wondering what they’re hiding and how they’re about to cheat me. My gut instinct is that McCain’s use of “my friends” betrays that this is his true nature as well.

Unfortunately, this is how I now feel about John McCain, a man I once respected because I thought he was guided by principle. But McCain’s willingness to do or say anything to win the race for president has shown me otherwise. Sure, to some extent, all politicians engage in this type of conduct. But the level of mud-slinging and dishonesty practiced mostly by Republican candidates (and, to be fair, some Democrats) during the last few election cycles has brought these tactics to a new height, or should I say, a new low. I wouldn’t buy from anyone who I feel is just another snake oil salesman and I won’t vote for one either.

But perhaps if McCain does become president, there will be a silver lining for young people. I envision a variation on the “Hi Bob” drinking game played while watching reruns of the “Bob Newhart Show”. In this new version, every time President McCain makes a speech on TV and says “my friends” you have to take a shot of Jack Daniels. Hey, for all I know, students on college campuses all around the country are already playing.

Well that’s my opinion, my friends, and I’m sticking to it.

October 9th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Election | 3 comments