The Freedom Minute

Voting Yes on Prop 23 Won’t Harm the Environment

If you had a friend that was about to commit suicide or maybe just inflict serious harm upon himself, you’d probably try to stop him. Well Californians are about to do just that. The implementation of AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, will inflict serious harm on California and the people who live here. Voting Yes on Prop 23 is the intervention that California needs to save itself from certain injury.

First, let’s talk about AB32 and what it won’t do. AB32 won’t reduce “air pollution” as that term is generally understood. It does nothing to limit real air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, or toxic soot. These emissions that contribute to smog and other conditions related to public health are regulated under numerous separate laws, which are the strictest in the country. The only substance AB32 seeks to limit is CO2. So basically, this is a law that attempts to reduce global warming. The debate as to whether CO2 is a significant source of climate change isn’t going to be solved here, but it’s important for voters to realize that AB32 is only about global warming, not air pollution. Furthermore, even if AB32 is fully implemented, it will have no effect on worldwide global warming. AB32 seeks to reduce California’s CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. But that’s just a small fraction of California’s CO2 output. And, when compared to the worldwide output of CO2, the amount California emits is just a small fraction of 1%. On top of that, businesses that currently emit CO2 here in California may relocate to other states and continue to output the same amount of CO2, resulting in no net reduction overall. So, AB32 will have no effect on global warming and the air won’t be any cleaner.

But let’s see what AB32 would do. According to a report authored by Sanjay B. Varshney, Ph.D., dean of the College of Business Administration at California State University, Sacramento, AB32 will cost California small businesses a net loss of “more than $182.6 billion in gross state output, the equivalent of more than 1.1 million jobs, nearly $76.8 billion in labor income, and nearly $5.8 billion in indirect business taxes”. In addition, consumers would likely see a 60% increase in electricity rates and a 57% hike in natural gas rates as well as a new $500 million per year water tax. Gasoline and diesel prices will likely increase by $3.7 billion a year as well.

Prop 23 seeks to limit the damage that will be done to our economy by delaying the implementation of AB32 until California’s unemployment rate returns to 5.5% for four consecutive quarters. It does not repeal AB32, nor does it have any effect on any other environmental laws in California. California is in deep financial trouble and our economy can’t afford the additional costs that will be imposed by AB32 at this time. I urge you to vote Yes on Prop 23. But if you’re still inclined to vote no, at least now you know what your vote will mean – the loss of millions of jobs and higher energy costs with no improvement in air quality.

By the way, there’s an excellent reason that some oil companies are backing Prop 23 and it’s not because they “want to keep polluting”. As I’ve said, Prop 23 does not lessen any of California’s stringent environmental laws. Oil companies support Prop 23 because their industry, the industry that fuels virtually our entire economy, will be severely penalized under AB32 and will be forced to expend millions of dollars in unnecessary costs that will most likely be passed onto the consumer. That’s you and me, in case you hadn’t realized just who is going to pay for all this. But it’s not just oil companies that are backing Prop 23. A whole host of groups support voting yes, including such disparate entities as the Los Angeles Homeless Restoration Advisory Coalition and the Los Angeles Police Protective League. Here’s an entire list of supporters .

Finally, a word about moving to a “green economy”. While that might be a desirable goal, AB32 is not the way to get there. Making one type of energy more expensive so that less efficient forms of energy can compete is the wrong method of boosting alternative energy. If we are really serious about making renewable energy a viable alternative to fossil fuels, then we need to fund research that will make these types of energy more efficient and competitive in their own right. It’s entirely doable, especially if we don’t waste millions of dollars on an ill advised scheme to punish the use of fossil fuels.

November 2nd, 2010 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, State Government | one comment

One Good Reason to Vote Yes on Prop 19

Almost everyone agrees that our drug laws don’t work, create more problems than they solve and make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens.  Most people also recognize that marijuana prohibition makes as little sense as alcohol prohibition did.  They understand that marijuana is nowhere near as harmful as tobacco or alcohol and attempts to prohibit its use have only led to associated street violence and a huge windfall for drug cartels.  But Prop 19, the initiative that would legalize marijuana and allow local governments to tax and regulate its use, has come under attack from a variety of critics.  Most criticisms are clearly just the same old scare tactics and misinformation put forth by anti-drug zealots or those who stand to profit from marijuana’s continued prohibition (I’m talking about you, Alcohol Lobby and Prison Industrial Complex).  These attacks include the usual nonsense about marijuana being addictive or a gateway drug or that legalization “sends the wrong message” to kids.

The truth, of course, is that marijuana has never been shown to be addictive (any more so than chocolate), has never been shown to be a gateway drug, and its legalization in other countries, like Portugal, has led to a reduction in use by teenagers.  Furthermore, removing criminal penalties for the use and possession of small amounts of marijuana frees up law enforcement (and the courts) to concentrate on real crimes and real criminals.  And the ability to tax the state’s most lucrative crop would put a serious dent in our budget deficit.

So there are lots of reasons to vote Yes on 19.  But here’s the most important: If Prop 19 fails, politicians may get the mistaken belief that the majority of the public wants marijuana prohibition and our other onerous drug laws to continue unchanged.  They’ll believe that there just isn’t the popular support for reforming our broken drug policies in favor of a more sensible public health approach.  If we’re worried about sending the wrong message, this is the message we should be worried about sending.  Politicians live and die by popular opinion.  And supporting drug law reform can get you labeled as “soft on crime”, something no politician wants, unless it’s his opponent carrying the label.  But if Prop 19 passes, even if the Feds block its implementation, politicians might realize that there is popular support for doing away with drug prohibition, especially in the case of marijuana, and moving our country away from the failed drug policies we have been pursuing for decades.  That’s the message I want our elected officials to get, and it’s the main reason I’m voting Yes on Prop 19.  It’s why you should vote yes, too.

November 2nd, 2010 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, State Government | one comment

Recommendations for Nov. 2nd Ballot Measures

PROP 19 – Legalizes Marijuana Under California Law – Vote Yes

Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Allows local governments to regulate and tax the production, distribution, and sale of marijuana. Potential increased tax and fee revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually and potential correctional savings of several tens of millions of dollars annually.

While much has been reported about this initiative, there’s one very good reason to vote yes. The drug war has cost this country untold billions of dollars, ruined countless lives, enriched drug cartels, and eroded our civil liberties. And it has done nothing to reduce the use of drugs. While Prop 19 won’t fix all those problems, it is a step in the right direction. If nothing else, its passage will signal the willingness of our citizens to seriously consider ending the war on drugs, especially for drugs like marijuana which is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco and likely provides real medicinal benefits. Our elected official need political cover if they’re ever going to support meaningful drug law reforms. The passage of Prop 19 would give them that political cover.

PROP 20 - Redistricting Of Congressional Districts – Vote Yes

Transfers authority for establishing congressional districts to the recently-authorized 14-member redistricting commission comprised of Democrats, Republicans, and representatives of neither party. Takes redistricting out of the hands of politicians who have used that power to gerrymander the districts to ensure their own reelection.

Voters approved Proposition 11 in 2008 which provided for the same transfer of authority for establishing state election districts. This proposition extends that authority to the establishment of US congressional districts. When politicians have the power to draw the boundaries of their districts, they artificially adjust those boundaries to include or exclude certain groups of voters such as those of a particular political party or ethnic or social group. This results in the elected officials having an unfair advantage in future elections and virtually assures that they will have little or no real competition for their seat. Taking the power out of the hands of elected politicians is the only way to ensure that congressional district boundaries are drawn fairly and don’t give an advantage to any one political party. – Vote Yes

PROP 21 – Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge to Help Fund State Parks – Vote No

Adds $18 to the vehicle license fee each year. This $18 would be earmarked for State Park funding.

While this might seem like a good idea to offset some recent budget cutbacks, imposing this fee is a colossally bad idea. First, while it’s called a fee, it’s actually an additional tax on every vehicle registered in the state. All drivers would pay the same amount, whether they drive an old junker or a Lexus. This means the tax would fall hardest on the lowest income citizens. Furthermore, once this fee is imposed, there’s no guarantee it won’t increase every year. $18 might not be much now, but it could easily rise to $50 or $100 within the next few years. Don’t give the politicians the ability to impose this new tax on California drivers. – Vote No

PROP 22 – Prohibits the State From Borrowing Or Taking Funds Used For Transportation, Redevelopment, Or Local Government Projects And Services – Vote No

This measure reduces or eliminates the state’s authority to:
• Use state fuel tax revenues to pay debt service on state transportation bonds.
• Borrow or change the distribution of state fuel tax revenues.
• Redirect redevlopment agency property taxes to any other local government.
• Temporarily shift property taxes from cities, counties, and special districts to schools.
• Use vehicle license fee (VLF) revenues to reimburse local governments for state mandated costs.

This proposition is basically about a jurisdictional dispute between the State and local governments. Both sides make similar claims that passing the measure (or defeating it) will protect taxpayer funds from “the politicians”. Annual State and local funding is a complicated calculation and usually neither side is entirely happy with the outcome. I recommend that it’s best for voters to stay out of this issue and let our elected officials fight it out. Therefore I recommend a No vote to keep things the way they are now.

PROP 23 – Suspends Implementation of AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, Until Unemployment Drops To 5.5% or Less for Full Year – Vote Yes

Contrary to the way opponents of this initiative would like to characterize it, AB32 does not reduce “pollution”, it reduces CO2 which is not an air pollutant per se. If AB32 is implemented, it would mean the loss of millions of jobs in California. Supporters of AB32 claim that some of those jobs would be replaced with “green jobs”, but there is no guarantee those jobs will ever materialize and even if they do, they would only be a tiny fraction of the number of jobs lost. Those that support AB32 (and oppose this initiative) are asking us to favor potential jobs over jobs that currently exist. Realize that each job lost really means that an actual person who currently has a job will become unemployed. Furthermore, even if AB32 is implemented and we are actually able to reduce CO2 emissions in California, there would be no net effect on global warming since the CO2 produced by California is only a minute fraction of the CO2 produced globally and much of the CO2 we now produce would stilled be produced, only in states other than California as companies relocate to other places (and take our jobs with them). California can’t afford the loss of millions of jobs. – Vote Yes

PROP 24 – Repeals Recent Legislation That Would Allow Businesses To Lower Their Tax Liability – Vote No

In 2008 and 2009, the state legislature adjusted the way some businesses were allowed to calculate their tax liability. This was done to make California more competitive with surrounding states and keep businesses from moving to places with a lower tax rate. California imposes one of the highest tax liabilities on businesses of any state. The previous changes were an attempt to make taxes a bit more fair. Now, however, the proponents of Prop 24 want to take away those adjustments and are mischaracterizing them as a “giveaway”. Businesses are not the enemy, they are the engine that drives our economy and provide jobs to our citizens. In order to keep businesses from fleeing the state, we have to stay competitive. – Vote No

PROP 25 – Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass Budget and Budget-Related Legislation from Two-Thirds to a Simple Majority – Vote No

Critics of the Two-Thirds vote requirement to pass a budget have been claiming that this is the source of all the state’s budgetary problems. This is an absolute lie. The Two-Thirds vote requirement does make it harder to pass a budget because it makes it harder to raise taxes. This forces our legislators to look more deeply at what the state is spending and to make tough choices. That’s a good thing. Granted, the budget is often late, but that’s better than imposing crippling tax increases on out citizens. The Two-Thirds vote requirement is the only thing standing in the way of higher taxes and fees. – Vote No

PROP 26 – Requires That Certain State And Local Fees Be Approved By Two-Thirds Vote – Vote Yes

In order to get around the two-thirds vote requirement to raise taxes, the politicians have begun to call those taxes “fees”. This initiative closes that loophole. – Vote Yes

PROP 27 – Eliminates State Commission On Redistricting – Vote No

This measure is basically the opposite of Prop 20. It puts redistricting back in the hands of politicians by reversing Prop 11 which voters approved in 2008. It’s a power grab by politicians who are afraid that they will lose reelection if they actually have to compete on a level playing field. For a more detailed discussion, see the explanation of Prop 20 above. – Vote No

Here’s my condensed summary:
PROP 19 – Legalizes Marijuana – YES
PROP 20 – Redistricting – YES
PROP 21 – $18 Car Tax – NO
PROP 22 – Prohibits Funds Transfers – NO
PROP 23 – Suspends Job Killing AB32 – YES
PROP 24 – Repeals Businesses Tax Adjustment – NO
PROP 25 – Eliminates Two-Thirds Requirement – NO
PROP 26 – Requires Two-Thirds Vote to Raise Fees – YES
PROP 27 – Eliminates State Redistricting Commission – NO

November 2nd, 2010 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, State Government | one comment

Recommendations for June 8th Ballot Measures

If you live in California, please remember to vote on Tuesday.

PROP 13 – Seismic Retrofitting – Vote Yes
Provides that construction to seismically retrofit existing buildings will not trigger reassessment of property tax value and an increase in taxes.

This will encourage property owners to retrofit their buildings to make them safer in the event of an earthquake. Vote Yes

PROP 14, Top Two Primaries Act – Vote No
Changes the primary election to allow voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. Only the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes in the primary would then appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference.

This is a bad idea that would virtually eliminate third party candidates from running in the general election and would likely create a situation where two candidates from the same party would face each other in the general election. We need more competition in elections, not less. Furthermore, this measure was put on the ballot as a political payoff to secure Abel Maldonado’s vote for last year’s state budget. Don’t reward the politicians who make back room deals at voters’ expense. Vote No.

PROP 15, CALIFORNIA FAIR ELECTIONS ACT – Vote No
Repeals the ban on public funding of political campaigns and creates a voluntary system for candidates for Secretary of State for the 2014 and 2018 elections to qualify for a public campaign grant if they agree to limitations on spending and private contributions. Funded by an increase in lobbyist registration fee from $12.50 per year to $350.

The problem with this measure is that it allows candidates to continue to raise funds from special interests and then also provides them with public funds if they limit their spending to a specified amount. Therefore, it really doesn’t do anything to make elections “more fair”. Also, once the ban on public funding of political campaigns is repealed, the Sacramento politicians can extend the use of public funds to candidates for other types of offices as well. While there may be an argument to be made for public financing of campaigns, this is not the way to do it. Vote No.
Continue reading “Recommendations for June 8th Ballot Measures”

November 2nd, 2010 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, State Government | one comment

Recommendations for May 19th Special Election

Local Races

City Attorney – Vote for Carmen Trutanich. His opponent, Jack Weiss, was our council member and was pretty much the worst representative you could imagine. He’s in bed with all the political elites in City Hall and has waged a deceptive smear campaign against Trutanich. Don’t reward him. Trutanich will be an independent prosecutor and work best for the people of Los Angeles.

Council District 5 – Vote for David Vahedi. Between Vahedi and his opponent Paul Koretz, there is no doubt that Vahedi is the better choice. Koretz is a career politician and would simply be a continuation of the status quo. He moved into the district just so he could run for the open council seat being vacated by Jack Weiss. I’ve listened to both men at various candidates forums and I’m convinced that Vahedi will be a much more independent voice and bring the possibility of real change. I also believe he will be more open to input for the constituents. He’s also a real grass-roots candidate having served on his local neighborhood council for many years.

Here’s what you need to know about the Propositions
Continue reading “Recommendations for May 19th Special Election”

November 2nd, 2010 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, State Government | one comment

Why Can’t LA Times Columnists Get it Right?

In a recent column entitled, “California Budget Fixes On May 19 Ballot Are Mostly Shams and Frauds”, Michael Hiltzik of the LA Times rails against the six propositions, 1A through 1F, that will appear on the ballot for the May 19th special election. He’s right that the propositions are all fraudulent and misleading. They deserve to go down in defeat. But Hiltzik’s column is mostly wrong as to his analysis of our current budget crisis as well as what’s actually contained in the propositions themselves.

First, Hiltzik gets the facts wrong about Proposition 1A’s effect on the budget. He wrongly states that 1A “limits budget growth to a formula based on population growth and inflation”. If only this were true. Unfortunately it’s not. Prop 1A limits future spending to historic revenues and economic growth. This means that there really is no spending limit, because all the legislature need do to continue their runaway spending is continue to increase revenue, i.e. increase taxes. That’s a big difference from limiting spending to population growth and inflation. One would think that a columnist for a major newspaper would be able to get this simple fact right. Granted, the actual text of the proposition is so convoluted as to be almost incomprehensible, but all Hiltzik had to do was read the analysis written by the state’s independent legislative analyst which appears here, just like I did. But perhaps that was just too much trouble.

Or perhaps Hiltzik simply likes tax increases so much that he’s intentionally misleading his readers. What other explanation could there be when he calls the largest state tax increase in the history of the United States, “modest tax increases”. Or when he suggests that California’s budget woes come not from legislative over spending but rather from the 2/3 supermajority requirement for budget bills, which is pretty much the only thing standing in the way of even greater state fiscal irresponsibility. In fact, Hiltzik goes so far as to claim that eliminating this 2/3 supermajority requirement will somehow magically solve all our budget problems. Of course that’s only true if you believe we can simply tax our way out of this mess and “a tiny cadre of legislators”, as Hiltzik calls them, are standing in the way. But anyone with even a basic knowledge of economics knows this to be a fallacy. Ever increasing spending coupled with ever increasing taxes to pay for it, drives away the tax base, reduces revenue in the long run and eventually destroys an economy. Not to mention, it’s inherently unfair. But again, Hiltzik disagrees since he believes “there’s nothing inherently wrong with tobacco taxes or surcharges on the wealthy”. With an attitude such as this, it’s no wonder Hiltzik didn’t bother to do his homework.

But, Michael Hiltzik’s most egregious error is that he fails to mention anywhere in his analysis of the propositions that if 1A passes, the massive tax increase recently passed by the legislature will be extended an additional one to two years. That translates into an additional $16 billion in taxes levied on the people of California. But apparently, Michael Hiltzik didn’t think this fact important enough to make anything more than an obscure tangential reference buried deep in his text. Nor did he, in a column about the propositions being “shams and frauds”, mention that 1A’s official title and summary, written by our illustrious elected officials, as well as the TV and radio ads promoting its passage, also fail to mention this important fact. And that’s the biggest sham and fraud of all.

November 2nd, 2010 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, State Government | one comment

Vote No on LA Measure B: Green Energy and Good Jobs for Los Angeles Program

This is another deceptively titled ballot measure designed to trick the voting public into voting for something they would never want if they knew the truth – a monopoly by a powerful union and guaranteed higher energy rates. So here’s the truth:

Measure B amends the Charter and Administrative Code to authorize creation of a DWP program to build 400 megawatts’ worth of solar photovoltaics on land and rooftops inside the city. But it also mandates that the “solar power installations shall be installed, owned, operated and maintained by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP)”. This gives the DWP a virtual monopoly on all solar power installations throughout the city and explains why the measure was created and pushed onto the ballot by the powerful union that represents DWP workers. They want to get through legislation what they can’t achieve in the open market – a monopoly. And we all know what happens when you have a monopoly – you block competition that could provide cheaper or better alternatives.

As explained on the VoteNoLA website, “Unlike giant power plants built to serve entire communities, solar power systems installed on rooftops lend themselves to private ownership and operation. Why not always get the best price for rate-payers by soliciting competitive bids? Wouldn’t that be better for rate-payers and the local economy? Of course it would. Competitive bidding and private ownership should be the rule, not the exception”. Private solar companies, with deep expertise honed in a competitive environment, could possibly provide the same solar service more cheaply than the DWP. But if Measure B passes, that won’t happen.

In addition, this measure isn’t even needed to achieve its purported goals. The LA Times stated in a recent editorial, “Los Angeles can do all of those things without Measure B. In fact, the DWP is already working on programs to generate about 900 megawatts of solar power, and it didn’t stop to ask voter permission. It should do the same with the 400 megawatts of in-basin rooftop energy”. Furthermore, the Times goes on to explain the political power grab that is also a part of this measure. “Something else is going on here. It’s a grab for power — the political kind, not the solar stuff — by the City Council and the union that represents DWP workers. Measure B, if passed, would transfer oversight of in-basin solar power from a five-member commission, with at least a modicum of political independence, to the City Council. But because the measure would allow the council to change or suspend everything that’s in it, the council’s new authority would not be accompanied by new accountability. On the contrary, this measure would give the council sweeping political cover.”

Measure B, is another disingenuous campaign put forth by the Mayor and City Council to hoodwink the public. Don’t fall for their deceptions again. Solar power is a good idea; Measure B is a step in the wrong direction.

Vote NO on Measure B.

Times Article
VoteNoLA
Vote NO on Measure B website

November 2nd, 2010 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, State Government | one comment

Vote No on LA Measure E: Economic Incentives For Business Development

Amends the City Charter to state that the City may provide economic incentives to attract new businesses to the City or to keep current businesses in the City. Incentives must result in clearly identifiable public benefits, must follow applicable law, and must be approved by the Mayor and Council.

While this measure sounds good on the surface, it simply memorializes in the City Charter what the Mayor and City Council have already been doing, giving away millions of dollars each year of your hard earned tax dollars to rich, politically connected developers in the form of subsidies, tax breaks and other special treatment. These developers then turn around and support the campaigns of the politicians that transferred your money to them, assuring that these politicians will continue in office year after year where they can do more political favors for those that helped put them there. It’s an unholy alliance and this ballot measure makes it worse.

Economic studies show that “incentive” programs do not work: they do not create wealth; they just redistribute money from taxpayers to people with political connections. The best way to improve our business climate it to cut taxes and fees and reform the process that makes business owners and entrepreneurs wade through an unnecessary bureaucracy and mountains of paperwork in order to start and run their businesses.

There’s a lot of smart things we can do to improve business development in Los Angeles, but Measure E is not one of them.

Recommendation: Vote NO

November 2nd, 2010 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, State Government | one comment

Vote No on LA Measure A: Fire Department Independent Assessor

Amends the City Charter to create the post of Fire Department Independent Assessor.

The Measure would:
(1) Establish the position of independent Assessor, exempt from Civil Service, who reports to the Fire Commission;
(2) Provide the Independent Assessor the responsibility for auditing, assessing and reviewing the activities of the Fire Department, including handling of complaints of misconduct against firefighters and civilian employees, under rules established by the Fire Commission; and
(3) Authorize the Fire Commission to appoint and remove the Independent Assessor.

Recommendation: Vote NO

Proponents of this measure claim that in order to protect firefighters from harassment at work while protecting taxpayers from frivolous lawsuits we need an Independent Assessor. But we are already footing a multi-million dollar annual bill for an army of deputy mayors, mayoral aides, attorneys, risk management teams, etc. whose job it is to prevent harassment and defend against frivolous lawsuits. We need better management at the top, not more layers of management below. The answer to any real or imagined problems within the fire department is to hold accountable those who are already charged with managing the department correctly.

The Mayor, Fire Chief and the Board of Fire Commissioners are responsible for conditions at the Fire Department. The Mayor has a staff of 93 people. The Fire Department has a Professional Standards Division to handle complaints. The City’s Personnel Department, moreover, has an Equal Employment Opportunity Section that “monitors compliance by City departments with City, State and Federal EEO laws and regulations.” The City Administrative Officer has a Risk Management Team. So does the City Attorney. As for lawsuits, the City Attorney has a budgeted staff of 791 people, including over 300 attorneys. City Hall, moreover, spent $28.9 million last year on outside counsel. Under the Charter, the Mayor and the City Council make “the client decisions in litigation,” including whether to take a case all the way to trial, or whether instead to settle and, if so, on what terms.

If all of those people cannot protect firefighters and taxpayers, what difference would an “Independent Assessor” make? None. We do not need to add yet another layer of bureaucracy. We just need better people running City Hall.

November 2nd, 2010 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, State Government | one comment

California State and Local Ballot Initiative Recommendations

This is a summary. Please see the full discussion of each measure elsewhere on this site.

To download a pdf of this post Right Click here and choose “Save Link As” or “Save Target As”

STATE BALLOT MEASURES

PROP 1A – Vote NO
It is irresponsible to incur additional debt at this time.

PROP 2 – Vote NO
It’s unclear that these animals are being mistreated. Could harm the economy and drive farmers out of business. Will raise food prices.

PROP 3 – Vote NO
It is irresponsible to incur additional debt at this time.

PROP 4 – Vote NO
The motives of the proponents of this proposition are suspect and if passed, Prop 4 could harm more girls than it helps. Furthermore, there is no indication that any of the problems this proposal is meant to address, actually exist.

PROP 5 – Vote YES
Saves billions of taxpayer dollars and frees up much needed prison space for real criminals. Provides treatment instead of incarceration.

PROP 6 – Vote NO
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. Would raise taxes or require cuts for other items in the budget such as schools, healthcare, and other vital programs.

PROP 7 – Vote NO
Would raise utility rates. Unfairly sets arbitrary goals for the use of renewable energy and then prohibits smaller renewable energy providers from contributing towards that goal.

PROP 8 – Vote NO
Requires the state to treat one class of citizens differently than another class of citizens. Unfair and mean-spirited.

PROP 9 – Vote NO
Duplicates many laws currently on the books and is therefore unnecessary to a large degree. Contains a number of troubling provisions which are either unconstitutional or simply wrong-headed.

PROP 10 – Vote NO
Most of the funding goes to encourage a shift from oil based energy to natural gas not to renewable energy sources. Would likely raise the cost of energy while enriching Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens.

PROP 11 – Vote YES
Anything is better than the current system in which incumbent legislators create districts where they are virtually guaranteed reelection.

PROP 12 – Vote YES
Helps veterans to purchase a home. Program has been running since 1922 and has yet to incur a cost to taxpayers.

LOS ANGELES CITY AND COUNTY MEASURES

Prop A – Vote NO
Unnecessary. Raises property taxes.

Prop B – Vote NO
Overturns previous ballot initiatives passed by voters in 1973, 1977 and 1980. Intentionally confusing and misleading.

Prop J – Vote NO
At this time of budget crisis, it is irresponsible to take on additional debt or raise taxes.

Prop R – Vote NO
Increases the sales tax. Would drive away consumers and businesses. Transportation priorities not well thought out.

Prop Q – Vote NO
It is irresponsible to take on additional debt or raise taxes.

Prop U – Vote NO
If the measure is defeated and you live in an unincorporated area of Los Angeles, you will no longer have to pay this 5% tax on your phone service.

November 2nd, 2010 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, State Government | one comment