Alright, here goes for 2016.
I would love to get your feedback. I find it really helpful to have good discussion going into the ballot box so I'm not just shooting in the dark (as so many Americans do, unfortunately).
Propositions: Wow! There are so many this time around, and many very complicated. I feel really bad for all the people that will go to the ballot box and fill it in on the spot, without prior research done. In doing your own research, I found https://ballotpedia.org to be an awesome resource. Very clear, unbiased, and really breaks things down well in telling you what it is, who supports it, and why.
51 - BIG NO. And this is from a school teacher. We don't need more bond money to pay back later. Another example of how special interest groups have figured out how to hijack our proposition system to get big amounts of money and have a fraction of it go to the money pits that people will blindly vote for. Notice that we borrow 9 billion and pay back 17.6 billion. What difference will it make in your child's life? Next to nothing.
52 - NO, but not firm. It does procure millions of federal dollars for medi-cal users. I'm against it on principle. Our current system isn't sustainable and it's unconstitutional. The federal government has overstepped its bounds in many ways. It has stripped power away from the states by printing money and then using it as leverage to force them into compliance. 52 is a perfect example of this.
53 - YES. Runaway state spending should require voter approval.
54 - YES. Doesn't make sense that the opposition tries to spin this one as a special interest power grab. The special interests already know everything that goes on in the capitol, this would empower the people to have a better idea. The question is, will anyone actually do anything with the increased transparency?
55 - Undecided. When prop 30 passed, I can attest to the fact that schools were really in trouble. This new tax fixed the problem. What is the best way to deal with this? A new tax on the rich doesn't seem like the best way unless you are Robin Hood. I'm having a battle inside. Pragmatism vs Principle. Not sure who will win out. Maybe one of your comments will persuade me.
****Revision**** NO on 55. Principle won. I'm tired of Sacramento holding our kids hostage to extort more money to pay for their wasteful projects. They get enough money. If there isn't enough for schools, cut some of the waste, like the high speed rail disaster. If we don't stand up to them it will just get worse in the future!
56 - Leaning NO. I don't like the idea of a new tax, even if on tobacco. That being said, the tobacco tax in CA is relatively low compared to other states. The main reason I'm voting no here is that ballot box budgeting is creating massive amounts of waste in this state. Why have all the money go to new programs that aren't going to have any real effect? We all know the only thing that will affect smoking, which is people paying more for cigarettes. Just be honest about it and put the tax in the general fund.
57 - Undecided. I don't think its right that people are rotting in prison for drug violations. But, has this already been taken care of by the passing of prop 47 in the last election? If we continue releasing more, are we compromising our safety?
58 - NO. Districts have plenty of control over English Proficiency. Don't over-complicate it, don't take it back to the drawing board. Schools know its important. Let them handle it in the best way they can.
59 - YES. On campaign finance reform: It would be better to limit the power of the government so they don't have the power to help special interests and corporations. That would be the best incentive to keep them out of law making. Since that isn't likely to happen anytime soon, its at least necessary to make laws that limit their power. Also, I like the idea of states standing up to the supreme court and pushing back against legislating from the bench. We should see more of that.
60 - YES. Creates havoc in the porn industry. It's about time.
61 - NO. Possibly good intent, but it seems to have major potential of resulting in bad unintended consequences. The drug companies aren't just going to take a loss. They will figure out how to get the money somewhere. The question is, where?
62 - NO. I'm in favor of the death penalty. I will say that if prop 66 weren't on the ballot, I would probably vote yes on this one.
63 - NO. We should be able to purchase ammo without a government check. Its a fundamental right to protect our life.
64 - NO. This is a tough one for me. I do think that drugs should be a medical issue, not a criminal justice issue. There are so many logical arguments for and against this. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon church) advises a no vote. I'm trusting that they have a better understanding of the affects of marijuana legalization than I do.
65 & 67 - NO. They have never been "single use" bags for me. I use them to contain trash so that it doesn't fall out everywhere which is bad for the environment. If I didn't have them I would buy other bags to serve the same purpose. If I have too many, I recycle them and start using reusable bags more often. It's called self-government.
66 - YES. It looks like a well thought-out attempt to fix our broken death penalty system. It moves it along, but at the same time provides checks for people that are innocent. What I like most is that prisoners work for money and use some of that to pay restitution for what they did.
Prop S (Temecula) - NO. We don't need more sales tax for the city to take care of what it already does.
...More to follow on candidates... see comments
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
President: JOHNSON.
If I lived in a battle ground state (one that actually decides which president we will have), I would have a very tough decision. For me, it all boils down to this: Do you see Trump as a good president that will defend the constitution and further our long term stability as a nation? I don't think so. I think the major players in both parties are corrupt, short-sighted, and have no problem in trampling the constitution in order to further their own political agenda. The budget is a perfect example: Not even a mention anymore of balancing the budget by anyone except Johnson. Democrats talk about spending more on welfare, Republicans on military. Neither is sustainable. We need some pressure from others that are not puppets of the two parties. In a year where so many don't support the two major nominees, this could be the year to start the rising of a third party - one that will be willing to fight against the status quo and start dealing with our long term sustainability as a nation.
Senate: Loretta Sanchez. She isn't the favored pick for the democratic party, which means she is likely to be less of a puppet. In a state that is solid blue, the incumbent knows that they will never have to actually work for their re-election (As seen with Feinstein and Boxer). Sanchez is more of the dark horse so she is more likely to have concern for her constituents instead of advancing her political career by making friends with her puppeteers at the DNC. Examples of this include her record on voting NO on the Iraq war, and she also voted NO on the $700 Billion bailouts.
County Supervisor: I really like Shellie Milne for several reasons. She is a big proponent of small government.
College district 1: Sherrie Guerrero. Nothing published online about the challenger, John Kalani. Does he really even exist?
Temecula City council: I like Mike Naggar. I have seen him at council meetings and was impressed with his demeanor and commitment to cut waste. Any suggestions for a second choice??? I saw that Adam Ruiz got some endorsements and did like his statement.
Post a Comment