essentialsaltes (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
essentialsaltes) wrote2018-04-22 10:38 am
essentialsaltes) wrote2018-04-22 10:38 am
Entry tags:
California Primary Season Yuks
Just got the phonebook for the June primary.
Before I bore you, a lot of the candidate statements for US Senate and Governor are sad/hilarious/scary. Let's take the four candidates on page 38-39:
"Constitutionalist" [complete text apart from URL]
"Atrocity of abortion-on-demand must end." [complete text]
"I am a follower of Jesus Christ."
"There is no such thing as 'transgender'"" [This one comes with a long rant on the same topic, and a link to TheyAreAttackingTheChildren.org (see also)]
'We are allowing the industry controlled FCC to microwave poison our children, families, homes and workplace" [emphasis in original]
So please read your guides cover to cover and make informed choices. And chuckle from time to time.
All 5 props were put on there by the legislature, but that's no guarantee of quality (though it is largely a guarantee of sanity). My quick takes:
Prop 68: $4B bond for parks and environment. Lean yes. It's only a wafer-thin bond measure, and has a $725M carve out to create parks in neighborhoods with few parks. On the minus side, it *is* a bond, and the state already spends about $5B annually on 'natural resources' of the type covered under this prop, so it's not that big a funding boost long-term.
Prop 69: requires transportation taxes to be spent on transportation projects. Lean no. Although it seems 'fair,' a lot of our problems in CA is that the legislature's hands are tied on so many things. There is less room for flexibility on spending where the spending is needed.
Prop 70: requires 2/3 vote to spend money in the cap-and-trade fund. No. I don't really see the reasoning. If it was going into a rainy-day fund that could be used flexibly (see above) that would be one thing, but the fund can only be spent on GHG mitigation type activities, and I don't see why the current majority vote spending rules are inadequate.
Prop 71: Props take effect 5 days after the SecState certifies the election results (as opposed to retroactive to day after election). Yes, I guess. To the extent that this may minimize confusion statewide about issues that may hang in the balance before official results are due, I can see how this will help. On the minus side, if some of your rights are restored by the ballot, you will have to wait. On the plus side, if some of your rights are taken away, you have a few days to consider what to do.
Prop 72: Allows people to do something good for everyone without being penalized. Yes.
Before I bore you, a lot of the candidate statements for US Senate and Governor are sad/hilarious/scary. Let's take the four candidates on page 38-39:
"Constitutionalist" [complete text apart from URL]
"Atrocity of abortion-on-demand must end." [complete text]
"I am a follower of Jesus Christ."
"There is no such thing as 'transgender'"" [This one comes with a long rant on the same topic, and a link to TheyAreAttackingTheChildren.org (see also)]
'We are allowing the industry controlled FCC to microwave poison our children, families, homes and workplace" [emphasis in original]
So please read your guides cover to cover and make informed choices. And chuckle from time to time.
All 5 props were put on there by the legislature, but that's no guarantee of quality (though it is largely a guarantee of sanity). My quick takes:
Prop 68: $4B bond for parks and environment. Lean yes. It's only a wafer-thin bond measure, and has a $725M carve out to create parks in neighborhoods with few parks. On the minus side, it *is* a bond, and the state already spends about $5B annually on 'natural resources' of the type covered under this prop, so it's not that big a funding boost long-term.
Prop 69: requires transportation taxes to be spent on transportation projects. Lean no. Although it seems 'fair,' a lot of our problems in CA is that the legislature's hands are tied on so many things. There is less room for flexibility on spending where the spending is needed.
Prop 70: requires 2/3 vote to spend money in the cap-and-trade fund. No. I don't really see the reasoning. If it was going into a rainy-day fund that could be used flexibly (see above) that would be one thing, but the fund can only be spent on GHG mitigation type activities, and I don't see why the current majority vote spending rules are inadequate.
Prop 71: Props take effect 5 days after the SecState certifies the election results (as opposed to retroactive to day after election). Yes, I guess. To the extent that this may minimize confusion statewide about issues that may hang in the balance before official results are due, I can see how this will help. On the minus side, if some of your rights are restored by the ballot, you will have to wait. On the plus side, if some of your rights are taken away, you have a few days to consider what to do.
Prop 72: Allows people to do something good for everyone without being penalized. Yes.