California Propositions 2012

[Ksandra]

I did this the last election, and it was really helpful (for me at least). Figured I'd do it again this election year even though it's no so controversial as it was before (pro 8 ). I'm mostly interested in the taxes props considering Cali is lolbroke, but not sure if all of them would help the way they need to. I also could care less about prop 37, but I guess some people might. I'm really interested in 32, 33, and 38 if they actually work out the way the description reads.

So here we go:

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...t_propositions

Prop 30 (taxes)

Gov. Jerry Brown is leading the charge for Proposition 30, which is a merger of two previously competing initiatives; the "Millionaire's Tax" and Brown's First Tax Increase Proposal.[2]

Provisions of Proposition 30 include:

Raises California’s sales tax to 7.5% from 7.25%, a 3.45% percentage increase over current law. (Under the Brown Tax Hike, the sales tax would have increased to 7.75%)[3][4]
Creates four high-income tax brackets for taxpayers with taxable incomes exceeding $250,000, $300,000, $500,000 and $1,000,000. This increased tax will be in effect for 7 years.[3][5][6]
Imposes a 10.3% tax rate on taxable income over $250,000 but less than $300,000--a percentage increase of 10.6% over current policy of 9.3%. The 10.3% income tax rate is currently only paid by taxpayers with over $1,000,000 in taxable income.[7].
Imposes an 11.3% tax rate on taxable income over $300,000 but less than $500,000--a percentage increase of 21.5% over current policy of 9.3%.
Imposes a 12.3% tax rate on taxable income over $500,000 up to $1,000,000--a percentage increase of 32.26% over current policy of 9.3%.
Imposes a 13.3% tax rate on taxable income over $1,000,000--a percentage increase of 29.13% over current "millionaires tax" policy of 10.3%.
If this proposition is passed in November, 2012, the income tax will apply retroactively to all income earned or received since the first of the year (1 January, 2012).
Based on California Franchise Tax Board data for 2009[8], the additional income tax is imposed on the top 3% of California taxpayers.

Estimated revenue from Proposition 30 vary from Jerry Brown's $9 billion estimate to the $6.8 billion estimated by the non-partisan Legislative Analysts Office (LAO).[9]. The difference stem for the volatility caused by capital gains income from high-income earners, an issue in California's tax system previously identified by the Legislative Analysts Office (LAO).

Prop 31: (state budget)

If enacted, it will:

Establish a two-year state budget cycle.
Prohibit the California State Legislature from "creating expenditures of more than $25 million unless offsetting revenues or spending cuts are identified."
Permit the Governor of California to cut the budget unilaterally during declared fiscal emergencies if the state legislature fails to act.
Require performance reviews of all state programs.
Require performance goals in state and local budgets.
Require publication of all bills at least three days prior to a vote by the California State Senate or California State Assembly.
Give counties the power to alter state statutes or regulations related to spending unless the state legislature or a state agency vetoes those changes within 60 days.

Proposition 31 is a project of California Forward. Nicolas Berggruen contributed over $1 million to fund the effort to gather signatures to qualify it for the ballot.

Prop 32: (contributions to politicians)

If approved, Proposition 32 will:

Ban both corporate and union contributions to state and local candidates
Ban contributions by government contractors to the politicians who control contracts awarded to them
Ban automatic deductions by corporations, unions, and government of employees’ wages to be used for politics

A similar proposition, Proposition 75, was on the 2005 ballot. Proposition 226, on the 1998 ballot, also sought to enact paycheck protection.

Prop 33: (car insurance)

If Proposition 33 is approved, it will allow insurers to offer discounts to new customers who can prove they were continuously covered by any licensed auto insurance company over the previous five years. These discounts are known as "persistency discounts" or "loyalty discounts" and under current California law, insurance companies can only offer them to existing customers.[2]

Proposition 33 is similar to Proposition 17, which was on the June 8, 2010 ballot. Proposition 17 was narrowly defeated. Unlike Proposition 17, Proposition 33 exempts soldiers and those who have been unemployed for 18 months from paying more after a lapse in persistency.[3]

The fight over Proposition 33, and automobile insurance persistency discounts in general, began in 1988, when Proposition 103 was approved. Proposition 103 forbids the type of persistency discounts that Proposition 33 would allow.

About $21 billion worth of automobile insurance is sold every year in California.

Prop 34: (death penalty)

If the state's voters approve it, Proposition 34 will eliminate the death penalty in California and replace it with life in prison without the possibility of parole.[2]

Specifically, Proposition 34 will:

Repeal the death penalty as maximum punishment for persons found guilty of murder and replace it with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
Apply retroactively to persons already sentenced to death.
Require persons found guilty of murder to work while in prison, with their wages to be applied to any victim restitution fines or orders against them.
Create a $100 million fund to be distributed to law enforcement agencies to help solve more homicide and rape cases.

California has 725 people on death row.[3] If the Prop. 34 is approved, their sentences will be replaced with "life in prison without the possibility of parole".[3] These prisoners will also be required to seek jobs within the prison system, and their earnings will go to crime victims.[4] Seven of the 725 people currently on death row have exhausted all appeals and are therefore eligible for execution, although legal challenges to California's lethal injection procedure must be resolved before any of them could be executed.[2] The last time a prisoner was put to death in California was in 2006. At that time, a federal judge halted executions in the state until various changes were made in how the state administers the death penalty.[3]

California is one of 33 states that currently authorize the death penalty.[4]

The death penalty in California was judicially invalidated in the 1970s and was then reinstated via Proposition 7 in 1978. 13 inmates have been executed since then.

Prop 35: (Law enforcement-human trafficking)

If it is approved by the state's voters, Proposition 35 (CASE ACT) will:

Increase prison terms for human traffickers.
Require convicted sex traffickers to register as sex offenders.
Require all registered sex offenders to disclose their internet accounts.
Require criminal fines from convicted human traffickers to pay for services to help victims.
Mandate law enforcement training on human trafficking.

Prop 36: (Law enforcement-"Three Strikes" repeal)

If approved, Proposition 36 will modify elements of California's "Three Strikes" Law, approved by the state's voters in 1994. In 2004, voters rejected Proposition 66, which like the 2012 measure was an attempt to change some aspects of the original "Three Strikes" Law.

Proposition 36, specifically, will if enacted:

Revise the three strikes law to impose life sentence only when the new felony conviction is "serious or violent".
Authorize re-sentencing for offenders currently serving life sentences if their third strike conviction was not serious or violent and if the judge determines that the re-sentence does not pose unreasonable risk to public safety.
Continue to impose a life sentence penalty if the third strike conviction was for "certain non-serious, non-violent sex or drug offenses or involved firearm possession".
Maintain the life sentence penalty for felons with "non-serious, non-violent third strike if prior convictions were for rape, murder, or child molestation."

If Proposition 36 is approved by voters, approximately 3,000 convicted felons who are currently serving life terms under the Three Strikes law, whose third strike conviction was for a nonviolent crime, will be able to petition the court for a new, reduced, sentence.[2] Reducing the sentences of these current prisoners could result in saving the state somewhere between $150 to $200 million a year.[3]

Altogether, about 8,800 prisoners are currently serving life terms in California prisons under the 1994 law.[4]

24 states have a "Three Strikes"-type law

Prop 37: (engineered food labeling)

If Proposition 37 is approved by voters, it will:

Require labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if the food is made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways.
Prohibit labeling or advertising such food as "natural."
Exempt from this requirement foods that are "certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages."

James Wheaton, who filed the ballot language for the initiative, refers to it as "The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act."

Prop 38: (income tax)

Supporters of Proposition 38 refer to it as the "Our Children, Our Future: Local Schools and Early Education Investment Act".

If enacted, Proposition 38 will:

Increase state income tax rates for most Californians, resulting in increased revenues to the state of about $10 billion a year.
The state income tax increase would end after 12 years, unless voters reauthorize it.
Earmark most of the new revenue of $10 billion for public school districts and early childhood development programs.[2]

Molly Munger is the primary advocate behind Proposition 38.[3] Munger indicated that she would fund the approximately $2 million cost of gathering the signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot.[2] As of early May, she had donated $7.2 million to the campaign.

Prop 39: (income tax increase-businesses)

If approved, Proposition 39 will:

Require multistate businesses to calculate their California income tax liability based on the percentage of their sales in California.
Repeal an existing law that gives multistate businesses an option to choose a tax liability formula that provides favorable tax treatment for businesses with property and payroll outside California.
Dedicate $550 million annually for five years from the initiative's anticipated increase in revenue in order to fund projects that "create energy efficiency and clean energy jobs" in California.

The primary financial backer of Proposition 39 is Thomas Steyer.[2]

John Perez of the California State Assembly is sponsoring very similar legislation. The California State Assembly passed it in early August and it has been sent to the California State Senate. If they pass it, and Jerry Brown signs it, Proposition 39 will essentially become moot. Its supporters have said they would stop actively campaigning for Proposition 39, in that event.

Prop 40: (redistricting)

Proposition 40 is an attempt to use California's veto referendum process to nullify the California State Senate redistricting plan approved by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission.

Note: A "yes" vote on this veto referendum is a vote to maintain intact the work of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, while a "no" vote is a vote to overturn the commission's lines. The sponsors who put this on the ballot are thus its opponents, or were until they withdrew their opposition. Sponsors/opponents of Proposition 40 announced on July 12 that they are throwing in the towel and will not campaign against the referendum. Proposition 40 will remain on the ballot, however.[2]

A separate referendum, the Referendum on California's U.S. Congressional District Boundaries Plan, was also filed but signatures were not submitted to qualify it for the ballot.

In January 2012, the California Supreme Court ruled that the State Senate redistricting maps generated by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission pursuant to 2008's Proposition 11 must be used throughout the elections of 2012.

Feel free to comment on any or all of these.

[Cantih]

Oh, you got the guide. I should go check the mail.

EDIT: Nope, just bills, maybe tomorrow.

The one I know of off the top of my head is 32. It looks good on paper, but it actually hamstrings non-corprate money while leaving plenty of loopholes for corps and other big money groups to keep up political spending.

If you happen to see the ads for and against, remember to pay attention to who's funding it.

[test123]

No circumcision ban? I am disappoint!

[Ksandra]

Oh, you got the guide. I should go check the mail.

EDIT: Nope, just bills, maybe tomorrow.

The one I know of off the top of my head is 32. It looks good on paper, but it actually hamstrings non-corprate money while leaving plenty of loopholes for corps and other big money groups to keep up political spending.

If you happen to see the ads for and against, remember to pay attention to who's funding it.

ya I didn't get it in the mail yet either, just saw some facebook people posting about 32 which reminded me I wanted to make this thread.

That's disappointing if 32 isn't going to work out.

[Correction]

32 is pure bullshit since it's only a ban on hard money, which hardly any major candidate uses as a major source of support anymore.

[Correction]

In fact, all but like 2 of these are pure bullshit. Voting no on just about everything. Easiest decisions ever, next election please.

[Demosthenes11]

voting yes on all but 31 and 35

edit: based on those descriptions only. Reading more now.

[Cantih]

That's disappointing if 32 isn't going to work out.

Such is the sausage factory.
In absence of that booklet, the next best place to get election info on props is from the League of Women Voters.

[ronin sparthos]

Prop 37 sounds good.

[Ayn]

I've lost track, but I've been bombarded with things about the ones that affect where I work (Community College and University System).

Would be nice if they worked as intended.

Gonna be a shitstorm for people trying to get classes in spring if not.

[Demosthenes11]

christ, read more about it.

Only things getting yes votes from me are 34, 36, 37

need to know more about 30, 39, 40

[Demosthenes11]

Prop 37 sounds good.

look at the donor list for that. Monsanto and all of the other big food companies are bankrolling this no campaign like crazy.

Just by looking at that you can figure out you should vote "yes"

[Correction]

37's financial backers are also multimillion dollar multinational food concerns, only they have 'organic' in their food names.

[Ksandra]

I feel like 37 is just a waste of money, and not sure what real benefit they give except for vegan hippies.

[ronin sparthos]

I feel like 37 is just a waste of money, and not sure what real benefit they give except for vegan hippies.

There is that whole thing of transparency in what we eat. Seems kinda important.

But what am I saying, Americans would eat reheated garbage if it were packaged nicely. There is a loophole in the proposition though.

[Demosthenes11]

if you don't care what it's your food, you are an idiot

[hey]

I feel like 37 is just a waste of money, and not sure what real benefit they give except for vegan hippies.

Pretty much.


I like how half of these have random shit in them that aren't relevant to the rest of the propositions. 30 is a tax increase for the rich, but also increases sales tax, which the poor pay a much, much higher relative % of. 35 is mostly about human traffickers, then takes a random shot at sex offenders. 34 ends the death penalty, but introduces slavery.

if you don't care what it's your food, you are an idiot

I'm still not sure why people have such a problem with genetic engineering.

[Correction]

if you don't care what it's your food, you are an idiot

I care what's in my food enough to know that GMO products are in just about everything at the supermarket.
I've also kept up with the news. Organics aren't strictly better for you. I also know that roundup kills rats. And maybe even GMO corn. Maybe, who knows, the study there is actually pretty suspect.
That's all beside the point. It's millionaires fighting billionaires over market share, taking a shit in California laws along the way, while leaving happy little loopholes like

made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages."

So that's a nice gift to california dairy and 'almost' organics, good on them for only pretending to want "100% disclosure."

Oh and here's their top donor, an 'alternative medicine' snake oil salesman, while we're really looking at the roots of the proposition rather than hand-waving the problem as 'caring about what it's your food.'

[Ksandra]

if you don't care what it's your food, you are an idiot

Label or not, I'm not about to limit myself to the few fruits and veggies sold "all-organic" at the grocery store, and I'd say that would go for the majority of the people in cali. So ya waste of money imo.

[quannum]

prop 37 - transparency is good, "organic" loopholes are bad

mercola is a nutbag, yes ... so is monsanto, no point in calling him out.