California Propositions 2012

[Ksandra]

What do you guys consider is wrong about 38? The fact the money would go to schools piqued my interest. They keep laying off teachers, something, anything has got to start putting money back into schools.

[Correction]

What do you guys consider is wrong about 38? The fact the money would go to schools piqued my interest. They keep laying off teachers, something, anything has got to start putting money back into schools.

It directly competes with prop 30, so if they both pass the one with the most votes will become law.
I'm not sure I'm going to vote for either 30 or 38 at this point.

[Demosthenes11]

38 has no specific language that mandates the money goes to schools according to what I read

[Cantih]

The simple fact is, we do need a revenue increase.
30 is probably the best bet. Everybody shares the burden of trying to straighten out the budget.

38 does look good going to schools, but we've had so many problems earmarking money to only go to specific things, that I'm wary whenever I see it. I'd also need no know how the current funding is earmarked, if the new revenue would lead to a static funding of education and causing an equivalent amount to be shifted elsewhere.

I really need that packet to arrive before I can make any real decisions though.

[archibaldcrane]

Is there something that makes 33 more than meets the eye? I often change car insurance companies and would like any sort of discount to carry with me possible.

[Ksandra]

Is there something that makes 33 more than meets the eye? I often change car insurance companies and would like any sort of discount to carry with me possible.

I'm actually calling my insurance company sometime this weekend to see about this. According to 33, this law already exists but only for existing customers...(first time I've ever even heard of it wtf). I've had continuous car insurance for 6 years now in Cali, so I want to see what, if anything, is stopping me from getting it. 33, should make it available to new customers, so if the current law is legit, I'd imagine 33 is legit as well.

[Correction]

Changes current law to allow insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company.

I have to read more about it but my main question concerns whether or not this cuts both ways. e.g. if you move somewhere for a few years where you didn't need a car, do you come home to higher insurance rates because now the company can say 'oh you weren't insured for four years that's a paddlin' or is it actually about discounts from an existing rate alone?

I'm always skeptical about insurance laws.

[Teorem]

PDF of the general election guide: http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2012/gener...ete-vig-v2.pdf

Regarding Prop 33: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...iscounts_(2012)

The general opposition appears to be that having the discounts will give insurers a reason to universally increase their rates. Presumably such an increase would be to offset the cost, but the opposition makes it sound like it would be just be an excuse to raise them however much they wanted.

[hey]

Why exactly are they prohibited from giving discounts for whatever they want to anyway..?

[synistar]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...0,684082.story

Prop 30 is probably a decent idea. Some businesses and oil companies are in favor for the sales tax bump. Broaden the tax base instead of nickel and diming businesses again and again (see cigarettes and alcohol)

And I have to empathize with students of UC, CSU, and the community college system that have gotten continually shafted this recession. Cost me $6500 or so in annual tuition 7 years ago when I went to UC. Now its nearly double that, and people can't graduate on time when they keep cutting classes. So it's a Yes on 30 for me.

[Teorem]

Why exactly are they prohibited from giving discounts for whatever they want to anyway..?

A proposition passed in 1988, Proposition 103, required that a driver's safety record, annual mileage, and years of experience be the primary factors in determining one's car insurance rate. It very specifically prevented the lack of having a policy as being a factor in the rate.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...gulation_(1988)

As for why they can't simply give any kind of discount they want otherwise to attract business away from their competitors, I'm sure there would be some kind of legal issue if the criteria weren't accessible or objective enough to allow the typical driver to qualify.

[hey]

Some businesses and oil companies are in favor for the sales tax bump.

Well of course they do, since the more money you make, the lower the % you pay.

[Aristio]

I wish they created a ISideWith for things like this. Too many ups and downs with a lot of these bills. I firmly believe that more money towards public education (High School, CSU, Community Colleges, ect) is always a good thing. It opens up classes, and allows for a lower tuition rate which in turns encourages more people to go. It gets much needed textbooks for public schools and have the potential of increasing the base intelligence of the population. I'm romanticizing this ideal, as you can't get highschool kids to give any kind of fucks with wanting a better education.

I'm really leaning on voting yes on anything that offsets our huge debt.

[Byrthnoth]

30~32: Yes
33: I could not care less
34: Yes
35: Seems like a veiled stab at illegal immigration? idk about this one
36: Yes
37: Waste of time. Do not care.
38: Difference between this and 30?
39: Yes
40: I don't know enough about this to know who it would benefit, but I'd vote for whichever one furthers my political goals.

[ringthree]

31 will almost definitely get overturned because it violates the state's separation of powers.

37 violates US trade law, and will be pre-empted.

[Melena]

I'm still trying to find time to go over all of them. The only one I know for sure is 32. Very much like the bullshit in Wisconsin, it's a huge power play by the right to gut unions. Even if I wasn't a county employee and non union I would still vote no on it. Just way too many exemptions for right wing special interest groups.

[Demosthenes11]

30~32: Yes
33: I could not care less
34: Yes
35: Seems like a veiled stab at illegal immigration? idk about this one
36: Yes
37: Waste of time. Do not care.
38: Difference between this and 30?
39: Yes
40: I don't know enough about this to know who it would benefit, but I'd vote for whichever one furthers my political goals.

32: Nobody should be voting yes on 32. It will severely gimp any home grown candidate from being able to run, because super PAC money will still be able to flow with no restrictions. In reality, both of it should be banned, but banning just the regular contributions will ensure nobody but those backed by the biggest corporations are elected.

33: Why do you not care about insurance companies raising prices for everyone because they are assholes? Should vote no.

35: Seems like a great idea, except I don't like marking prostitution as human trafficking. This law will also require all sex offenders to register all internet accounts, which I find an enormous invasion of privacy. We are already going way overboard with sex offenders imo.

37: I really don't see how disclosing more information to the consumer is a waste of time. I hate the loopholes in this, but it's a start.

38: From what I understand, this will raise taxes on ALL family incomes above like 30k, rather than just those above 100k

40: I'm really hoping someone here can explain this one more. I can't find maps or what this would mean to gerrymandering anywhere. It seems both the democratic and republican parties are supporting this heavily, making me think it's just going to make gerrymandering worse

[Byrthnoth]

32: Unless I'm reading this wrong, it forbids corporations and unions from donating to political candidates. If they funnel it through a SuperPAC that's a problem and a fundamental flaw of the law, but both groups are capable of doing that. When Super PACs are crushed (I hope this happens), then the law will have its intended consequences. I don't really see how it disproportionately affects one type of candidate. Are Unions less competent than corporations?

33: If they wanted to raise the prices for everyone, they'd raise the prices for everyone and no one needs to pass a law for them to do that. This law pushes burden towards the higher risk cases (new drivers), which will probably lead to a higher uninsurement rate among them. I'm okay with this.

37: The difference between a genetically modified and selectively bred organisms is whishy-washy and of un-clear or no health value at all. Perdue Turkeys have so much breast meat (front-heavy) that they fall over and can't stand back up. Is eating such a bird somehow less dangerous for you than eating GM corn that produces a digestible protein that confers immunity to round-up? Neither would exist in nature.

The cost of GMO crops (in my opinion) has nothing to do with the fact that they're genetically modified and everything to do with the changes in farming practices that accompany having crops that can survive being doused in herbicides. We're speeding up the evolution of our weeds (towards immunity against our herbacides) by relying too heavily on them. In the long-term, humanity could grow too large to sustain without the efficiency boost of "Round-Up Ready" crops and then face a very rapid outbreak of an aggressive weed that's resistant to Round-Up, ultimately leading to shitty crops and some degree of famine. Alternatively, there could be a viral outbreak that wipes out the gigantic "Round-Up Ready Corn" monoculture. The second one is true of almost all of our food sources though.

[Cantih]

37 violates US trade law, and will be pre-empted.

Under that line of thinking, wouldn't the old "higher than US average" CA mileage/emission standards have been thrown out too? How exactly are they different?

40: I'm really hoping someone here can explain this one more. I can't find maps or what this would mean to gerrymandering anywhere. It seems both the democratic and republican parties are supporting this heavily, making me think it's just going to make gerrymandering worse

Well, you can get (some annoyingly low res) current district maps here
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph..._approved_maps
and the old congressional map here
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph..._redistricting

Also, buried in that page is this

Supporters of Proposition 40 announced on July 12, 2012 that they were throwing in the towel and would not raise additional funds or campaign for the measure. Proposition 40 will remain on the ballot, however. Supporters said that the ballot measure was intended primarily to try and delay the implementation of the Senate map in 2012 -- however, since the Supreme Court allowed its use, the supporters felt the measure was now moot.[154]

[ringthree]

Under that line of thinking, wouldn't the old "higher than US average" CA mileage/emission standards have been thrown out too? How exactly are they different?

Labeling has been ruled as an interference to trade. The US has already won a labeling case against the EU in the WTO.