California Propositions 2012

Demosthenes11 · 2012-09-25 19:27

Originally Posted by Buffy

Do any of these propositions help to reduce the size of California's budget or make agencies more efficient? It doesn't look like it from the quicky summary on the first page. I thought California had the highest taxes in the country? I'm in Virginia, so no direct effect, but California has, in general, been an indication of political trends in the country for the last 20-30 years, so I'm curious.

except nobody should answer you. Whenever you make a post and someone answers your questions and dispels your myths, you just stop posting

**archibaldcrane** · 2012-09-25 22:12

Hard to say what "lowest taxes" means, you can't just compare state income taxes, given how fucked up the property tax system is.

**Devia** · 2012-09-27 15:23

Originally Posted by 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.

California voters approved the lottery in 1984 and according to the legislation, one third of the revenue is supposed to fund public education. What happened?

**Cantih** · 2012-09-27 18:11

It does go to schools.
http://www.calottery.com/giving-back...-funds-at-work

Over $1 Billion in Lottery funds go to supporting California public schools every year

In total Lottery contributions, California public schools have received more than $25 billion in Lottery funds since the Lottery began in October 1985. This contribution currently represents approximately 1.5% of the state’s public school annual budget.

All segments of public schools receive the same per pupil funding level from the Lottery based on the average daily attendance of students in each school district. Since 1985, the educational institutions that receive Lottery funds and their cumulative distributions are listed below:

K-12th Grade -- 76.71%
Community Colleges -- 16.22%
California State University System -- 4.30%
University of California -- 2.70%
Other Educational Entities -- .07%

The thing to remember is, the population of the US is ~314 million, the population of California is ~37 million (And the Greater Los Angeles Area makes up ~18 million of that). A bit over 10% of the US population is in just one of the 50 states, the California school system is REALLY big, and as such uses a LOT of money.

**Cantih** · 2012-10-28 11:08

Ok, I've sat down and had a solid look over the info guide.
They're in order, except 30/38 since they interact with each other. I would also like to bring your notice to Prop 40, it's vote is rigged backwards to normal.

30 - - Raises income taxes only on $250k+ incomes for 7 years (ok), and a 1/4 cent sales tax raise for 4 years (ok), and doesn't earmark (good), however there is no addressing of the state debt. BUT, if prop. 30 doesn't pass (even if 38 does), there are automatic provisions that cause automatic spending cuts to the tune of 6 billion (primarily in education by a huge margin, mental health services, police, and fire.) There's no pretty way to say it, this is designed so that if it doesn't pass, bad things happen.

38 - - Income taxes are upped for everyone for 12 years (kind of needed in our situation), but the brackets are progressive (good), and the expected revenue is higher than prop 30 (by $4 billion), only 30% of the revenue is targeted to the state debt, AND that stops after four years, the rest is hard earmarked for education (education being the sell, but hard earmarking is BAD, it's one of the [admittedly out of several] problems the state has with it's budget.) And of course, if this passes AND gets more yes votes than 30, 30's spending cuts happen. The majority of the education cuts will be offset, but college education cuts and the non-education cuts will be unaddressed (which is in about the $600 million neighborhood). It also makes some alterations to the allocation of funds to schools, but it's arcane and I don't know the current situation well enough to judge it.

I'll admit, after having a hard look between them I like 38 a bit more than 30, it tackles the debt a bit (doesn't solve it though, 4 billion a year for 4 years is maybe 10% at best, 5% at worst) and covers the lions share of the education cuts. But the college and other cuts are off-putting, and I really don't like the strict earmarks, it leaves hands tied when sometimes things need to be done. One of them HAS to pass however.

31 - NO - This isn't really needed. We got rid of the 2/3 majority needed to pass the budget back in 2010, the problem now is the 2/3 majority to raise taxes/revenue is still there. The governor doesn't really need the expanded emergency "legislature can't pass a budget" powers at this point. Also, a 2 year budget process means inability to react year to year.
This also does some seemingly nice things, disallows unfunded tax cuts and unfunded spending on any bills that affect the budget more than $25 million, and forces a 3 day public view of any legislation before it can be voted on (sunlight good). What this actually does is weirdly ties budgeting hands on most bills by becoming unable to handle any surplus (it's a drown it in the bathwater thing, it basically locks the government growth even if revenues rise and the spending is needed). THEN gridlocks the legislature to a crawl by making it parcel things into sub $25 million chunks to do work (remember, the CA budget is billions big, ORDER OF MAGNITUDE MATTERS BITCHES), and each little bit will have to wait 3 days. This would result in a spam of little bills that will become too much to process and easy to hide things in the glut.
And there's some county governance stuff that reeks of shenanigans, you have to ask why is this shit even in a budget legislation prop.

32 - NO - Really, this is bullshit. "Unions and corporations can't take from your paycheck for political purposes" Only unions do, corporations never need to because they take that money BEFORE you ever even see your paycheck. It doesn't even smell like a bait and switch like with prop. 35, because it blatantly is one. It takes the anti Citizens United fervor and bends it to cutting down the opposition of who Citizens United favors.

33 - YES - The main arguments against is that if this passes, insurers will raise rates. (This is kind of bullshit because, if it doesn't pass, INSURERS STILL WANT TO RAISE RATES, it's what they DO.) The insurers offer, to their members, a continuous coverage discount. You lose this if you switch providers because providers are currently legally unallowed to offer to match it. This causes lock in, and as such, reduces competitiveness. I wouldn't mind seeing insurance companies race to the bottom by fighting each other over customers, especially since in CA you are REQUIRED to have auto-insurance, the customer environment for these companies is already as ripe as it's going to be.

34 - - This is a tough one, and mostly it depends on your views of capital punishment. I'm not going to include a YES/NO on this.
The main argument at this time is, the increased effort in death penalty cases and incarceration is taking court time that could be used otherwise, and unique incarceration costs are a waste since the high death row population and low execution rate means these are de facto life sentences anyway. The question is with our budget in mind, does it cost more to, imprison someone long term or, use the process to kill them, and is saving or spending the money worth killing or not killing someone. (This is ignoring incorrect verdict and ethical issues, which would jack the thread.) Also, the prop. earmarks money towards homicide and rape investigation departments, and adds mandatory work requirements for murder inmates (which ties this into the whole for-profit prison/legal slavery issue, again a thread jacker.)

35 - NO - This is, odd. The guide states that damn near all human trafficking cases are done by the federal government, so the state having these laws will mostly have no effect on any trafficking cases (it's mainly to appease some human rights group "YOUR LAWS ARE TOO LAX" while ignoring the fact that state laws on the matter are generally superseded by federal ones). What it really seems to do is add immigrant smugglers to the sex offender registry, and make possession of child pornography a human trafficking crime. Also, the against position also argue that other provisions in the proposition target voluntary non-immigrant prostitution, and opens the matter to asset-forfeiture as seen in drug cases (though with any for/against info in the guide, take with a grain of salt). All in all, this seems like a schizoid prop. that does something other than what it says, muddies the water in cross linking crimes (and also increasing the sentences at the same time), and is putting a nice face on it all by screaming human trafficking as loud as it can. It smells of bait & switch.

36 - YES - Prisons are overcrowded, in fact, CA is currently federally mandated to get our prison population in line with our capacity, so we are currently forced to let people out, no way around it. This is a decent enough measure to try and keep the matter in check, if you're going to keep recidivists permanently locked up, at least manage the cost by keeping it to those who are a danger to the public. Plus, if you pay attention to news, we've seen non-violent 3rd strikers go desperate because they've got nothing to lose anymore, this helps ameliorate that.

37 - NO - This is a wash. It's a good idea, but as written, the execution is poor. With where the funding is coming from, you'd think this is a grab by the organic food industry to rise and replace the conventional farming industry, but it doesn't even manage to do that. There are too many labeling exemptions, so the thing is essentially toothless, and will just end up wasting money on creating ineffective regulators. It needs to go back to the drawing board.

39 - YES - Increases revenue & undoes a lobbyist/backroom tax method from 2009 that had the side effect of creating a pressure for multi-state businesses to keep their CA employee counts low for tax reasons. A big chunk of the revenue is earmarked for green energy or efficiency measures (the rest for education), earmarks are bad, but in this case it's worth closing the loophole.

40 - YES - In order to keep the current valid districts, you need to vote yes. Voting no actually results in having to do the maps over. Normally you'd think voting no leaves things as they are, but that's not the case with this one.

tl;dr
30 - ?
31 - NO
32 - NO
33 - YES
34 - ?
35 - NO
36 - YES
37 - NO
38 - ?
39 - YES
40 - YES

Bonus, 3 LA County Measures

Spoiler: show

**hey** · 2012-10-28 11:36

The question is with our budget in mind, does it cost more to, imprison someone long term or, use the process to kill them, and is saving or spending the money worth killing or not killing someone.

It costs millions more to put someone on death row than to put them in jail for 70 years. And those costs are still there if they don't end up getting a death sentence, or aren't convicted at all. The trial alone is vastly more expensive.

It's still bullshit because of the slavery clause though.

**Omniyoji** · 2012-11-05 18:31

Originally Posted by Cantih

tl;dr
30 - ?
31 - NO
32 - NO
33 - YES
34 - ?
35 - NO
36 - YES
37 - NO
38 - ?
39 - YES
40 - YES

Bonus, 3 LA County Measures

Spoiler: show

Alright, high five! Same answers!

**Melena** · 2012-11-05 18:42

I think the only propositions i'm voting yes on are the district zoning and abolishing the death penalty due to the cost to give those shits 30 gazillion appeals each. California has more people die of natural causes on death row then we actually execute. It's quite sad. As for the taxes, I'll vote for a tax rate when they do another overhaul of wellfare so I don't see so many idiots with 200 dollar shoes and coach handbags and driving fucking beamers or audi's picking up welfare checks. Just pisses me off the state uses education as a bluff for more money when they can't already manage the money they get now.

**Cantih** · 2012-11-05 19:19

Originally Posted by Omniyoji

Alright, high five! Same answers!

Last minute, but
30 - YES
38 - NO

**BaneTheBrawler** · 2012-11-05 19:28

I always hear that the trials for death row inmates is more expensive, and I don't doubt it- but I've never understood why. One would imagine that the process itself doesn't change much from one case to another at the same level (state, fed, etc) but obviously that's not the case.

**Avinor** · 2012-11-05 19:32

Originally Posted by Melena

As for the taxes, I'll vote for a tax rate when they do another overhaul of wellfare so I don't see so many idiots with 200 dollar shoes and coach handbags and driving fucking beamers or audi's picking up welfare checks.

Begs the question, how many have you seen already? Not a rhetorical question, I'd genuinely like to hear any real experience you've had because generally the 'welfare queen' stories turn out to be wildly hyperbolic.

**Melena** · 2012-11-05 19:32

Originally Posted by BaneTheBrawler

I always hear that the trials for death row inmates is more expensive, and I don't doubt it- but I've never understood why. One would imagine that the process itself doesn't change much from one case to another at the same level (state, fed, etc) but obviously that's not the case.

It's because a death penalty trial becomes two trials. First the trial if he/she is guilty, then a penalty trial where the jury has to unanimously recommend the death penalty, then the judge decides. If there is no death penalty portion, that second trial is not needed and the judge makes the final decision on his own. That part winds up only taking a day or so versus a week or two if the jury has to be dragged in.

**Dotsudoku** · 2012-11-05 19:40

Originally Posted by Avinor

Begs the question, how many have you seen already? Not a rhetorical question, I'd genuinely like to hear any real experience you've had because generally the 'welfare queen' stories turn out to be wildly hyperbolic.

Probably none

**Tweek** · 2012-11-05 19:42

people who plan on costing us money in this thread irritate me.

**Melena** · 2012-11-05 19:42

Originally Posted by Avinor

Begs the question, how many have you seen already? Not a rhetorical question, I'd genuinely like to hear any real experience you've had because generally the 'welfare queen' stories turn out to be wildly hyperbolic.

Plenty honestly. I used to have to drive by the office and stop by once a week and I shit you not the majority of the people there looked like they just stepped out of a fashion show. Alameda county used to be even worse till it was required to be fingerprinted before you could collect benefits. Used to have little shits who would collect under there name in one county and use a fake name to draw from another county. Yea, there are some people who do need it and use it properly. But it's abused badly out here. We recently had a major shit storm when an audit got released showing how often the EBT cards were used at ATM's in strip clubs in california.

And that's not even counting the people who would buy their friends groceries using the EBT card and the friend giving them cash for it to buy whatever the fuck they want. I'd say rough estimate 5-10% of people in this state collecting welfare are abusing it, but when you also have a state with the highest population and amount of people drawing from it, that 5-10% adds up fast.

**Tweek** · 2012-11-05 19:44

Originally Posted by Avinor

Begs the question, how many have you seen already? Not a rhetorical question, I'd genuinely like to hear any real experience you've had because generally the 'welfare queen' stories turn out to be wildly hyperbolic.

go visit the ghetto or go visit places like Clear Lake, CA if you want a peek at Government programs being abused.

**Tweek** · 2012-11-05 19:53

Originally Posted by Avinor

Begs the question, how many have you seen already? Not a rhetorical question, I'd genuinely like to hear any real experience you've had because generally the 'welfare queen' stories turn out to be wildly hyperbolic.

go watch this show

http://www.wetv.com/shows/downsized/...sas-city-blues

these people collect welfare, I dare you to watch how they live and their spending habits without raging @ the fact that they collect welfare, tell me you think it's right.

**Dotsudoku** · 2012-11-05 19:53

The average entitlement abuser does not fit in the $200 shoes or Gucci handbag category.

**quannum** · 2012-11-05 20:05

Originally Posted by Dotsudoku

The average entitlement abuser does not fit in the $200 shoes or Gucci handbag category.

the walton heirs wouldn't be caught dead in that cheap crap

**Kohan** · 2012-11-05 20:18

Originally Posted by Melena

Plenty honestly. I used to have to drive by the office and stop by once a week and I shit you not the majority of the people there looked like they just stepped out of a fashion show.

To the best of my knowledge, I shot you down about bullshit like this in the past, but I believe you never responded to me. I may have been pointing out someone else's idiocy, however; that tends to happen a lot, and I may have confused you with another anecdote-loving moron.

As someone who grew up in poverty, and who has been on EBT/SNAP, I can tell you—with my own superior, "I've actually been there, motherfucker" kind of anecdote—that you're full of shit. Have you ever stopped to think that, "hey, maybe people are getting a ride there, since a lot of them don't own cars of their own"? Have you ever tried to take the "glass is half-full" approach, such as: "man, I'm impressed! These people can manage good fashion sense while using second-hand stores!"?

You haven't any idea how difficult it is to not only get but to maintain these benefits, even for those who are in need, and you're quick to lift your nose in your prideful ignorance.

Fortunately, unlike you, I don't just have stories to tell.

http://spritzophrenia.wordpress.com/...ud-in-the-usa/

Until you can back up your ignorance with more than blathering, I certainly hope that no one wastes any time listening to you.

Thread: California Propositions 2012

Thread Tools

California Propositions 2012

Latest Threads

Up & Coming Threads

Hottest Threads