That idea, splitting up California, who thought of it first, not me, though when I first brought it up I was unaware that The Cranky Geek himself, John C. Dvorak, had posted his thoughts well in advance of my own immodest attempt to divvy up California's people, geography, and wondrous bounty.
It came to my attention cause I was checking out the effects of the recent Trollcats related Althouse-aided Instalanche (over 4000 new visits in one day), and notice a smaller wave of search hits to my old proposal on dividing California. When I googled "dividing California", my post was still tops, but Dvorak's recent repost of his old post was driving people to google, and I guess a few hundred folks decided to check out my proposal as well.
Thanks for the hits Mr. Dvorak, even if it hadn't been intentional, still appreciate it. I enjoy your wit and wisdom whenever you do your thing on This Week in Tech.
Now, I have some meat to baste...
Showing posts with label California Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label California Politics. Show all posts
11 March 2009
The Curse of Abundance
Victor Davis Hanson lays out the sorry state of governance within this rich, fertile and ridiculously blessed land, California.
A point I've made time and again, is that places with rich natural resources often under utilize their human capital (and conversely, places that lack natural resources get every ounce of benefit out of their folks, compare Russia to Japan, for instance).
California used to be one of those rare places that had abundant resources and utilized its human capital fully.
Not so much anymore, oh well.
The seeds for a rebound are there, we're still an attractive destination for tourism, we still have tremendous potential, we just need a state government that gets out of the damn way and facilitates entrepreneurship and innovation rather than attempt to strangle each and every potential John Galt in their figurative crib with yards of red tape, and onerous tax burdens.
A point I've made time and again, is that places with rich natural resources often under utilize their human capital (and conversely, places that lack natural resources get every ounce of benefit out of their folks, compare Russia to Japan, for instance).
California used to be one of those rare places that had abundant resources and utilized its human capital fully.
Not so much anymore, oh well.
The seeds for a rebound are there, we're still an attractive destination for tourism, we still have tremendous potential, we just need a state government that gets out of the damn way and facilitates entrepreneurship and innovation rather than attempt to strangle each and every potential John Galt in their figurative crib with yards of red tape, and onerous tax burdens.
18 January 2008
When You're Right, You're Right . . .
(via Instapundit)
. . . Victor Davis Hanson takes aim at a few generations of California politicians, and lets them have it with both barrels.
Both houses of our legislature are a mess. Things would be even worse if our state didn't have the habit of balancing the very liberal state legislatures with moderate Republican governors. When we had a liberal Governor combined with liberal legislators, well, that lead to some pretty serious buyer's remorse.
My solutions:
As Mr. Hanson points out, California has a scary amount of riches, yet our statewide governments are almost always pleading poverty. This poverty is not a result of our economy, it's a result of mismanagement of statewide funds. Government should be lean, mean, and only do what it's supposed to do. Every agency seems to feel the need to be an "agent for change" in this state. We have a bunch of dogooders trying to solve every problem with money that's not theirs to begin with. Tax the people and corporations of California less, give them only the services that are necessary for civil society to function, and stay out of their way as they build a rip-roaring and glorious future. It should be pretty simple, but instead we get a mess of crazed, politically correct, nanny-statist nonsense out of Sacramento.
But I still say that Gov. Schwarzenegger has done an amazing job considering the legislature he has to deal with. We won't get so lucky after his term is up, I'm afraid.
. . . Victor Davis Hanson takes aim at a few generations of California politicians, and lets them have it with both barrels.
At some point we Californians should ask ourselves, how we inherited a state with near perfect weather, the world's richest agriculture, plentiful timber, minerals, and oil, two great ports at Los Angeles and Oakland, a natural tourist industry from Carmel to Yosemite, industries such as Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and aerospace—and serially managed to turn all of that into the nation's largest penal system, periodic near bankruptcy, and sky-high taxes.
Both houses of our legislature are a mess. Things would be even worse if our state didn't have the habit of balancing the very liberal state legislatures with moderate Republican governors. When we had a liberal Governor combined with liberal legislators, well, that lead to some pretty serious buyer's remorse.
My solutions:
End the ban on offshore oil drilling Legalize gambling statewide Legalize marijuana statewide (and not just for medicinal use) Might as well legalize prostitution while you're at it Contract with Mexico to house Mexican nationals who commit crimes in California to do their time in California managed, but Mexican staffed jails in Mexico (could incarcerate them for pennies on the dollar, given labor costs down there) Hefty school vouchers statewide for education and end direct state funding of public schools, make the current schools compete for those student vouchers Blow up the redtape nightmare that make up our environmental, workplace, and tort rules and regulations, streamline that mess and you'd have trouble keeping companies out, rather than trouble keeping companies in Become the national leader in good, clean, Gaia-preserving nuclear power, build 10 midsized coastal, desalinating plants within 10 years, between making money on oil drilling, and not having to use that oil to power our economy, we'd be able to take advantage of the price of energy, rather than getting taken advantage of, and add to that water independence as well as energy independence, this would be an expensive investment that would pay immediate and enormous dividends End California only formulations of gasoline, cars engines are far cleaner than when those rules were drafted, the solution is getting people out of older cars, not driving up our gas price 20 to 30 cents above the national average (supply and demand at work, we can't tap into the same supply as everyone else, so oil companies have an easier time manipulating our supply, the California energy market is distorted because we require different fuel from the rest of the nation)
As Mr. Hanson points out, California has a scary amount of riches, yet our statewide governments are almost always pleading poverty. This poverty is not a result of our economy, it's a result of mismanagement of statewide funds. Government should be lean, mean, and only do what it's supposed to do. Every agency seems to feel the need to be an "agent for change" in this state. We have a bunch of dogooders trying to solve every problem with money that's not theirs to begin with. Tax the people and corporations of California less, give them only the services that are necessary for civil society to function, and stay out of their way as they build a rip-roaring and glorious future. It should be pretty simple, but instead we get a mess of crazed, politically correct, nanny-statist nonsense out of Sacramento.
But I still say that Gov. Schwarzenegger has done an amazing job considering the legislature he has to deal with. We won't get so lucky after his term is up, I'm afraid.
23 August 2007
A Five State Solution for Dividing California (and Increasing the Political Influence of Each Region)
After seeing the idea kicked around in this Althouse thread, thought I'd attack the idea with an illustrated map. Above is a map of a five state solution for dividing up California. It respects current county boundaries, and I think it does a good job of acknowledging the demographic similarities of each region. The maroon lines are my proposed new state boundaries, with the new names of each state floating near them.
California is by far the largest state, yet our influence nationally is marginalized by that size. Division of the state would multiply our collective influence.
A breakdown of each of the five states (in order of new population, smallest to largest, based on this chart of 2006 estimates):
Lower Cascadia, State Capital Sacramento, postal code LC, current population of the 22 counties included 3,287,069 with a plurality of those people (1,385,607) in Sacramento county. It would be the smallest of the new states in population. This mountainous heavily forested state would be much more similar to its Mountain West neighbors if separated from the rest of California. It'd be somewhere half way between Oregon and Idaho demographically and politically. In the new 54 state United States (state pop numbers via this wiki page) would slot in between Connecticut (3,504,809) and Iowa (2,982,085) as the 34th most populous state. As far as national politics goes, this could be a purple state, as the rural population about balances the urban population and its (projected) 7 electoral votes would be fought over.
Hill and Dale, State Capital Merced, postal code HD, current population of the 16 counties included 3,715,757 mostly concentrated in the agriculturally rich San Joaquin Valley. This state would be dominated by agro-business and agro-business concerns. Hill and Dale (the name reference to the mountains of the eastern and coastal sections of this state, and the valley in the center) would have many of the natural wonders that have made California famous, so conservation and attracting tourism would also be major concerns. In terms of the 54 states, it would be between Kentucky (4,206,074) and Oregon (3,700,758) and rank 30th. Politically it would have more in common with the farm belt states in the midwest than it does with its neighboring former California states, but with a more hispanic twist. Most likely a solidly 'blue' state, but a moderate Republican could put this state in play. With 7 electoral votes it would be another potential battleground state in close elections.
Groovy, State Capital San Francisco, postal code GR, this would be a ring of 10 counties surrounding the Bay Area totalling 7,379,635 in population. This would be the 'fruit and nut' central (hence the name "Groovy"), but it would also be home to the Silicon Valley. As a separate state this would become a perfect test bed for every whacked out progressive idea they could come up with. Let them screw up that geographically small, but fairly substantial numbers-wise area first before solving the problems for the rest of the country. It fits in between Virginia (7,642,884) and Massachusetts (6,437,193) and would rank 15th in the new 54 state scheme. About as solidly blue as a state could be. This would be a permanent 13 electoral votes for the Dems (unless some more 'progressive' party comes around challenging the Dems nationally).
Reagan, State Capital Riverside, postal code RE, this would be five large counties, totalling 10,250,900 people, comprised of the Inland Empire, Orange County and San Diego (+ Imperial). It would be the most conservative of the new states (hence the name Reagan, and if any other president deserves a state named after him other than Washington, it would be Reagan). It would have large military bases, and would be diverse ethnically, topographically, and economically. Riverside is more centrally located which is why it would make a good capital, and besides I attended college there. It fits between Ohio (11,478,006) and Michigan (10,095,643), giving it a rank of 9th in the new 54 state union, but the area is growing rapidly, so by 2030 it would likely leap frog Ohio, Pennyslvania and Illinois and rank 5th with a population between 13 to 15M. Most likely a solidly red state, similar to Nevada, Utah or Arizona in temperament. Not impossible for a Dem to win here, but it would take a special Dem to win this state's 18 electors and a particularly bad GOP candidate to lose them.
Lotus Land, State Capital Santa Barbara, postal code LL, this would be Los Angeles, plus four other counties with the bad luck of being thrown together with that behemoth, totalling 12,527,654 people. It would be the heart of the entertainment world, one of the powerhouses on the Pacific Rim, with a major world port, a major world airport, and be the financial capital of the Western United States (but still devoid of even a single NFL team). Santa Barbara is a beautiful town, with many great municipal buildings as a county seat already, so it wouldn't be that hard to picture it as a quaint, but bustling State Capital of a major state. The political clout of this new entity would not be dilluted, most likely it would be strengthened by this division. It fits between Illinois (12,831,970) and Pennsylvania (12,440,621) and would be already the 5th most populous state all on its own, but would most likely pass Illinois by the end of this decade and sit alone only behind Texas, New York and Florida in terms of population. By 2030 Reagan and Lotus Land would be neck and neck as Reagan is growing much faster than Lotus Land, making for some interesting local rivalries. Home to 21 electoral votes, this would be fairly solidly 'blue' and would be a major source of money for the national party. This state wouldn't be as 'blue' as Groovy, but it'd only consider GOP candidates in the Schwarzenegger and Giuliani mold.
I think this is a pretty good solution (the names may a bit jokey, but fitting), one that won't ever happen, one that has little support, but the idea of California being divied up into smaller parts does get kicked around from time to time, so might as well put some thought into what the outcome might look like. Currently California gets 55 electors and 2 Senators, these new states should get either 65 or 66 electors and 10 Senators (I added one, based on a bonus congressional district for Reagan). 66 looks a lot better than 55 (but the overall number of electors would also increase by 8 with the addition of 8 new Senators).
UPDATE: Responding to good suggestions added here and at Althouse (much thanks go to Prof. Althouse for linking this directly in a post), here's a SIX STATE SOLUTION.
Renamed all the States after famous
Jefferson has remained unchanged (other than the name, which was changed to reflect the Jefferson State movement local to that region).
Hill and Dale becomes Muir in honor of the conservationist who was instrumental in establishing the many National Parks within this proposed state. Also Muir absorbs Kern county which belongs more with them, and cedes San Benito and Monterey to the newly formed central coast state of Serra. The new population figure for this state surpasses 4 million, and as pointed out, those farmers tend to be a pretty conservative bunch, so let's call this a more or less red state with serious agro-business concerns.
Groovy remains unchanged, other than renaming it after the poet Allen Ginsburg. He may have been a native of New Jersey, but he spent a lot of years in SF, and I would have named the state after the local poet Ferlinghetti, but A), nobody would be able to spell the name of the state, and B), he's not dead yet (I know, I'm surprised, too). In comments to this post Hey suggested that Silicon Valley probably wouldn't enjoy being lumped in with the other Bay Area counties, but I think San Jose would serve as a good internal counterbalance to the nuttiness sure to originate in San Francisco if they were their own state.
Serra (named after the founder of the many missions that dot these coastal counties) would be comprised of the central coast counties and would have a small population of only about 1.5 million, but would be center for tourism, have many major colleges, and have an abundance of natural beauty. Thought about naming it Steinbeck for that fella born in Salinas, but I thought Serra (despite the controversy around him) would be a better way to go.
Los Angeles would be all by its lonesome, the state would be called Pickford, rather than Los Angeles, seems appropriate to name this state after the first Hollywood starlet (her or Gish, take your pick). Plus she was business savvy, and did help found United Artists, so she works on a couple levels. Los Angeles county alone has over 10 million people so would be neck and neck with Reagan as largest state carved out of what used to be California.
Also mentioned in comments are the potential water fights a division would cause, but Serra, Pickford and Reagan have plenty of water, they just have to desalinate it. Nuclear power is the way to go, the designs for desalinating nuclear power plants that can be sited near population centers are being used (or are in the planning stages) in many countries. I think Serra, Pickford and Reagan should be happy to join that list and free each of those states from the water neediness that plagues the region. The Pacific Ocean is in no danger of being drained, it's just a bit too salty to drink, and that's easy enough to fix (and once the power plants are operational, cheap, too).
But then, I've thought that's the way to go for some time now.
01 August 2007
A Reform Scheme That I Might Have Come Up With . . .
. . . an un-modest proposal in California threatens to shake up national electoral politics. From a national election standpoint the passage of an initiative that made the largest state in the nation a non-winner take all state, would be disastrous for the Democratic party.
Given that this state leans strongly Democratic now, it would seem this has little chance to pass, but there are ways to sell this. Here's the bullet points for presenting this proposal to all voters (but especially independents and non-hardcore Democrats, presumably Republicans should be thrilled with the idea and should support it en masse)
As far as fairness goes, it was the Democratic party after 2000 that suggested a national winner take all election would be fairer. If California 'disarms' unilaterally, it will put a great deal of pressure on other states to follow suit. Allocating electors by Congressional district would be the simplest way to get closer to a national popular election, which Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama and others have argued for in the past.
If each district is contested, then fewer people will perceive their vote as 'not counting'. That should be a strong selling point for this proposal. It's also a party neutral selling point.
Making California matter in the national election should be an easy selling point for all Californians, regardless of party. CA hasn't had a closely contested presidential election since 1976, and California has never factored into electoral politics. The few close elections in CA haven't effected the national results. Going to a system where each district is contested (and the overall winner gets a bonus of 2 electors), would mean that California's voters would be crucial for candidates of either party, and would matter in most every future election. We write the checks that finance these campaigns, it's about time they're forced to spend some of that loot on our airwaves.
Folks tend to complain about gerrymandering, yet there's no strong incentive for our state legislature to refrain from this undemocratic process. If the districts factor into the presidential vote, the party in power would want to have fewer 'safe' districts and make many more districts competitive (right now, there are no competitive districts in CA), instead of designing a bunch of 65-35 districts that favor either Republicans or Democrats, the Dems in the legislature might be pressured to make much more balanced districts giving a national candidate a chance in 'GOP' districts (and by doing so, they'd be forced to make fewer strongly 'Dem' districts).
Here's a link to the PDF of the actual initiative, it's a work in progress, and may not qualify for the ballot, but I suspect that this proposal will make it on the ballot for the next election and the serious problem this presents for 'progressives' can best be illustrated by this histrionic article from the New Yorker.
(as a footnote, I should add, it would be idiotic for any large state to unilaterally 'disarm' where the electoral college is concerned, but that doesn't mean I can't root for idiocy, and just cause it would be idiotic from a realpolitik standpoint, doesn't mean you can't sell this issue on the bullet points above, voters in the aggregate tend to ignore realpolitik and vote based on personal perceptions of fairness)
Given that this state leans strongly Democratic now, it would seem this has little chance to pass, but there are ways to sell this. Here's the bullet points for presenting this proposal to all voters (but especially independents and non-hardcore Democrats, presumably Republicans should be thrilled with the idea and should support it en masse)
- Fairness
- Should increase voter participation
- Force candidates to campaign in California
- Strong disincentive for gerrymandering
As far as fairness goes, it was the Democratic party after 2000 that suggested a national winner take all election would be fairer. If California 'disarms' unilaterally, it will put a great deal of pressure on other states to follow suit. Allocating electors by Congressional district would be the simplest way to get closer to a national popular election, which Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama and others have argued for in the past.
If each district is contested, then fewer people will perceive their vote as 'not counting'. That should be a strong selling point for this proposal. It's also a party neutral selling point.
Making California matter in the national election should be an easy selling point for all Californians, regardless of party. CA hasn't had a closely contested presidential election since 1976, and California has never factored into electoral politics. The few close elections in CA haven't effected the national results. Going to a system where each district is contested (and the overall winner gets a bonus of 2 electors), would mean that California's voters would be crucial for candidates of either party, and would matter in most every future election. We write the checks that finance these campaigns, it's about time they're forced to spend some of that loot on our airwaves.
Folks tend to complain about gerrymandering, yet there's no strong incentive for our state legislature to refrain from this undemocratic process. If the districts factor into the presidential vote, the party in power would want to have fewer 'safe' districts and make many more districts competitive (right now, there are no competitive districts in CA), instead of designing a bunch of 65-35 districts that favor either Republicans or Democrats, the Dems in the legislature might be pressured to make much more balanced districts giving a national candidate a chance in 'GOP' districts (and by doing so, they'd be forced to make fewer strongly 'Dem' districts).
Here's a link to the PDF of the actual initiative, it's a work in progress, and may not qualify for the ballot, but I suspect that this proposal will make it on the ballot for the next election and the serious problem this presents for 'progressives' can best be illustrated by this histrionic article from the New Yorker.
(as a footnote, I should add, it would be idiotic for any large state to unilaterally 'disarm' where the electoral college is concerned, but that doesn't mean I can't root for idiocy, and just cause it would be idiotic from a realpolitik standpoint, doesn't mean you can't sell this issue on the bullet points above, voters in the aggregate tend to ignore realpolitik and vote based on personal perceptions of fairness)
05 February 2007
The Real Governator Wouldn't Propose Ineffectual Half Measures
If Gov. Schwarzenegger is truly serious about augmenting state revenue generation without raising taxes, a little half-measure like easing the rules on Indian Casinos is a half (and half-assed) measure, at best.
Go all the way, Governator.
Legalized gaming in the state of California makes sense. Let cities zone it out of existence if they choose on a local and individual basis, but in leave it up to each jurisdiction. This ridiculous monopoly enjoyed by a minuscule number of "Indians" (most Indian gaming concerns are run by big corporations on behalf of very, very small bands of Indians) serves a narrow number of interests, whereas broader legalized gaming could produce a tremendous windfall at a fairly minor social cost (folks prone to gambling addictions already have ready access to feed their addiction, greater access to legal gaming choices won't change that).
Obviously, Nevadans would fight tooth and nail to prevent this from happening, isn't that reason enough to go ahead and do it?
And while we're legalizing stuff that does do harm to some people while entertaining many more, Marijuana is a huge cash crop in California, and as a legal crop would be even bigger (while generating positive revenue for the state, instead of costing the state money in law enforcement and eradication efforts). Fight the big battle with the Federal government over antiquated drug laws, stand up for states' rights. California has the resources and standing to challenge previous rulings on a federalized drug policy.
Go all the way, Governator.
Legalized gaming in the state of California makes sense. Let cities zone it out of existence if they choose on a local and individual basis, but in leave it up to each jurisdiction. This ridiculous monopoly enjoyed by a minuscule number of "Indians" (most Indian gaming concerns are run by big corporations on behalf of very, very small bands of Indians) serves a narrow number of interests, whereas broader legalized gaming could produce a tremendous windfall at a fairly minor social cost (folks prone to gambling addictions already have ready access to feed their addiction, greater access to legal gaming choices won't change that).
Obviously, Nevadans would fight tooth and nail to prevent this from happening, isn't that reason enough to go ahead and do it?
And while we're legalizing stuff that does do harm to some people while entertaining many more, Marijuana is a huge cash crop in California, and as a legal crop would be even bigger (while generating positive revenue for the state, instead of costing the state money in law enforcement and eradication efforts). Fight the big battle with the Federal government over antiquated drug laws, stand up for states' rights. California has the resources and standing to challenge previous rulings on a federalized drug policy.
19 October 2006
Informing California Voters . . .
. . . in SONG! (mp3 at link)
Really?
Really.
(Lyrics and chords here)
Despite this little ditty, Calvoter.org is a good resource and deserves public support.
Given that our state prefers to legislate through initiative rather than through ummmm, the legislature, a resource to pull together the information regarding those propositions is highly desireable. Calvoter.org does a good, non-partisan job of making that happen.
Since the song focuses on the props only, I'll go ahead and issue my recommendations, since I know the blogosphere has been holding their collective breath in anticipation of how I would come down on each of these propositions.
My recommendations as follows, 1A-1E, hell no. Bonds, bonds and more bonds. The state has infrastructure needs, but it also has tremendous revenues due to a roaring economy, cut spending, don't issue more bonds in a state already swimming in debt.
Prop 83 No.
It's the Jessica's Law proposition. Sex offenders are vile, worthless human beings who are an ongoing danger to society, but the measures already in place are pretty draconian to begin with, and to add more layers to the enforcement and surveillance cake, isn't going to protect children any better. Creeps will do what creeps do. Longer sentences, ankle devices and databases won't stop all of them, good parenting, good police work, and the realization that the stranger-predator is a rarity, not the rule. Every case like the one in Florida involving the Jessica who spurred the current round of legislative resolve is a horrible tragedy. The nationalization and sensationalization of the media makes it seem as if these creeps are around every corner. They aren't. But every case gets national attention and distorts the scope of the problem in the people's imagination. This proposed law is a reaction to the image created, not the reality.
Prop 84 No.
Clean Water bond. I'm against clean water? Yes, I am when it is just another bond measure to give nebulous authorization to massively increase statewide budgets to solve problems that are more often under local supervision, jurisdiction and control. Clean water is a priority, but cutting the budget elsewhere can fund the infrastructure needs, not adding another bond. Plus there already is a water bond on the 1A-1E legislature approved measures, I'm against both, but if you are going to support one, support the more focused 1E and not this hodge-podge grab bag, certain to become pork laden mess.
Prop 85 Yes.
Parental notification on abortions for minors. This measure is reasonable, allows for judicial relief, and doesn't ban the procedure outright, just recognizes that a pregnant minor is still a minor.
Prop 86 No.
The anti-smoking forces have been emboldened by past successes statewide and now are going at it again. Enough is enough. Smoking is a filthy habit, but its an increasingly marginalized and dying habit. If they want to actually ban smoking outright, then just do it already, don't keep on taxing it until legal tobacco products are more expensive than illicit wacky tobaccy products. This prop is greedy, cigarette packs are already around $5.00 I think (don't smoke, don't know) and to add another $2.60 per pack tax will make smuggled smokes lucrative. Also the anti-trust exemptions and education bureaucracies written into the bill are equally absurd.
Prop 87 Hell No with a Cherry on Top!
Commercials are running with both Vice President Al Gore and President Bill Clinton telling me that the Earth hangs in the balance regarding the passage of this bill. If they are for it, then I know enough to be against it. This is another sin tax provision, but instead of sinful smokers being the target, it's sinful gas guzzlers. Innovations are needed, but funding those innovations through excessive taxation is a bad idea. Also, given the need, any viable solution will be created using private funding as a true solution to gas dependency will be a huge financial windfall. Be suspicious of government funding for programs that should be readily profitable if useful in the first place.
Prop 88 No.
Yet another, our schools are so poorly funded, let's screw somebody who makes up a minority of voters, measure. Send this one to defeat like all the others. Schools are underperforming, but they are not underfunded. Also, the biggest argument against this is that there are no state property taxes in California. That's a can of worms that should not be opened. If the funding is needed, find it elsewhere, don't create a whole new tax requiring a whole new bureaucracy to administer. This is idiotic in the extreme.
Prop 89 No.
Backed by a large public sector union, this measure tries to tilt the playing field more in favor of public sector unions and away from businesses, a bad idea in my opinion. It's disguised as a 'fair campaign' bill that raises the amount of public money available to candidates, but the devil is in the details, and the details are slimy, messy, and undemocratic. Campaign finance reform almost always ends up being incumbent protection measures, this one isn't any different.
Prop 90 Yes.
This is an anti-Kelo measure on steroids. Normally I'd be against this sort of thing. It encourages too much litigation, might have a huge impact on the state's ability to get things done, and will please lawyers more than regular folk. But, eminent domain has been abused in this state, should be strongly discouraged, and if a measure that overreaches slightly is the only way to make that happen, then a less than enthusiastic affirmative vote on this measure would seem to be in order. Everybody on both sides of the political map are lined up against this, and the only supporters are the grassroots folks who circulated the petition in the first place. Sometimes a victory by the grassroots is needed to shake things up. Likely to be overturned in court, but the message will have been sent.
Now, to all you politicians, you don't need to send any more crap my way, my mind is made up.
(and if you want, you can try to set all the above to music, It would have to be a long song, so maybe go with this one)
Really?
Really.
(Lyrics and chords here)
Despite this little ditty, Calvoter.org is a good resource and deserves public support.
Given that our state prefers to legislate through initiative rather than through ummmm, the legislature, a resource to pull together the information regarding those propositions is highly desireable. Calvoter.org does a good, non-partisan job of making that happen.
Since the song focuses on the props only, I'll go ahead and issue my recommendations, since I know the blogosphere has been holding their collective breath in anticipation of how I would come down on each of these propositions.
My recommendations as follows, 1A-1E, hell no. Bonds, bonds and more bonds. The state has infrastructure needs, but it also has tremendous revenues due to a roaring economy, cut spending, don't issue more bonds in a state already swimming in debt.
Prop 83 No.
It's the Jessica's Law proposition. Sex offenders are vile, worthless human beings who are an ongoing danger to society, but the measures already in place are pretty draconian to begin with, and to add more layers to the enforcement and surveillance cake, isn't going to protect children any better. Creeps will do what creeps do. Longer sentences, ankle devices and databases won't stop all of them, good parenting, good police work, and the realization that the stranger-predator is a rarity, not the rule. Every case like the one in Florida involving the Jessica who spurred the current round of legislative resolve is a horrible tragedy. The nationalization and sensationalization of the media makes it seem as if these creeps are around every corner. They aren't. But every case gets national attention and distorts the scope of the problem in the people's imagination. This proposed law is a reaction to the image created, not the reality.
Prop 84 No.
Clean Water bond. I'm against clean water? Yes, I am when it is just another bond measure to give nebulous authorization to massively increase statewide budgets to solve problems that are more often under local supervision, jurisdiction and control. Clean water is a priority, but cutting the budget elsewhere can fund the infrastructure needs, not adding another bond. Plus there already is a water bond on the 1A-1E legislature approved measures, I'm against both, but if you are going to support one, support the more focused 1E and not this hodge-podge grab bag, certain to become pork laden mess.
Prop 85 Yes.
Parental notification on abortions for minors. This measure is reasonable, allows for judicial relief, and doesn't ban the procedure outright, just recognizes that a pregnant minor is still a minor.
Prop 86 No.
The anti-smoking forces have been emboldened by past successes statewide and now are going at it again. Enough is enough. Smoking is a filthy habit, but its an increasingly marginalized and dying habit. If they want to actually ban smoking outright, then just do it already, don't keep on taxing it until legal tobacco products are more expensive than illicit wacky tobaccy products. This prop is greedy, cigarette packs are already around $5.00 I think (don't smoke, don't know) and to add another $2.60 per pack tax will make smuggled smokes lucrative. Also the anti-trust exemptions and education bureaucracies written into the bill are equally absurd.
Prop 87 Hell No with a Cherry on Top!
Commercials are running with both Vice President Al Gore and President Bill Clinton telling me that the Earth hangs in the balance regarding the passage of this bill. If they are for it, then I know enough to be against it. This is another sin tax provision, but instead of sinful smokers being the target, it's sinful gas guzzlers. Innovations are needed, but funding those innovations through excessive taxation is a bad idea. Also, given the need, any viable solution will be created using private funding as a true solution to gas dependency will be a huge financial windfall. Be suspicious of government funding for programs that should be readily profitable if useful in the first place.
Prop 88 No.
Yet another, our schools are so poorly funded, let's screw somebody who makes up a minority of voters, measure. Send this one to defeat like all the others. Schools are underperforming, but they are not underfunded. Also, the biggest argument against this is that there are no state property taxes in California. That's a can of worms that should not be opened. If the funding is needed, find it elsewhere, don't create a whole new tax requiring a whole new bureaucracy to administer. This is idiotic in the extreme.
Prop 89 No.
Backed by a large public sector union, this measure tries to tilt the playing field more in favor of public sector unions and away from businesses, a bad idea in my opinion. It's disguised as a 'fair campaign' bill that raises the amount of public money available to candidates, but the devil is in the details, and the details are slimy, messy, and undemocratic. Campaign finance reform almost always ends up being incumbent protection measures, this one isn't any different.
Prop 90 Yes.
This is an anti-Kelo measure on steroids. Normally I'd be against this sort of thing. It encourages too much litigation, might have a huge impact on the state's ability to get things done, and will please lawyers more than regular folk. But, eminent domain has been abused in this state, should be strongly discouraged, and if a measure that overreaches slightly is the only way to make that happen, then a less than enthusiastic affirmative vote on this measure would seem to be in order. Everybody on both sides of the political map are lined up against this, and the only supporters are the grassroots folks who circulated the petition in the first place. Sometimes a victory by the grassroots is needed to shake things up. Likely to be overturned in court, but the message will have been sent.
Now, to all you politicians, you don't need to send any more crap my way, my mind is made up.
(and if you want, you can try to set all the above to music, It would have to be a long song, so maybe go with this one)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)