My thoughts on the elections - on the propositions and the elected representatives for the executive, legislative and judiciary branches.
Prop 1a. High speed rail line: YES (me); LATimes (Yes)
Authorizes $9.95 billion in bonds for a high-speed rail line connecting Northern and Southern California. From LATimes: The "backbone" segment from Los Angeles to San Francisco is projected to cost $33 billion, with about 75% from federal and private sources. Until those funds are secured, the state won't issue most of its bonds. If the line never gets built, the state's losses will be well under $2 billion. That's not too much to wager on a visionary leap that would cement California's place as the nation's most forward-thinking state. -- Makes sense to me!
Prop 2. Standards for Confining Farm Animals: YES (me); LATimes (No)
The ultimate cruelty is eating the animals so at some level this proposition leaves me wanting a stronger statement against cruelty to other lifeforms but such is the case usually with the propositions. I am voting yes because the proposition is a no brainer. The LA Times makes a lame argument stating that this will drive up coasts of producing eggs here and we will end up with cheaper, imported eggs. Well.. it is ultimately up to the consumers at that point to reject this and the economic argument is rather silly to continue support for cruelty and mistreatment of another species.
Prop 3. Children's hospitals: MAYBE (me); LATimes (Yes)
Authorizes nearly $1 billion in general obligation bonds to benefit hospitals that treat seriously ill children, is a testament to the problems in the state's healthcare system and the need for comprehensive reform. Previous bond measure was for 750M - all but 350M is spent but rising construction costs and increasing reliance on these hospitals (all are UC system hospitals which treat state-insured and uninsured children) leads LATimes to recommend it.
What makes me pause is the opposite question - what if we don't approve this bond? Do we end up closing these hospitals? What happens?
Prop. 4: Waiting period & parental notification: NO (me); LATimes (no)
No brainer I think! If the parent and child don't have a good enough relationship where the daughter can talk to the parents, its probably not a wise idea to enforce the daughter to have to wait and deal with parents in an otherwise difficult situation. This is an attack on the right to have an abortion and should be rejected. How come we never see propositions aimed at better sex ed., and if "you" (using the famous McCain airquotes) really care about life, a proposition against the death penalty!
Prop. 5: Drug rehab program bond: NO (me); LATimes (no)
On the surface, the program seems nice because it argues to give drug rehab instead of jail as an option to those arrested and found guilty. However, the LATimes makes a convincing argument against it here.
Prop 6. Police and Law Enforcement funding: NO (me); LATimes (no)
Another request for money to increase funding for the criminal justice system. While crime rates are coming down, there is no demonstrated need for this measure. Moreover it promises to not increases taxes so the billion dollars come from other social service programs which would likely have helped keep people from ending up in jails in the first place. No wonder every sheriff in the state supported this measure.. but we should not be working towards a police state.
Prop 7. Renewable energy generation: NO (me); LATimes (no)
Requires specific goals for generating green energy but its poorly written and has a large number of loopholes which make it unclear whether it will actually achieve any of the desired goals. Almost everyone on both sides of the energy debate are against this measure which makes it easy to vote against it.
Prop 8. Eliminates right of same sex couple of marry: NO (me); LATimes (no)
ABSOLUTELY not! This is Christian evangelical movements continuing attempts to outlaw behavior they do not like. Not too long ago we had laws against interracial marriage and this smacks of similar terrible discrimination. It saddens me. Prop 8 is horrifying and should be defeated. I can't believe its as close as it is today in the polls.
Prop 9. Victims rights - further input from victims at all stages of system: NO (me); LATimes (no)
Again no evidence that this is not already being done and no evidence that this is needed. Should be defeated because the law already provides victims with the right to provide input in the process. Morever is expected to cause increases in jail and court costs which are unnecessary.
Prop 10. Alternative fuel and energy bonds: NO (me); LATimes (no)
Gives tax payer money to green "sounding" initiatives but most money goes to "natural gas" vehicles not truly green cars for instance. The measure is,
apparently funded and meant to enrich one single person - T. Boone Pickens of Texas.. hmm.. why don't we make a proposition to prevent out of state residents from trying to influence / benefit from us in this way! Voting NO.
Prop 11. Redistricting Initiative: YES (me); LATimes (yes)
Basically passes the redistricting duty to a commission. Though not ideal, this is needed because very few of the State races are competetive these days and the redistricting is left to legislators - it is not in their interests to make thir own districts competetive. So this is a step towards a more fair redistricting initiative.
Prop. 12: Homes for vets: Maybe (me); LATimes(yes)
From LATimes: "...money would replenish funds in the CalVet Home Loan program, which provides mortgages to military veterans at below-market interest rates. The tax-free bonds authorized by this proposition would cost an estimated $1.8 billion over 30 years, but the principal, interest and expenses would all be covered by the borrowers. There's no direct cost to the general public, just the indirect cost of tax revenue foregone on the bonds..." The Times claims that the default rate is very low and this is a good idea.
While I am thankful for veterans and people who choose to serve the country, I do not want to encourage the overall behavior of violence. If we approve this, why not approve an equivalent program for people who serve the people directly like teachers, peace corps volunteers, nurses etc. I don't think that we should not single out one group and vets are often used as a litmus test for patriotism.
COUNTY Measures:
Measure R: 0.5 cent increase over next 30 years for Metro: YES (me)
Although most cities are not for this measure, nearly every environmental group and citizens groups are for it. The cities like Pasadena, South Pas are upset because they feel they won't get enough money back and don't have much say but they need to look beyond their own needs and recognize that their citizens commute and visit other places in SoCal and are sick of sitting in traffic all the time! This will reduce the traffic congestion in the long run and allow us to get to the beach and airport using Metro.
Measure TT: Pasadena Unified Bond measure: YES (me)
Even though I don't have kids in school, this is a desperately needed and bold measure to improve our school systems. I am happy to contribute a tiny bit because having a strong public education system is good for the society.
My choice for the elected officials:
President: Obama / Biden
US Representative: Adam Schiff
State Senate: Carol Liu
State Rep: Anthony Portantino
Judicial: Merritt, Loo, Connolly, O' Gara, and Jessic
All of these based on LA Times opinion here.
No comments:
Post a Comment