The Reasonable Voter's Guide to the 2012 California Propositions

2012-11-09 UPDATE: This post now includes election results -- green where our favored positions won and red where they didn't. On the whole, lots of green... although we're still a little disappointed about the sales tax hike, perpetuating the death penalty, further burdening our criminal justice system, and evicting LA County's porn business.

---

Here is how you should vote on California's various propositions this year -- not according to political party affiliation, but according to what makes the most sense for us and for our state.

Remember: when in doubt, vote NO on propositions! Our elected officials should be handling all these issues themselves and taking responsibility for them, not passing the buck to us.

30 - "Raise Taxes For Schools & Stuff"
NO
Actual Result: YES

Why? California already has the highest sales tax of any state in the country. Perhaps it's true we ought to spend more on education -- but this state is already raking in $95,900,000,000 per year, and now you expect me to believe they can't properly fund schools without taxing us EVEN MORE? The solution is obviously to (a) raise tuition or (b) cut spending elsewhere, not to increase government bloat. Sacramento needs to get its act together, not ask us for more money.

31 - "More Complicated Budget Rules"
NO

Why? This one is convoluted -- some good stuff, some bad stuff, but on balance, nobody seems to know for sure. I'll trust it when I hear a coherent argument in favor.

32 - "Outlaw Democrat Funding Sources"
NO

Why? It's a blatant power grab by the republicans aimed at democrat contributors. The problem is that, in light of the US Supreme Court's Citizens United decision of 2010, it's COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL and will never hold up in court -- the only thing this will really accomplish is wasting our tax dollars on lawyers and legal battles. There ought to be a law against putting unconstitutional measures on the ballot.

33 - "More Money For Car Insurance"
NO

Why? Do you want to pay MORE for car insurance? Do you wish insurance companies made even more money? The only reason we are even voting for this is because Mercury spent a ton of money to get it on the ballot.

34 - "End The Death Penalty"
YES
Actual Result: NO

Why? The death penalty is medieval and is not an effective deterrent. Let's get rid of it!

35 - "Harsher Punishments For Human Trafficking & Stuff"
NO
Actual Result: YES

Why? This one sounds good and all, but it doesn't account for the increased costs to our already-stretched prison system. This is why the State of California is always broke, and why representative government is better than pure democracy: people vote for stuff like this because, well, who could disagree with cracking down on crime? But then it turns out there's no money to pay for it because nobody was responsible for thinking that far ahead.

36 - "Fix The Three Strikes Law"
YES

Why? This one will save us loads of money and will restore fairness and sensibility to sentencing for repeat offenders.

37 - "More Rules & Regulations For Food Labels"
NO

Why? The sentiment behind 37 is good -- shouldn't we be able to know when we're eating Franken-food? And look who's opposing it, a bunch of evil food corporations! But the fact is that this particular law just wasn't written very well. It will create tons more spurious lawsuits, further burdening our court system, and will increase government spending. Also, it allows for suit to be brought against grocery stores for allegedly selling products lacking the correct labeling. While the big chains can survive these sorts of lawsuits, smaller independently-owned grocery stores cannot.

38 - "Also Raise Taxes For Schools & Stuff"
NO

Why? If you really like the idea of paying more in taxes, you're better off voting for 30 than this one.

39 - "Close Out-Of-State Tax Loopholes"
YES

Why? California has been hemorrhaging business and jobs over the last few years because of our current tax loopholes. Let's fix that.

40 - "Approve The Latest Redistricting"
YES

Why? In a bizarre proposition twist, it one will cost us a lot more if we don't pass this one than if we do. Not even the people who oppose it oppose it anymore. I can find no good reason to vote no on this one.

---

BONUS SECTION: LA COUNTY MEASURES

A - "Instead Of Electing Our Assessor, Let Him Be Appointed"
NO

Why? Do you really think LA needs more opaque, back-door political chicanery?

B - "More Unnecessary Porn Rules & Regulations"
NO
Actual Result: YES

Why? The only thing this will actually accomplish will be to drive business out of LA County. It attempts to solve problems that don't exist by inventing a whole bunch of new problems that will exist.

J - "Keep Spending Our Money On Public Transportation"
YES

Why? If there's one area LA desperately needs to keep improving on, it's public transportation.

J - "Keep Dumping Money Into MTA / Corporate Contractors"
NO

Why? We're changing our stance on this one after learning more about it. It's a complicated issue (which means you may as well vote "NO" on principle), but basically MTA hasn't been spending the money from the previous tax increase well, and all this does is further entrench the status quo.

---

LINKS:

Ballotpedia -- Comprehensive, incredibly helpful site! Read the full text of the props, see who supports/opposes what (and how much they've spent), and survey media analyses.

LA Times 2012 Endorsements -- Perhaps it is somewhat leftist, but you can trust neither the Orange County Register nor any San Francisco paper to provide such moderate, sensible, non-partisan analysis.

No On Measure J

Blowing Off the Israel-Iran War Question

SCHIEFFER: What if -- what if the prime minister of Israel called you on the phone and said, "Our bombers are on the way. We're going to bomb Iran." What do you-- 

ROMNEY: Bob, let's not go into hypotheticals of that nature.

Frankly, I'm disappointed and frustrated that Bob allowed both candidates to decline this question, in my opinion the most important one in last night's debate.

As far as the republicans, democrats, and the mainstream American media are concerned, all you need to know about Israel is this: Once upon a time, the Nazis killed millions and millions of Jews. It was the most horrible thing that ever happened. As a result, there is now a Jewish state called Israel, and unless the US supports Israel as if it were part and parcel of the United States, the Holocaust will happen again. The End.

Unfortunately, that's not a complete picture, and it is my sad duty to inform you that international politics are almost never that simple. Almost 70 years have passed since the Holocaust, over three generations, and many things have happened in that time: hot wars, cold wars, nuclear proliferation, terrorist attacks, reprisals, etc.

The most important figure in Israeli politics since the '90s is Bibi Netanyahu. A hawkish saber-rattler, Natanyahu has repeatedly threatened a preemptive military strike by Israel against Iran as of late. On 29 July, he said that "all the sanctions and diplomacy so far have not set back the Iranian program by one iota." He reiterated this position before the United Nations on 28 September:

For nearly a decade, the international community has tried to stop the Iranian nuclear program with diplomacy. That hasn't worked. [...] we must face the truth. Sanctions have not stopped Iran's nuclear program either. (full transcript)

Perhaps the most frightening recent incident occurred in August when the Israeli government's "shock-and-awe" strike plans were leaked to the BBC. (You probably didn't hear about it in the American news.)

It's possible that all of this posturing is a bluff -- either way, Israel wants Iran (and the rest of the world) to take such threats seriously. And yet, the American media (just like Romney, Obama, and Bob Schieffer) are willing to sweep the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran under the rug. Perhaps this is because any criticism of Israel's policies runs the risk being labeled "anti-Semitism", rendering the entire topic politically ill-advised. Of course, there have been a few exceptions -- this piece in the New York Times provides an excellent objective analysis of the situation.

...a poll conducted jointly last month by the Truman Institute at Hebrew University and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found that 77 percent of Israelis now oppose a military attack on Iran that is not approved by Washington, although 71 percent would support an attack with American consent.

It is a waste of the American peoples' time to hear presidential candidates reiterate their mutual support of our alliance with Israel. Likewise, it is pointless to remind Americans that our NATO obligations would require us to defend Israel in the event of an attack, just as Israel would likewise be required to defend the US.

What the American people deserve is an answer to the question of what our response would be if Israel were to go on the offensive and initiate a war with Iran -- whether America would consent to such an attack, and whether we would allow ourselves to be drawn into it, and ultimately take responsibility for it.

--Dan Colgate

Dear Demopublican Debate Supporters:

To Anheuser-Busch, the Howard G. Buffett Foundation, Sheldon S. Cohen, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA), the Kovler Fund, & Southwest Airlines:

I am writing to express my disappointment in your company's decision to support the Presidential Debates.

The American people deserve a real discussion of the issues, not just partisan platitudes. Real dialogue can only occur if the debates are open to participation by ANY candidate -- not just the democrat and republican ones.

Several other advertisers (Philips, YWCA, and BBH New York) have withdrawn their support and shown that they have the courage to do the right thing and stand for real change and a better country.

Sincerely,
Dan Colgate

Consider these things

Consider this a thing -- is it a person?
Can it breathe?
Can it eat?
Can it pee, poop, and barf?
Can it look around? Can it smile?
Can it cry, can it coo, can it laugh?

Okay, now consider this thing.
Same questions --
is it a person?
Is it the same thing as the first thing?

Finally, consider this thing.
This is Cassidy Goodson, who strangled her newborn son to death.
Perhaps you don't think the first thing is a person, since it cannot do any of the things a person can do;
probably everyone can agree that the second thing is a person.

This third thing, however, is not a person.

If any of these three things deserves to die, it is this third thing.