Jeff’s Election Day Voting Guide

Posted on November 6, 2006
Filed Under Public Policy |

As I have done for the last couple of elections, I am posting my take on the issues and how I will vote. By the way, there are a lot of debt measures on the ballot, it’s worth noting that the state currently has about $45 billion in outstanding debt and is authorized to sell another $30 billion in debt but has yet to do so.

State Officers:

Governor: Schwarzennegger

Why: Because I’m not an idiot. Seriously, does anyone really know what Angiledes would do as Governor. He is the most uninspiring candidate that the Democrats could have nominated, Westly would have put up a much stronger campaign.

Lt. Governor: McClintock

Why: I admire his integrity (which separated him from all the candidates in the recall election) and think having a strongly conservative officer in the statewide office is a good balance for the very liberal tendencies of the State Assembly.

Sec of State: McPherson

Why: After the disaster that Kevin Shelley was, McPherson was appointed to the office and has done a good job. Key issue going forward for this officer is the implementation of electronic voting so I am more comfortable with someone who has proven they can do the job.

Controller: Strickland

Why: Attacking fraud and waste is just as important as closing tax code abuses, something Strickland understands.

Treasurer: Lockyer

Why: Lockyer is a capable candidate.

Attorney General: Brown

Why: Having been a mayor in the 8th most dangerous city in the U.S. I would hope that Brown would have a good grasp of the issues.

Insurance Commissioner: Poizner

Why: Because Bustamante is a slimeball.

Prop 1A: TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PROTECTION.

How I voted: FOR

Why: This is conundrum for me because I generally feel that the various voter propositions over the years that have restricted public funds in specific ways has really hamstrung government. In other words, if the voters are going to mandate something like “xx% of the budget shall be applied to education” or whatever, then what’s the point of having elected officials in the Assembly and Senate? Having said that, the simple fact of the matter is that the elected representatives have a nonexistent track record at having discipline to “pay as we go” for infrastructure projects so if this is what it takes to get transportation improvements from gas taxes (like the Feds do) then so be it.

Prop 1B: HIGHWAY SAFETY, TRAFFIC REDUCTION, AIR QUALITY, AND PORT SECURITY BOND ACT OF 2006.

How I voted: FOR

Why: Hey, I’m not enthusiastic about taking on another $39 billion in debt (over 30 years) but if that’s what it takes to fund infrastructure improvements… see above for my logic.

Prop 1C: HOUSING AND EMERGENCY SHELTER TRUST FUND

How I voted: FOR

Why: $2.8 billion over 30 years to provide shelter assistance for the most vulnerable residents of the state is something I can support.

Prop 1D: KINDERGARTEN–UNIVERSITY PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES BOND ACT OF 2006.

How I voted: AGAINST

Why: How many $20 billion debt measures for education infrastructure are state voters expected to support when the performance of state schools is so poor? This is a rehash of an earlier proposition from another election and I didn’t support that one either. The State is funding public schools to the tune of about $52 billion a year, which is a substantial increase from last year… if they can’t maintain facilities with that kind of budget then I think we need to look at alternative models for public education. Seriously, as a taxpayer and a voter I am getting a little tired of the “throw more money” approach to public education. Here’s a good article that sums up the current dilemma… http://www.csba.org/csn/csnStoryTemplate.cfm?id=384

Prop 1E: DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND FLOOD PREVENTION BOND ACT OF 2006.

How I voted: AGAINST

Why: $8 billion in debt to fund levee repairs and making drinking water “safe” is a little vague in my opinion. The Feds have stepped up over the years, contrary to popular public opinion, as evidenced by the massive flood control and wetlands restoration project up in Napa that is almost finished, so I’m not sure what this $8b is buying me. In addition to the above, there are a lot of questions in my mind about how much of the water supply would actually be affected by this, for example, the Hetch Hetchy water supply that SF and the Peninsula relies on is already undergoing seismic retrofitting and upgrades following another debt measure that passed in a previous election and is reflected in my increased water rates.

Prop 83: SEX OFFENDERS. SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATORS. PUNISHMENT, RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS AND MONITORING. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

How I voted: FOR

Why: Violent sex offenders… need I say more?

Prop 84: WATER QUALITY, SAFETY AND SUPPLY. FLOOD CONTROL. NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION. PARK IMPROVEMENTS. BONDS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

How I voted: AGAINST

Why: This is one of those “everything and the kitchen sink” initiatives with a really big price tag, $10.5 billion over the life of the bond. I like the idea of paying for park improvements and public access, but then there’s all that flood control and water quality language that I thought Prop 1E is supposed to fund (which I am also voting against).

Prop 85: WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY.

How I voted: FOR

Why: If an minor needs parental notification to get a tattoo then they should also require notification for an abortion, which is not a “minor medical procedure” under any circumstances. As a parent, this one is a no-brainer for me and given the options for relief (judicial intervention) there should be no reason to not support this.

Prop 86: TAX ON CIGARETTES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.

How I voted: AGAINST

Why: Okay, so this one is a little difficult to explain but let me give it a try. Insofar as taxing cigarettes I am all for it, put a tax of $10 a pack on them and I wouldn’t object, but I do start to have an issue with the addiction that our state governments are developing on cigarette taxes as a source of revenue. The State of California makes more money on a pack of cigarettes than Philip Morris does and that makes them do unnatural things, like filing a brief in an Illinois court in support of Philip Morris (http://reclaimdemocracy.org/weekly2003/statetobacco_dependence.html) and issuing bonds backed by cigarette tax revenues. More germane to the measure itself is my objection to hospitals receiving funds from this measure also getting exemption from antitrust regulations… what’s up with that? Why would hospitals receiving funding from this bond need antitrust exemptions?

Prop 87: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY. RESEARCH, PRODUCTION, INCENTIVES. TAX ON CALIFORNIA OIL PRODUCERS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.

How I voted: AGAINST

Why: I posted an extensive piece on Venturebeat about this but can’t find it now… funding another state agency with taxpayer money and little oversight is not good policy. There is no shortage of funding for cleantech, if the state really wants to play VC then they should pump $4b into the top 30 venture firms and be done with it.

Prop 88: EDUCATION FUNDING. REAL PROPERTY PARCEL TAX. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.

How I voted: AGAINST

Why: This is a forever property tax increase that still doesn’t get to the performance issues that schools are facing. On top of that, in reading the proposition it’s not entirely clear that taxes collected in basic aid districts (like where I live) would go to local schools.

Prop 89: POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS. PUBLIC FINANCING. CORPORATE TAX INCREASE. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION AND EXPENDITURE LIMITS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

How I voted: AGAINST

Why: Let’s be clear about what this is, a state funded restriction of free speech that will work just about as well as McCain-Feingold did. I fail to see how increasing taxes on businesses to pay for political campaigns is a good idea.

Prop 90: GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION, REGULATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

How I voted: FOR

Why: The Kelo v. New London decision that the Supreme Court rendered last year attacked the very foundation of our Constitution, property rights. While I empathize with the opponents of this measure that it will create a new category of lawsuits and cost state and local governments a lot money in legal and acquisition costs, I can’t think of a single more important right to protect in our State Constitution than private property rights. Furthermore, the trend in recent years where local governments have seized private property under eminent domain and then transferred that property to private developers is a perversion of what eminent domain is supposed to do. Seizing property for a highway or infrastructure project is one thing, seizing someone’s home so that a developer can build a new shopping mall is not something I could ever support, and that’s why I voted for this proposition.

Comments

  • Feeds