Log in

No account? Create an account

Journal of No. 118

January 8th, 2008

California Ballot Initiatives - Props to my Homies @ 03:20 pm



First of all, yay. Not many to deal with in the primary.

91: Even its sponsors say it's no longer needed. Or at least that's what they want you to think. Clearly they've been bought off by.... them. NO

92: Community College smorgasbord. Let's see: requires extra $300 million of spending, while cutting incoming student fees by $70 million. :puts on Scrooge hat: Bah, humbug, NO. I appreciate the service CC's provide, but this doesn't seem to improve the system in any definite way. And check out the weird provision of Section 16:

The fee prescribed by Section 76300 and this section shall not be
increased in any year by an amount exceeding the lesser of:
(1) The percentage change in per capita personal income of California
residents from the second preceding year to the immediate preceding year,
rounded down to the nearest whole dollar; or...

As the analyst points out, this means that to go from $15 to $16 per unit, California incomes have to grow 6.6%, which has happened once in the last 20 years.

93: I'm ambivalent about term limits in the first place. I'm not sure whether I want them stronger or weaker. I'm not sure whether this bill will make them stronger of weaker. Curse you, Prop 93, you have irritated me into voting NO.

94-97: All the revisions to the Native American gambling compacts - all basically the same I hope, but they could have easily slipped a provision into 97 calling for the complete repatriation of America, and I wouldn't know the difference.

At first I was against the expansion of vice, but then I looked more closely. Currently, the situation is retarded. The money that the tribes pay the state is siphoned off into special funds that do me no good whatsoever. I want to benefit from the stupidity of others. If these props pass, most of the money will go into California's General Fund, where I may actually see some benefit.

The downside is that Hollywood Park gets the shaft, hurting the local tax base in the 'wood. Nonetheless, YES.
Share  |  Flag |


[User Picture Icon]
Date:January 9th, 2008 12:12 am (UTC)
Yay, a crib sheet! I needed this. XD
[User Picture Icon]
Date:January 9th, 2008 04:21 am (UTC)
It's already paid for itself in my increased voting power.
[User Picture Icon]
Date:January 9th, 2008 12:34 am (UTC)
Ironically, I was just writing up my own recommendations, and they align with yours nicely.

A "No" vote on 93 is a vote FOR term limits. Despite what its proponents (the state legislature) wants you to think, it's a significant reduction in the existing term limits. Since they can't say it's not, their rebuttal statement was a personal attack on the opposition. Should tell you something.
[User Picture Icon]
Date:January 9th, 2008 01:03 am (UTC)
I am sorely tempted to vote YES on prop 91 just to be contrary.
[User Picture Icon]
Date:January 9th, 2008 01:17 am (UTC)
But what if a couple million other jokers join you, huh? What if it wins, huh? Did you ever think of that?!? Are you prepared to endure the nothing that would ensue?!?!?!?!11!!1!!!
[User Picture Icon]
Date:January 9th, 2008 10:31 am (UTC)
Here is something odd - the Voter Information that I received included only information on the amusingly misnomered "tax reduction" Proposition S for City of Los Angeles voters, and separately information about Props 94-97. Which now that I look at it is "Supplemental." But I never got the original information that this was meant to be supplemental for!

I did, however, get my vote-by-mail packet, which included Props 91-93, about which I hadn't heard a bloody thing.

I may produce my own voting guide once I've learned enough about all of this stuff. But I appreciate what you've done in the meantime.

Journal of No. 118