Ballot Propositions - Nov 2022 - part 2
Earlier today I began sharing my opinions about the statewide propositions on the ballot in California. See Ballot Propositions - Nov 2022 - part 1. Here in part 2 I address the latter four props on this November's ballot.
Prop 28: Lock in Funding for K-12 Arts and Music: Gentle No.
A few days ago I wrote blog entry The Problems with Propositions. Prop 28 is exactly the sort of measure I had in mind when I explained the trouble with props that lock in spending requirements. The bill would ensure a certain baseline amount of funding for K-12 arts and music education. To be sure, supporting such education programs is a worthy goal. And because of that it may well pass. I mean, who could be against teaching art and music to kids? But here's the thing: a vote against this initiative is not a vote against art. It's a vote against tying the hands of state legislators in the budgeting process.
This year California's budget spends nearly $100,000,000 on K-12 education, an average of $17,000 per student. For context: yes, that's a lot. And it's a lot partly because the state has enjoyed strong tax revenues for several years. But strong revenues are not a given. During an economic slowdown- of the sort that most economists, business leaders, and even ordinary citizens are predicting will happen next year if not sooner- California's tax revenues fall. Legislators then face tough choices in where to allocate funds. Each voter-passed initiative that locks in funding for one item or another makes the decisions about where to spend the remaining money more dire. Lock-ins for art and music may mean that school programs for language suffer... or perhaps that programs for supporting the elderly or combating climate change get short shrift.
Again, I recognize that supporting art and music education is a sympathetic choice. The only problem I have with this bill is that it's a funding lock-in. That's why I'm calling my position a Gentle No on 28.
Prop 29: Dialysis Clinic Regulation: No.
Patients who need kidney dialysis face dire straits. Shouldn't the industry that keeps them alive be better regulated? Don't be fooled; that's not what this is about.
This initiative matches at least 2 of the 5 proposition problems I described the other day. First, regulation in an industry that is a matter of life-or-death for certain individuals is a deeply detailed bit of policy that shouldn't be left to ordinary citizens to enact on strict up-or-down votes.
Second- and more importantly- this is a special-interest, self-dealing initiative in disguise. Follow the money to see who is bankrolling this and understand why. The Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West union has been fighting with the two major providers of kidney dialysis over workers' contracts for years. This is now the second time in recent years the SEIU has gone to the ballot box in an attempt to gain extra leverage in negotiations. I support unions fighting for fair pay, benefits, and working conditions. I do not support them misleading voters at the ballot box to win what they cannot win in equal party negotiations. Vote No on 29.
Prop 30: Tax the Rich to Fight Wildfires and Climate Change: No.
Ah, Prop 30, another measure with a worthy-seeming set of goals. Wildfires are already a very destructive phenomenon in California, costing billions annually, destroying homes and habitat, and often causing deaths. Who could be opposed to reducing the risk of wildfires? Especially since as bad as they are now they're expected to get worse as a result of climate change.... Which this measure nominally also fights. Who but climate deniers doesn't want to fight climate change? And who better to soak with the bill for all of this than California's highest income citizens, those making over $2 million per year?
Alas, Prop 30 is another case of a moneyed special interest looking to do itself a favor at taxpayer expense while using a noble goal as a disguise. Follow the money and you'll see: a) the measure's main sponsor is ride-share company Lyft, and b) the measure's main expenditure is subsidizing purchase of electric cars and the construction and operation of recharging stations. How does (b) relate to (a)? California recently passed a law requiring all new cars sold be electric by 2035. Lyft depends on a huge fleet of vehicles... which it wants taxpayers to subsidize its contractor-employees buying & refueling.
Look, I'm all in favor of vehicle electrification. And I don't like wildfires or climate change. But this tax-the-rich-to-subsidize-a-huge-company measure is the wrong way to further either of those goals. It's a flawed and self-dealing initiative. Vote No on 30.
Prop 31: Uphold Law Banning Flavored Tobacco: Yes.
Prop 31 is a referendum... Instead of being an initiative proposing to create a new law, it is an initiative allowing citizens to veto an existing law. Many voters feel confused and irritated by so many props each year that they take a stance of "I'm just going to vote No on everything!" This is one of the cases where that mindset is misplaced. With a referendum a Yes vote upholds an existing law and a No vote removes it.
What's the law at stake here? 2020 the California legislature approved, and the governor signed into law, a bill banning the sale of certain flavored tobacco products. Cigarette smoking is a major public health hazard generally speaking, and flavored tobacco products have repeatedly been shown to appeal to underage smokers, hooking kids on a destructive, lifetime habit. It's important to attempt funded by the tobacco industry (again, follow the money) to veto our laws- and to do that voters must vote YES on 31.
Prop 28: Lock in Funding for K-12 Arts and Music: Gentle No.
A few days ago I wrote blog entry The Problems with Propositions. Prop 28 is exactly the sort of measure I had in mind when I explained the trouble with props that lock in spending requirements. The bill would ensure a certain baseline amount of funding for K-12 arts and music education. To be sure, supporting such education programs is a worthy goal. And because of that it may well pass. I mean, who could be against teaching art and music to kids? But here's the thing: a vote against this initiative is not a vote against art. It's a vote against tying the hands of state legislators in the budgeting process.
This year California's budget spends nearly $100,000,000 on K-12 education, an average of $17,000 per student. For context: yes, that's a lot. And it's a lot partly because the state has enjoyed strong tax revenues for several years. But strong revenues are not a given. During an economic slowdown- of the sort that most economists, business leaders, and even ordinary citizens are predicting will happen next year if not sooner- California's tax revenues fall. Legislators then face tough choices in where to allocate funds. Each voter-passed initiative that locks in funding for one item or another makes the decisions about where to spend the remaining money more dire. Lock-ins for art and music may mean that school programs for language suffer... or perhaps that programs for supporting the elderly or combating climate change get short shrift.
Again, I recognize that supporting art and music education is a sympathetic choice. The only problem I have with this bill is that it's a funding lock-in. That's why I'm calling my position a Gentle No on 28.
Prop 29: Dialysis Clinic Regulation: No.
Patients who need kidney dialysis face dire straits. Shouldn't the industry that keeps them alive be better regulated? Don't be fooled; that's not what this is about.
This initiative matches at least 2 of the 5 proposition problems I described the other day. First, regulation in an industry that is a matter of life-or-death for certain individuals is a deeply detailed bit of policy that shouldn't be left to ordinary citizens to enact on strict up-or-down votes.
Second- and more importantly- this is a special-interest, self-dealing initiative in disguise. Follow the money to see who is bankrolling this and understand why. The Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West union has been fighting with the two major providers of kidney dialysis over workers' contracts for years. This is now the second time in recent years the SEIU has gone to the ballot box in an attempt to gain extra leverage in negotiations. I support unions fighting for fair pay, benefits, and working conditions. I do not support them misleading voters at the ballot box to win what they cannot win in equal party negotiations. Vote No on 29.
Prop 30: Tax the Rich to Fight Wildfires and Climate Change: No.
Ah, Prop 30, another measure with a worthy-seeming set of goals. Wildfires are already a very destructive phenomenon in California, costing billions annually, destroying homes and habitat, and often causing deaths. Who could be opposed to reducing the risk of wildfires? Especially since as bad as they are now they're expected to get worse as a result of climate change.... Which this measure nominally also fights. Who but climate deniers doesn't want to fight climate change? And who better to soak with the bill for all of this than California's highest income citizens, those making over $2 million per year?
Alas, Prop 30 is another case of a moneyed special interest looking to do itself a favor at taxpayer expense while using a noble goal as a disguise. Follow the money and you'll see: a) the measure's main sponsor is ride-share company Lyft, and b) the measure's main expenditure is subsidizing purchase of electric cars and the construction and operation of recharging stations. How does (b) relate to (a)? California recently passed a law requiring all new cars sold be electric by 2035. Lyft depends on a huge fleet of vehicles... which it wants taxpayers to subsidize its contractor-employees buying & refueling.
Look, I'm all in favor of vehicle electrification. And I don't like wildfires or climate change. But this tax-the-rich-to-subsidize-a-huge-company measure is the wrong way to further either of those goals. It's a flawed and self-dealing initiative. Vote No on 30.
Prop 31: Uphold Law Banning Flavored Tobacco: Yes.
Prop 31 is a referendum... Instead of being an initiative proposing to create a new law, it is an initiative allowing citizens to veto an existing law. Many voters feel confused and irritated by so many props each year that they take a stance of "I'm just going to vote No on everything!" This is one of the cases where that mindset is misplaced. With a referendum a Yes vote upholds an existing law and a No vote removes it.
What's the law at stake here? 2020 the California legislature approved, and the governor signed into law, a bill banning the sale of certain flavored tobacco products. Cigarette smoking is a major public health hazard generally speaking, and flavored tobacco products have repeatedly been shown to appeal to underage smokers, hooking kids on a destructive, lifetime habit. It's important to attempt funded by the tobacco industry (again, follow the money) to veto our laws- and to do that voters must vote YES on 31.