california ballot propositions
i used to do this regularly, and it was a fun tradition, so i'll give my opinion on the proposals that are on the ballot this upcoming feb. 5th california primary election. i've found that a useful philosophy is to start out with the mindset that i should vote NO by default, and then let the proposal itself convince me that it ought to be approved, that a change should be made. that said, you'll see that most of the measures this year sound pretty reasonable. anyway, these are my quick takes:
prop. 91
transportation measure. according to the voter guide, even the backers of prop 91 think that it's no longer needed because we passed prop 1A last november which does the same thing.
VOTE: NO
prop. 92
guarantees more money for the chronically underfunded community college system. currently, they're supposed to get a small sliver of the same money that goes to K-12, but from what i understand, they almost never get what they're supposed to. this measure should guarantee the funding levels that community colleges were supposed to get through prop. 98 twenty years ago. i think that in a lot of cases, community colleges are becoming necessary for providing the education that students aren't fully receiving in high schools, and they also serve as important gateways for allowing students without means to work hard and transfer to a better university and improve their lot in life. also, they other community members to learn new skills or otherwise enrich themselves without having to spend a ton of money. i think it's a worthwhile investment. basically, the two major areas that i least mind seeing state taxpayer dollars go to are education and transportation. investing in education redounds to the state's economy.
VOTE: YES
prop. 93
this changes the term limits for the state assembly and state senate. currently it's 6 years in the assembly and 8 years in the senate, for a total of 14 years. the proposal would make the total 12 years, but allow people to stay in the same office for all 12 years. it would also allow the current state legislators to stay in their office for 12 years, so i suppose if there were a state senator who had served 6 years in the assembly and 6 years in the senate, it would allow him or her to stay on for 6 more years. i don't think that's a huge problem though, especially long term once the current crop is gone. honestly, i don't really feel too strongly about this bill. there are both advantages and disadvantages to allowing people to stay in the same office for longer; they know what they're doing, and they might be able to forge relationships and work together better. given the partisan nature of the california legislature, that might not be so bad. of course, there are also dangers associated with incumbency, but ultimately i think the onus is on the voters to rein in bad elected officials. they still have to run for re-election every 2 years (3 years for state senators). all in all, i guess i'm moderately in favor of this proposal.
VOTE: YES
props. 94-97
these are all the same proposition, but each is for a different casino-owning native american tribe. basically, it allows them to expand their casinos and add more slot machines, in exchange for which they'll pay more money to the state. the legislative analyst estimates it could mean at least $131 million more a year in the state coffers. considering we've got a $14 billion deficit, we could use the money. i'm not a big gambling enthusiast myself, but i think that if people want to gamble, that's their business. and if they lose their money in-state to the tribal casinos instead of over in nevada, so much the better. the casinos already exist, so adding in more slot machines doesn't really make much difference.
VOTE: YES
prop. 91
transportation measure. according to the voter guide, even the backers of prop 91 think that it's no longer needed because we passed prop 1A last november which does the same thing.
VOTE: NO
prop. 92
guarantees more money for the chronically underfunded community college system. currently, they're supposed to get a small sliver of the same money that goes to K-12, but from what i understand, they almost never get what they're supposed to. this measure should guarantee the funding levels that community colleges were supposed to get through prop. 98 twenty years ago. i think that in a lot of cases, community colleges are becoming necessary for providing the education that students aren't fully receiving in high schools, and they also serve as important gateways for allowing students without means to work hard and transfer to a better university and improve their lot in life. also, they other community members to learn new skills or otherwise enrich themselves without having to spend a ton of money. i think it's a worthwhile investment. basically, the two major areas that i least mind seeing state taxpayer dollars go to are education and transportation. investing in education redounds to the state's economy.
VOTE: YES
prop. 93
this changes the term limits for the state assembly and state senate. currently it's 6 years in the assembly and 8 years in the senate, for a total of 14 years. the proposal would make the total 12 years, but allow people to stay in the same office for all 12 years. it would also allow the current state legislators to stay in their office for 12 years, so i suppose if there were a state senator who had served 6 years in the assembly and 6 years in the senate, it would allow him or her to stay on for 6 more years. i don't think that's a huge problem though, especially long term once the current crop is gone. honestly, i don't really feel too strongly about this bill. there are both advantages and disadvantages to allowing people to stay in the same office for longer; they know what they're doing, and they might be able to forge relationships and work together better. given the partisan nature of the california legislature, that might not be so bad. of course, there are also dangers associated with incumbency, but ultimately i think the onus is on the voters to rein in bad elected officials. they still have to run for re-election every 2 years (3 years for state senators). all in all, i guess i'm moderately in favor of this proposal.
VOTE: YES
props. 94-97
these are all the same proposition, but each is for a different casino-owning native american tribe. basically, it allows them to expand their casinos and add more slot machines, in exchange for which they'll pay more money to the state. the legislative analyst estimates it could mean at least $131 million more a year in the state coffers. considering we've got a $14 billion deficit, we could use the money. i'm not a big gambling enthusiast myself, but i think that if people want to gamble, that's their business. and if they lose their money in-state to the tribal casinos instead of over in nevada, so much the better. the casinos already exist, so adding in more slot machines doesn't really make much difference.
VOTE: YES