Better Late Than Never, General Election 2012
This may be my last use of LiveJournal for blogging election recommendations. (Oh, who are we kidding?) But yes, the Internet is getting small enough that I think the time has come to separate my rY.vote posts from the ramblings of my personal life. If you have any recommendations for a better digital soapbox, please let me know in the comments! Seriously. Do it. Please, give me your suggestions. Thanks...
This is from my Los Angeles Ballot. Some names and measures may differ depending on your city, county, district, registered party affiliation, or brain chemistry.
Locate your L.A. County Polling Place ...
GENERAL ELECTION
November 6, 2012
-- POLLING PLACES STAY OPEN UNTIL 8PM --
Barack Obama and JOE BIDEN for PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES
Dianne Feinstein for UNITED STATES SENATOR
Xavier Becerra for UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE 34th District
Due to the redrawing of the congressional district lines, my Congresswoman now finds herself in the 40th District. Her anti-HSR stance (unusual for a Democrat) really pissed me off, so I'm not exactly sorry to see her go. I will miss annoying the crap out of her Legislative Director, though.
John A. Perez for MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 53rd District
Jackie Lacey for COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
STATE MEASURES
YES on Measure 30 - Increases taxes on earnings over $250,000 for seven years and sales taxes by 1/4 cent for four years, to fund schools.
This is the tax measure that Governor Brown tried, unsuccessfully, to get through the party-locked California Legislature. If he'd only needed a simple majority, or if the politics of a tax measure getting anything done weren't so polarizing, we probably wouldn't be voting on this, but since the proposal failed in Sacramento, Brown has taken the measure to the people.
So, here's the nuts of it. California law says that we have to devote 40% of state revenues for education. This works great in flush times, when the higher tax brackets are raking in the dough. In lean times, profits are down, or-- depending on how savvy your tax attorney is --completely nonexistent. And, so 40% doesn't go quite so far. This measure is Jerry Brown's solution. Increase taxes on the upper-income earners and then tack on a sales tax increase.
Personally, I'd much rather pay a slightly higher tax increase if it means having someone else's children turn out slightly less stupid. That's not rude to say, is it? Ok, that's a bit brusque. Look, the more we can invest in today's troubled youth, the less we have to spend on fixing the mistakes brought on by an ignorant next generation. Hmm.. I'd better stop before I start making enemies of my friends with children. Because, all seriousness, someday, they'll be the ones casting these votes, and I want them to grow up to be critical thinkers who won't believe everything they read just because it's on some website the night before an election. Oh man, there I go again...
NO on Measure 31 - Establishes two-year state budget. Sets rules for offsetting new expenditures, etc.
So, my dad actually contributed a part of this measure: In short, it would mandate that the language of bills be made available in print for three days prior to a vote by the California Legislature.
This, in my opinion, is the only really GOOD thing about Prop 31. The rest of it-- environmental exemptions, a pay-as-you-go provision, and the "fiscal emergency" exemptions granted to the governor (when are we NOT in a fiscal emergency?) are just too much to swallow.
Sorry dad...
NO on Measure 32 - Prohibits unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. Applies same use prohibition to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations or government contractors. Prohibits union and corporate contributions to candidates and their committees.
Ok, this one. This one is just lousy. But, like 31, there are things to *like* in this measure. I'm actually in favor of its veil of getting the money out of politics. That's actually very appealing. The problem is, the framers of 32 are trying to UNBALANCE the scales completely away from Labor. Big Business is who's backing Prop 32 and it's the major corporations who stand to benefit if Labor can't make its voice heard at election time. VOTE FUCK NO!
NO on Measure 33 - Allows insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company. Allows proportional discount for drivers with some prior coverage. Allows increased cost or drivers without history of continuous coverage.
So I just thought of a reason to vote YES on this. It would very likely RAISE THE COST OF ENTRY for new drivers, potentially decreasing the number of people flocking into auto-addiciton every year.
But, it's not enough to sway me. This is the work of the founder of Mercury Insurance, who is trying to mess around with the laws that control California's auto insurance as a sort of legacy thing. The problem is that it would punish anyone who leaves their insurance (my wonderful progressives who are dabbling with going "car free", I'm looking at you here!)
YES on Measure 34 - Repeals death penalty and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
Setting aside for a moment that I don't think a civilized society should be KILLING its citizens no matter how badly they fuck up, it turns out that we're spending a fortune on NOT killing our death-row inmates. If we got these prize-winners into the standard "life without parole" situation instead of their death row "celebrity prison" status, it actually pencils out that we'd save something like $230 million annually, of which Prop 34 would direct $100 million back into law enforcement and investigation.
Oh yeah, and we wouldn't occasionally carry out an irreversible sentence on someone who, it turns out, might not have done it. I mean, SCIENCE, right?
NO on Measure 35 - Increases prison sentences and fines for human trafficking convictions. Requires convicted human traffickers to register as sex offenders. Requires registered sex offenders to disclose Internet activities and identities.
Here's another one of those "done and done already" ones. There are laws on the books to cover this sort of thing, and it really seems like the author of this bill is trying to drum up support to run for Attorney General or something some day.
YES on Measure 36 - Revises [Three Strikes Law] to impose life sentence only when new felony conviction is serious and violent. May authorize re-sentencing if third strike conviction was not serious or violent.
Right now, we're re-punishing the punished when it comes to many three strikes convictions when we "throw the book" at someone for a minor infraction just because it's their 3rd time around the Criminal Justice circuit. This is good reform.
YES on Measure 37 - Requires labeling of food sold to consumers made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specific ways.
I don't know why we're singling out consumers made from plants or animals, oh wait-- hey, it's just sloppy sentence structure. And that's my point, actually. The NO side wants people to focus on the structure and technicalities of this proposition rather than what it would actually accomplish. Let's label the genetically modified stuff that's called out in this prop, and if something is left out, or if something is being called out in a disingenuous way , the Legislature can always draft additional laws to sharpen things up.
NO on Measure 38 - Increases tax on earnings using sliding scale, for twelve years. Revenues go to K-12 schools and early childhood programs, and for four years to repaying state debt.
You can actually vote YES on this one. But I'd ask that you also vote YES on Measure 30. Whichever one gets the most votes will carry the day for school funding, and in fact, I think I'd prefer it if most people voted yes on both. I'm a little annoyed at the Munger family for trying to push out 30 and 32 (I think the extended family of the bill's author has it out for the teachers unions), so I'm protesting by voting no on 38. But you guys can vote yes if it makes you happy. Whatever. Yes for smart children.
YES on Measure 39 - Requires multistate [sic] businesses to pay income taxes based on percentage of their sales in California.
Note that this is NOT a "Sales Tax" on out of state businesses...we already went 12 rounds with Amazon over that and that's over and done with. This is actually trying to close a loophole being exploited by businesses that have located out of state, but do a certain amount of business in the state. Tax the shit out of 'em, the freeloaders!
YES on Measure 40 - Referendum. Approves or rejects the new State Senate districts drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission.
The "NO" side has pulled out of this referendum, which was trying to go for a "do-over" on the redistricting issue that was passed at the ballot-box in 2008 and upheld at the ballot box in 2010. Oh, and they also lost a court case, but not before they put this stinker on the ballot and then decided it wasn't worth it after all. I'm too lazy to link, so just trust me on the rest of that.
COUNTY MEASURES
NO on Measure A - Advising on making the position of Los Angeles County Assessor an appointed position instead of an elected position.
Ok, yeah, we recently had an elected County Assessor go to jail for being an idiot, but I still think we should continue to elect this position.
NO on Measure B - Require producers of adult films to obtain a County public health permit, require adult film performers to use condoms while engaged in sex acts, require proof of blood borne pathogen training, require permit and notices posted to performers.
I'm appalled that the organization behind this seemingly well-meaning measure is actually trying to destroy the mechanisms the adult film industry has created for keeping its performers safe. True, nothing is perfect (one could say the same about condoms, too), but I watched first-hand as the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) wrecked the independent testing and medical center Adult Industry Medical. It was terrible to see it all unravel, and what AHF is doing just makes me queasy.
Read even more: Tristan Taormino: Measure B Does Not Protect Performers
YES on Measure J - Continue LA County's one-half [Measure R 30-year] sales tax for another 30 years or until voters decide to end it.
I actually have a lot of problems with Measure J, problems that were swaying me very precariously to the "No" camp until someone finally asked me: "Is LA going to have MORE transit needs or fewer transit needs in 30-60 years?" So I'm voting yes, because if we can line up the money for the future while speeding up current projects, I guess I'm fine with that, even though this measure stinks with bad math and hints at behind-the-scenes incompetence and possible corruption.
But, um. yes, still vote yes, because, really, it IS going to be expensive to put back all the stuff the last generation tore out. Turbo'ing the 30 years of Measure R funding into 10 years (er, 14?) of full-out building, and beyond that, continuing to fund ongoing transit expansion, is something that, again, we owe to the generations of Angelenos who will be able to live here without being car-dependent. So, yes. Gonna hold my breath and hope that Metro knows what its doing....
As always, think I'm off-base (or need a better explanation)? Leave a comment!
This is from my Los Angeles Ballot. Some names and measures may differ depending on your city, county, district, registered party affiliation, or brain chemistry.
Locate your L.A. County Polling Place ...
GENERAL ELECTION
November 6, 2012
-- POLLING PLACES STAY OPEN UNTIL 8PM --
Barack Obama and JOE BIDEN for PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES
Dianne Feinstein for UNITED STATES SENATOR
Xavier Becerra for UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE 34th District
Due to the redrawing of the congressional district lines, my Congresswoman now finds herself in the 40th District. Her anti-HSR stance (unusual for a Democrat) really pissed me off, so I'm not exactly sorry to see her go. I will miss annoying the crap out of her Legislative Director, though.
John A. Perez for MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 53rd District
Jackie Lacey for COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
STATE MEASURES
YES on Measure 30 - Increases taxes on earnings over $250,000 for seven years and sales taxes by 1/4 cent for four years, to fund schools.
This is the tax measure that Governor Brown tried, unsuccessfully, to get through the party-locked California Legislature. If he'd only needed a simple majority, or if the politics of a tax measure getting anything done weren't so polarizing, we probably wouldn't be voting on this, but since the proposal failed in Sacramento, Brown has taken the measure to the people.
So, here's the nuts of it. California law says that we have to devote 40% of state revenues for education. This works great in flush times, when the higher tax brackets are raking in the dough. In lean times, profits are down, or-- depending on how savvy your tax attorney is --completely nonexistent. And, so 40% doesn't go quite so far. This measure is Jerry Brown's solution. Increase taxes on the upper-income earners and then tack on a sales tax increase.
Personally, I'd much rather pay a slightly higher tax increase if it means having someone else's children turn out slightly less stupid. That's not rude to say, is it? Ok, that's a bit brusque. Look, the more we can invest in today's troubled youth, the less we have to spend on fixing the mistakes brought on by an ignorant next generation. Hmm.. I'd better stop before I start making enemies of my friends with children. Because, all seriousness, someday, they'll be the ones casting these votes, and I want them to grow up to be critical thinkers who won't believe everything they read just because it's on some website the night before an election. Oh man, there I go again...
NO on Measure 31 - Establishes two-year state budget. Sets rules for offsetting new expenditures, etc.
So, my dad actually contributed a part of this measure: In short, it would mandate that the language of bills be made available in print for three days prior to a vote by the California Legislature.
This, in my opinion, is the only really GOOD thing about Prop 31. The rest of it-- environmental exemptions, a pay-as-you-go provision, and the "fiscal emergency" exemptions granted to the governor (when are we NOT in a fiscal emergency?) are just too much to swallow.
Sorry dad...
NO on Measure 32 - Prohibits unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. Applies same use prohibition to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations or government contractors. Prohibits union and corporate contributions to candidates and their committees.
Ok, this one. This one is just lousy. But, like 31, there are things to *like* in this measure. I'm actually in favor of its veil of getting the money out of politics. That's actually very appealing. The problem is, the framers of 32 are trying to UNBALANCE the scales completely away from Labor. Big Business is who's backing Prop 32 and it's the major corporations who stand to benefit if Labor can't make its voice heard at election time. VOTE FUCK NO!
NO on Measure 33 - Allows insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company. Allows proportional discount for drivers with some prior coverage. Allows increased cost or drivers without history of continuous coverage.
So I just thought of a reason to vote YES on this. It would very likely RAISE THE COST OF ENTRY for new drivers, potentially decreasing the number of people flocking into auto-addiciton every year.
But, it's not enough to sway me. This is the work of the founder of Mercury Insurance, who is trying to mess around with the laws that control California's auto insurance as a sort of legacy thing. The problem is that it would punish anyone who leaves their insurance (my wonderful progressives who are dabbling with going "car free", I'm looking at you here!)
YES on Measure 34 - Repeals death penalty and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
Setting aside for a moment that I don't think a civilized society should be KILLING its citizens no matter how badly they fuck up, it turns out that we're spending a fortune on NOT killing our death-row inmates. If we got these prize-winners into the standard "life without parole" situation instead of their death row "celebrity prison" status, it actually pencils out that we'd save something like $230 million annually, of which Prop 34 would direct $100 million back into law enforcement and investigation.
Oh yeah, and we wouldn't occasionally carry out an irreversible sentence on someone who, it turns out, might not have done it. I mean, SCIENCE, right?
NO on Measure 35 - Increases prison sentences and fines for human trafficking convictions. Requires convicted human traffickers to register as sex offenders. Requires registered sex offenders to disclose Internet activities and identities.
Here's another one of those "done and done already" ones. There are laws on the books to cover this sort of thing, and it really seems like the author of this bill is trying to drum up support to run for Attorney General or something some day.
YES on Measure 36 - Revises [Three Strikes Law] to impose life sentence only when new felony conviction is serious and violent. May authorize re-sentencing if third strike conviction was not serious or violent.
Right now, we're re-punishing the punished when it comes to many three strikes convictions when we "throw the book" at someone for a minor infraction just because it's their 3rd time around the Criminal Justice circuit. This is good reform.
YES on Measure 37 - Requires labeling of food sold to consumers made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specific ways.
I don't know why we're singling out consumers made from plants or animals, oh wait-- hey, it's just sloppy sentence structure. And that's my point, actually. The NO side wants people to focus on the structure and technicalities of this proposition rather than what it would actually accomplish. Let's label the genetically modified stuff that's called out in this prop, and if something is left out, or if something is being called out in a disingenuous way , the Legislature can always draft additional laws to sharpen things up.
NO on Measure 38 - Increases tax on earnings using sliding scale, for twelve years. Revenues go to K-12 schools and early childhood programs, and for four years to repaying state debt.
You can actually vote YES on this one. But I'd ask that you also vote YES on Measure 30. Whichever one gets the most votes will carry the day for school funding, and in fact, I think I'd prefer it if most people voted yes on both. I'm a little annoyed at the Munger family for trying to push out 30 and 32 (I think the extended family of the bill's author has it out for the teachers unions), so I'm protesting by voting no on 38. But you guys can vote yes if it makes you happy. Whatever. Yes for smart children.
YES on Measure 39 - Requires multistate [sic] businesses to pay income taxes based on percentage of their sales in California.
Note that this is NOT a "Sales Tax" on out of state businesses...we already went 12 rounds with Amazon over that and that's over and done with. This is actually trying to close a loophole being exploited by businesses that have located out of state, but do a certain amount of business in the state. Tax the shit out of 'em, the freeloaders!
YES on Measure 40 - Referendum. Approves or rejects the new State Senate districts drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission.
The "NO" side has pulled out of this referendum, which was trying to go for a "do-over" on the redistricting issue that was passed at the ballot-box in 2008 and upheld at the ballot box in 2010. Oh, and they also lost a court case, but not before they put this stinker on the ballot and then decided it wasn't worth it after all. I'm too lazy to link, so just trust me on the rest of that.
COUNTY MEASURES
NO on Measure A - Advising on making the position of Los Angeles County Assessor an appointed position instead of an elected position.
Ok, yeah, we recently had an elected County Assessor go to jail for being an idiot, but I still think we should continue to elect this position.
NO on Measure B - Require producers of adult films to obtain a County public health permit, require adult film performers to use condoms while engaged in sex acts, require proof of blood borne pathogen training, require permit and notices posted to performers.
I'm appalled that the organization behind this seemingly well-meaning measure is actually trying to destroy the mechanisms the adult film industry has created for keeping its performers safe. True, nothing is perfect (one could say the same about condoms, too), but I watched first-hand as the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) wrecked the independent testing and medical center Adult Industry Medical. It was terrible to see it all unravel, and what AHF is doing just makes me queasy.
Read even more: Tristan Taormino: Measure B Does Not Protect Performers
YES on Measure J - Continue LA County's one-half [Measure R 30-year] sales tax for another 30 years or until voters decide to end it.
I actually have a lot of problems with Measure J, problems that were swaying me very precariously to the "No" camp until someone finally asked me: "Is LA going to have MORE transit needs or fewer transit needs in 30-60 years?" So I'm voting yes, because if we can line up the money for the future while speeding up current projects, I guess I'm fine with that, even though this measure stinks with bad math and hints at behind-the-scenes incompetence and possible corruption.
But, um. yes, still vote yes, because, really, it IS going to be expensive to put back all the stuff the last generation tore out. Turbo'ing the 30 years of Measure R funding into 10 years (er, 14?) of full-out building, and beyond that, continuing to fund ongoing transit expansion, is something that, again, we owe to the generations of Angelenos who will be able to live here without being car-dependent. So, yes. Gonna hold my breath and hope that Metro knows what its doing....
As always, think I'm off-base (or need a better explanation)? Leave a comment!