Comments | cahwyguy: <strong class="lj-user"><a href="/read/user/cahwyguy">cahwyguy</a></strong>'s Ballot Analysis: Part 1

cahwyguy

cahwyguy's Ballot Analysis: Part 1 - The Propositions

Oct 25, 2008 08:23

This is the first of a multiple part post looking at the issues on my
sample ballot. In this first part, I'm going to be looking at the propositions,
and giving you my thinking. Of course, you are free to try to convince me
otherwise, so do your best.

Statewide Measures

( Clicky Here for the analysis )

decision-2008, politics

Comments 58

geah October 25 2008, 16:57:24 UTC

Outstanding analysis. I agree with you on almost all of them.

A little later I'll change your mind on one or two.

cahwyguy October 25 2008, 18:06:12 UTC

Or you could, in your journal, post your analysis of how you are making your selections. I'd love to see how you reason these out.

geah October 25 2008, 18:35:09 UTC

Well, on most of them I'd just copy your reasons. Yeah, gee, I'd like all that neat stuff, but it costs money we don't have!

cahwyguy October 25 2008, 18:39:08 UTC

Thanks for the compliment. But especially on the people, I'd love to see your reasons *for* candidates, as opposed to your response to me, which is likely to be reasons *against*.

Thread 7

elasticity October 25 2008, 19:25:02 UTC

Daniel, from the bottom of my heart, I sincerely urge you to please consider a yes vote in Prop 1A. This is a long-term investment for the state's future. The Golden Gate Bridge, the Bay Bridge, and the California Aqueduct were massive public infrastructure projects financed and built during terrible economic times. What they -- and HSR -- all have in common, is that the economic and social benefits last far beyond the term of the bonds. In the meantime, this, the largest public works project in state history, will put people to work building something usefulRemarkably, 20% of Amtrak's ridership is in California alone, thanks to the $2 billion the state has invested in its Amtrak system since Prop 116 was approved in 1990. Prop 1A would continue the state's great modern tradition of leadership on trains. It would cost each Californian $19 per year for 30 years. It would allow the state to gracefully grow from 37 million people now to 50 million by 2035. It would position the state's businesses to be competitive and its quality of life ( ... )

geah October 25 2008, 19:45:05 UTC

Here are my two questions:

What is going to be the cost-per-ride going to be, and what are we going to charge people to ride it?

Last time I checked, Metrolink cost $20-per-ride, but we weren't charging anything near that. If it's changed, I'd like to know.

elasticity October 25 2008, 19:55:12 UTC

Metrolink fares depend on distance and time of day, and HSR fares will certainly also be demand-managed. The HSR Authority (which has some very cool multimedia features on their site, btw) has declared that it will cost $55 one way LA-SF, in current dollars of course. Inflation will undoubtedly push that higher. But it will increase the costs of everything in general. I would expect more severe inflation for goods and services that are dependent on oil, such as air fares ( ... )

geah October 25 2008, 20:18:44 UTC

Okay, you've told me how much a ticket is going to cost.

How much is the actual cost? Is there no government subsidy of the ticket price?

Of course, I'd take the train over the plane if only to avoid the TSA kabuki theater.

Thread 15

No on Prop. 4 geah October 25 2008, 20:08:29 UTC

As you know, I am 100% pro-choice. 100%. However, as with many things I think are fine, they're fine only for adults. Undoubtedly, medical procedures are one of those things ( ... )

Re: No on Prop. 4 cahwyguy October 26 2008, 04:24:19 UTC

In response to your comment, I reviewed what a minor can do without parental consent. I also looked at a brief regarding the effects of parental notification. This report notes that parental communication on issues related to sex is strong without mandates, and that most young women communicate with their parents about their decision to have an abortion.

So, you're a firm believer (as I gather) in less government, that government should not be sticking its fingers into areas where it has no business. So why should government be telling us when children have to tell their parents something. That's the government being a nanny, and I'm pretty sure I can guess your opinion on nanny laws.

Yes, parental notification is a good thing, but we don't need this law.

Re: No on Prop. 4 geah October 26 2008, 04:59:09 UTC

So, you're a firm believer (as I gather) in less government, that
government should not be sticking its fingers into areas where it has no
business. So why should government be telling us when children have to
tell their parents something. That's the government being a nanny, and
I'm pretty sure I can guess your opinion on nanny laws. Please. You're better than this ( ... )

Re: No on Prop. 4 dieppe October 26 2008, 07:55:17 UTC

Can a 13-year old give informed consent on actually carrying a pregnancy to full term and raising or adopting out a child (or even possibly dying during childbirth hiding in the bathroom without medical attention)? Which is what would happen if they don't talk to anybody.

I'm also hesitant because these are religious organizations trying to put their religious views into State Law. I'm a firm believer in the Separation of Church and State and would like it to stay that way.

And face it, it's most likely that most pregnant 13-year-olds WOULD be talking with her parents in the first place---why should the State need to try and enforce that relationship? If she isn't, maybe she is afraid for her life, or that she'll be beaten (again?)... If there's a reason she is NOT talking to her parents about her pregnancy---maybe she is in the best position to decide that, not millions of anti-choice-theocracy-loving voters to decide ( ... )

Thread 36