Here is a guide that I hope you will find helpful as you prepare to make decisions on how
you will make an informed vote on the five Propositions that will be on the ballot
Tuesday, June 8th.
If you are anything like I am, I really don’t enjoy reading someone else’s interpretation of what I’m quite capable of reading myself if I had any desire to do so. Therein is where the problem lies. We pay good money in taxes to send representatives, who receive adequate compensation, to Sacramento to make our lives easier by representing us and our best interests. Somewhere between their home districts and Sacramento they lose perspective and begin serving their personal ideology and special interests.
I studied each Proposition purely on the merit of what it means, with no spin, and no regard for party or special interest. The overriding element of this study would be the amount of hype and advertising dollars/time each Proposition receives. As an example Prop 13 would have a low advertising budget as compared to Prop 16. Why would that be? If a Proposition needs a sales pitch to make it worthy, then somebody or some group stands to gain from making it seem appealing beyond its own individual merit. If you base your decision on the commercials you see or read your vote on these Propositions will not be an educated vote.
Happy voting!
Proposition 13, Seismic Retrofitting was written and presented by Republican Roy Ashburn, who is an admitted homosexual, and was arrested for DUI March 3, 2010. Then at trial on April 14th Ashburn pled no contest to 2 counts of driving while intoxicated. He was sentenced to 2 days in jail and 3 years probation. Additionally his driver’s license was suspended, he has to attend a class for DUI offenders, and pay fines and fees of nearly $2,000. But, besides that he’s a helluva fella! The Democrats and AFSCME seem to think this is a good measure therefore it triggers an automatic skepticism in me. The overall consensus of opinion is this is a beneficial measure and will not only exclude costly assessments for the taxpayer for safety purposes, but encourage retrofits for earthquake safety compliance sake, and after study I agree. Vote YES on Prop 13
Proposition 14, Open-primary ballot measure was written and presented by the California Legislature. Oops! There’s a deal breaker for me right out of the chutes. Well if some of you feel our Legislators have just done a crackerjack job and haven’t run California right into the ground, read on! On March 12, 2010 Supreme Court Judge Allen Sumner ruled that the wording had to be changed. Just the fact that Proposition 14 was subject to a lawsuit just two months ago makes me suspicious that the merit of this measure has nothing to do with a benefit to the voter. Besides everything, here are two substantial reasons I have no use for this measure. I want to know what party affiliation a primary candidate represents. I don’t want my choices limited to the two candidates that accumulated the most primary votes in spite of party affiliation. I want the ability for a write-in candidate for the general election, oh wait that’s three reasons, I’m sorry! Without any reservations Vote NO on Proposition 14.
Proposition 15, Public Funding of Some Elections was originally written and presented by State Senator Loni Hancock from Berkeley. Another measure taken to court that resulted in language adjustment because of ambiguity. I already have a huge dislike for the campaign spending during State and Federal elections. The shape of our current economy (especially California) makes the campaign spending allowed an atrocity. I will make two statements that should be enough to enlighten any who read this. The impact of this measure would only involve the election of the Secretary of State in 2014 and 2018. THE PASSAGE OF THIS MEASURE WOULD REPEAL THE CALIFORNIA-VOTER APPROVED BAN ON THE PUBLIC FINANCING OF CAMPAIGNS. What would be refreshing to see would be a new measure written between now and 2014 that would put an equal ceiling for each candidate of privately donated funds with no public funding and put a stop to candidates or special interests buying public office. Until that time arrives there is no other suggestion than to Vote NO on Proposition 15.
Proposition 16 (to amend the Constitution), the New Two Thirds Requirement for Local Public Electricity Providers Act being pushed as the Taxpayers Right to Vote. This act is sponsored by PG&E which to my way of thinking has special interest written all over it. I know of no one on the face of this earth that abhors big government and supports free enterprise more than I do. I detest special interest groups, monopolies, and restriction of any method of preventing taxpayer savings. I also don’t like the government sticking their nose into things (private enterprise & liberty) that it doesn’t belong in. With that said I urge every Californian to quit watching these propaganda commercials pro and con and do some research and educate yourself. If you must take the easy way out then take my word for it because I have studied it. No brief paragraph on this one.
I normally wouldn’t resort to acknowledging Berkeley Law in fear that I may become permanently left-handed but they really have a pretty good independent analysis on Prop 16. I’m going to get right to the point by having you answer some simple questions in your own mind. Why would PG&E spend $41.1 million pushing this Proposition if it was such a great thing for us? Ben & Jerry’s don’t have to spend a dime to get me to think a pint of Cherry Garcia is a good idea! Why is Proposition 16 an amendment to the Constitution as versus a statutory initiative or legislation? Does the 2/3rd- majority vote protect the taxpayer or make it harder for the monopoly to be challenged by publicly provided power? Why is this referred to as the Taxpayers Right to Vote Act, don’t we already have that right? Why would the taxpayers want to shut the door or make it so difficult (2/3rd-majority) for the competing rates from public utilities to be an option?
Proposition 16 is clearly in favor of special interests. This Prop is presented as a Constitutional amendment and no movements on less than a 2/3rd-majority vote making this measure one that would be around forever. It doesn’t need to be a Constitutional amendment and all the voting does not warrant a 2/3rd-majority to safeguard the taxpayer. The whole structure of this measure seems like the fox guarding the hen house. Vote NO on Proposition 16.
Proposition 17, Allows Auto Insurance Companies to Base Their Prices in Part on a Driver's History of Insurance Coverage Initiative Statute. Now that’s a mouthful. In short, this measure would allow auto insurance companies to give what is known as a persistency discount and could be based on an insurer’s carryover experience from a previous carrier. Previously Proposition 103 did not allow that type of flexibility because when someone changed carriers they lost the previous carriers experience for longevity and any discount applied to that feature. Mercury Insurance is the sponsor for Prop 17 and has already contributed $13.5 million on this measure, why?
On the surface this measure allows the insured to retain their continuous insured longevity even though they switched carriers, and it sounds pretty good. A person would then be able to shop around for a lower rate and still be able to take advantage of a discount that the previous carrier allowed for your loyalty. There is a hidden agenda in this measure. It will allow Mercury to lowball some insured to capture their business, but would now have a method to raise premiums on others to make up for the discount offered their newfound business. What we have going on here is more of that special interest stuff like we saw in Prop 16 with an attempt to manipulate the voters to alter an existing law for huge gains. Vote NO on Proposition 17.
Replies