2008 California, County of San Mateo and City of San Carlos Propositions
As is my wont, I spent (with my wife's help) a lot of time thinking about the propositions we have to vote on, this year. Only a couple of these were completely obvious to me right out the gate, and a couple of our decisions surprised me a little bit. I'd like to document my thoughts on it, and explain things - in part so I can keep myself honest on what I was thinking, later, and, obviously, in hope that I can convince some people to vote the way I'm going to.
In order:
NO: 1A - SAFE, RELIABLE HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN BOND ACT
I'd love to see a high-speed bullet train to Los Angelas, I really would. Call me crazy in thinking that right now isn't a good time to borrow billions of dollars to do it.
YES: 2 - STANDARDS FOR CONFINING FARM ANIMALS. INITIATIVE STATUTE
Some may find it surprising that a libertarian like me is voting "yes" on this one. My wife was an aggie major at Cornell, so she's been inside these farms. Most of what the proposition ads highlight are actually irrelevant, for a number of reasons. The primary effect of this proposition would be to take chickens that lay eggs, which are currently confined six-to-a-very-small-cage and make them instead be confined at something like two-to-a-very-small-cage. The law seems to us to be surprisingly well-crafted; it does not, in fact, outlaw most reasonable farming practices. I do feel that animal cruelty is an important moral issue. Megan Mcardle, who is now a vegan, wrote last year:
...I'm essentially an aggregate utilitarian: I think that as long as [animals'] lives are worth living, it is a positive good to [raise them to] eat them.It is hard, to be sure, to determine what a chicken considers "the good life". However, I'm pretty sure that industrial farming conditions do not constitute a life worth living; if those chickens had the cognitive and mechanical capacity to commit suicide, they would.
This is my position as well. Seeing that Prop 2 seems to be well-crafted to attack specifically this issue, I am supporting it.
NO: 3 - CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL BOND ACT. GRANT PROGRAM. INITIATIVE STATUTE
In the state of California, bond acts get qualified for one of two reasons - either the legislature approves them, in which case they have to ask us to fund the bonds, or, groups can come up with their own acts without any consideration by the legislature of whether there is a need. One of the most egregious misuses of the proposition system has been for construction interests to push bond acts for popular-sounding projects in hope that they'll receive the money spent. I'm unclear who's behind this initiative - construction groups, hospitals themselves, or even the parents of sick children. Regardless, this is a case of an interested group trying to get us to borrow money and spend it on them. The legislature didn't vote on this proposal. My general policy on bond issues is to vote "no", especially now, and especially on items that weren't vetted by the legislature, to begin with.
NO: 4 - WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR'S PREGNANCY
The existence of fundamentalists of all faiths make a "no" vote on this one pretty obvious to me.
YES: 5 - NONVIOLENT DRUG OFFENSES. SENTENCING, PAROLE AND REHABILITATION
This one was hard for me. The other terrible abuse we've seen of the proposition system has been to "earmark" some amount of the general budget for specific policy outcomes. Because we've been doing this for decades, I think it's quite possible we're now looking at a system where having a balanced budget in California would actually be illegal. It's certainly impractical.
However, I also believe that the greatest moral outrage our country perpetrates on a daily basis is the War on Drugs. It is my deepest hope that all the Democrats outraged at the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo and the perceived loss of civil liberties under George W. Bush will transfer that anger and hatred to what we do, every day, to our own citizens in order to prevent them from doing things that harm only themselves. Of course, I'm not optimistic.
In any event, as much as I am generally opposed to "earmarks" of this nature, it is very clear that the politicians in Sacramento are too afraid of being seen "soft on crime" to make rational decisions, here. This proposition, while far from perfect, would try to shunt non-violent drug offenders into a treatment and rehabilitation program, instead of sending them to prison in order to shut off any future job opportunities and teach them how to be real criminals. In the end, I feel I have to hold my nose at the funding methods and vote "Yes" on 5.
NO: 6 - POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING
This is an example of the type of earmarking I'm clearly against. This earmarks nearly a billion dollars - helpfully indexed to inflation to keep rising in the future - for "police, sheriffs, district attorneys, adult probation, jails and juvenile probation facilities". It also "Makes approximately 30 revisions to California criminal law, many of which cover gang-related offenses. Revisions create multiple new crimes and additional penalties, some with the potential for new life sentences". Because, you know, we just need to have more things illegal and put more people in jail for longer.
NO: 7 - RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION
This requires that, by 2025, 50% of the power generated in California must come from "renewable" sources. Note that nuclear does not count as "renewable" (which, honestly, it isn't, but that's not really relevant to anything). This is just the sort of ham-handed top-down control we tend to regret later. If this passes, no doubt, the same people who voted for it will be screaming at the governor about how expensive their electric bills are.
I'll also note that many leading environmental groups are opposing this as being poorly drafted. Frankly, anyone who is concerned in any way about global warming should vote no; I consider fundamentally unserious any person who thinks that carbon dioxide is a significant cause of rising temperatures and yet does not also support significant nuclear electrical generation.
NO: 8 - ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY
If you feel otherwise, don't argue with me, because I'll probably end up yelling at you. This is the closest thing to the civil rights battle of the 1960s our generation will (hopefully) ever see. While I try very hard not to take rational discourse off the table, in my opinion, if you support this measure, you are simply not a member of civilized society.
NO: 9 - CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. VICTIMS' RIGHTS. PAROLE
Makes it easier for victims to keep the criminals that wronged them in prison, longer. There have been a few cases of people getting paroled who shouldn't have. However, in general, I continue to think that the thing we're not missing in this state is tools to keep people locked up long enough.
NO: 10 - ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
This would borrow $5 billion to pay people rebates to buy Priuses (in effect, and do some research). I think this would be a bad idea at any time, it's an especially bad idea when we're already billions in the hole.
YES: 11 - REDISTRICTING
I continue to consider gerrymandering to be one of the greatest threats The Republic has ever faced. Making the legislature do things that are in our interest, and against theirs, should be what the proposition system is all about. This proposition's loss in 2006 cut off hopes in the proposition system for me. I have no idea if it'll pass, or not, but if it did, it would go a long way to convincing me that maybe all this is worth it. This and 8 were the two I knew how I wanted to vote before I read anything.
NO: 12 - VETERANS' BOND ACT OF 2008
This borrows a billion dollars to lend it to veterans to buy houses and farms with. As much as I support the sacrifices our men and women in uniform make, I continue to think that spending a billion dollars we don't have right now is an especially bad idea.
NO: San Mateo Q - 8% tax on parking providers
NO: San Mateo R - 2.5% tax on rental car companies
San Mateo has been running a budget deficit for a while. This is an attempt to close the gap. The proponents try to claim that this deficit has been because of state spending cuts, but it's clear that San Mateo has been spending more money than they get for a long time, now. Since 2005, revenues have gone up 3% per year, while expenditures have gone up 8.5% per year. We need to cut spending, not raise taxes, here.
YES: San Carlos S - +$75 parcel tax for San Carlos schools
San Carlos, similarly, has been running a structural deficit for a while. Since the unfortunate proposition in 2000 to allow education bonds with a simple majority (rather then 60% majority), they have also come to us, hat-in-hand, for hundreds of millions in bonds, every two years.
I'd vowed that, if they did it again, I'd vote "no". This time, however, they have come to us with a tax increase. In part, this actually is to offset lower educational spending by the state. In general, I prefer that these things be funded, locally, and with taxes and not bonds, so I'm supporting this measure.