Progressive vs Conservative Analysis of CA Propositions

If you dare to do your own analysis, go here.  Get a pad of paper and expect to spend at least two or three hours on it.  Enjoy! I sure as hell didn’t <smile>

This was a harder exercise than I first expected, so if you find any flaws in the facts or my analysis, I invite it wholeheartedly.  I’m a big boy…I can take it. <smile> The Progressive stance of these props came from the Progressive Voter Guide.

11/10/12:  Updated with the results and a table at the end.

Proposition 30 – Temporary taxes to fund education. Guaranteed local public safety funding

  • Progressive: Yes
  • Conservative: No
  • Brian: No.  Historically, there’s no such thing as a temporary tax in CA and you can see by reading the text of the proposition (not the summary!) there are no real guarantees how the money will be spent.
  • RESULTS: YES  Stupid is as stupid does.

Proposition 31 – State Budget. State and Local government

  • Progressive: No
  • Conservative: Yes/No.  The conservative side of this is mixed.  The CAGOP says they want Yes…my other conservative sources say No.
  • Brian:  No.  My GOD…have you seen the amount of regulation and complexity that this prop will add to an already broken process?  Why don’t you just slit the wrists of CA and let it bleed out completely.  It wouldn’t take long; we’re almost dead now.  Seriously…something this complex…if an ordinary, intelligent citizen can’t understand it, then it is bad law IMHO.
  • Brian’s Wife, who’s 1/2 lawyer, 1/2 accountant:  Maybe.  She says that the prop pushes the money closer to the people who are going to use it…a good thing.
  • Tom McClintock (Conservative congressman, CA district 4): No.  “This one shines and stinks.  On the shiny side, it moves us toward performance-based budgeting, restores certain powers to the governor to make mid-year spending reductions and requires new spending to be paid for.  On the stinky side, it provides a two-year budget cycle that makes fiscal gimmickry all the easier and locks into the Constitution an incredibly anal process for local communities to adopt “Strategic Action Plans” serving such open-ended new age objectives as “community equity” and nudges them into establishing regional governments to push this agenda.  The purpose of local governments is to provide basic services, not to pursue utopian four-year plans.”
  • RESULTS: NO  I think this is for the best.  I don’t believe that the budget process has to be so complex.  It leaves too many people at the mercy of those who cannot understand the process.  You know…like our Federal Tax Code.

Proposition 32 – Political contributions by payroll deduction. Contributions by candidates

  • Progressive: No
  • Conservative: Yes
  • Brian:  Yes.  This takes the decision where union dues go politically away from union and back to the individual.  Bravo!  Yes…I hate unions.  But if you’re going to be forced into a union (state law here in CA), you should have control of what political stands your money takes.
  • RESULTS: NO  The unions continue to call the shots in CA.  Why would anyone want to do business here?

Proposition 33 – Auto insurance companies. Prices based on driver’s history of insurance coverage

  • Progressive: No
  • Conservative: Yes
  • Brian:  Yes.  What a concept…putting responsible drivers into groups that can benefit from their good driving habits by receiving discounts based on the cost of insuring them.  Now that idea sounds…PROGRESSIVE!
  • RESULTS: NO  I just cannot fathom why this didn’t pass.  This was such a (sorry Ra) “No Brainer”.  Sigh.

Proposition 34 – Death penalty

  • Progressive: Yes
  • Conservative: No
  • Brian:  Toss up.  No one gets executed in CA, so it is less a moral issue than what it costs a bankrupt CA.  What costs more, endless appeals or perpetual incarceration (I don’t know, honestly.  My guess: endless appeals)?  In CA, both prospects are for a practical purpose, identical because, as I said, no one gets executed in CA.
  • RESULTS: NO  No comment.

Proposition 35 – Human trafficking. Penalties

  • Progressive: Yes
  • Conservative: Yes
  • Brian: Yes.  You have to make a stand and what is happening in Maricopa County, AZ is proof that we need to do something.  Even if it is only ceremonially: we don’t have a Sheriff Joe Arpaio actually executing the laws {gasp}.
  • RESULTS: YES  How about that?

Proposition 36– Three Strikes law. Repeat Felony offenders. Penalties

  • Progressive: Yes
  • Conservative: No
  • Brian: No.  The bottom line: remove the three strikes law as it is enforced now, watch crime rates rise.  Questions.  Yes…is it unfair that they go for 25-life for robbing a convenience store?  Welp: when they committed the crime, they knew damn well that was the consequence.  I say f*** them; they are the masters of their own destiny as are the law-abiding citizens of CA.  My message to the third-strikers?  Enjoy the grey bar hotel and being someone’s bitch.
  • RESULTS: NO  Expect the non-violent and violent crime stats in CA to go up because of this. 

Proposition 37 – Genetically engineered foods. Labeling

  • Progressive: Yes
  • Conservative: No
  • Brian: No.  Just what CA needs: more regulation.  Continue to make it harder for companies to do business in CA.  Brilliant strategy, liberals.  Bloody brilliant.  Just bloody brilliant.  You’d have to be intelligent beyond all reason to be so massively stupid.
  • RESULTS: NO  Well HAL-A-FLIPPIN’-LULIA!!  A small bit of common sense eeks out of a normally stupid CA constituency.  Bravo!

Proposition 38 – Tax to fund education and early childhood programs

  • Progressive: No
  • Conservative: No
  • Brian: Are you flippin’ kidding?  Not just no, but HELL NO.  If you think adding to the tax burden here in CA for anything when the CA legislature can’t properly manage what they have with existing programs, why in HELL would we give them another program AND more money?  I’ll wait while your formulate an answer.
  • RESULTS: NO  I’m kind of surprised the normally suicidal CA citizen didn’t vote for this.  They must have thought it was a conservative tax.

Proposition 39 -Tax treatment for multi-state business. Clean energy and energy efficiency funding

  • Progressive: Yes
  • Conservative: No
  • Brian: No.  Funding green energy is so 2008.  How’s that been working out for you, CA?  Solar and wind would die without government subsidy because the free market rejects it (for now).  On the other side of this prop, protectionism for CA jobs will end up with higher prices for the CA consumer & the historically-proven “unintended consequences” of losing those very same jobs to other states that are in an unprotected market environment.
  • RESULTS: YES  Funding green energy will just fail.  You didn’t hear it here first.  Has anyone in CA ever cracked open a flippin’ economics book?  Sigh.

Proposition 40 – Redistricting. State senate districts. Referendum

  • Progressive: Yes
  • Conservative: Yes
  • Brian: Yes. But there’s no perfect solution to this problem.  As much as I hate just about every damn committee that sits in the CA government, this was voted on by the citizens of CA and based on that fact alone it trumps the ‘non-smoke-filled rooms’ where those “deals” are always made in the legislature.
  • RESULTS: YES  I’ll take the small victories <smile>.

Table courtesy of PolicyMic


Leave a Reply If You Dare!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s