We recommend a Yes vote on Proposition 48, which is needed to go forward with a compact between the State of California and two local Native American tribes. It will allow a casino to be built in the Fresno area.
We think casino gambling, and the state lottery, are not good things. But given that stupid people will gamble, it is better that the money go to the California government or the Indian tribes, rather than to organized criminals or the government of Nevada.
Yes on 48.
Text and Arguments, California Proposition 48
Showing posts with label California. Show all posts
Showing posts with label California. Show all posts
Thursday, October 9, 2014
Yes on 47, Misdemeanor Penalties, California Proposition on Criminal Sentences
Vote Yes on Proposition 47, "Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties."
California Proposition 47 changes several crimes that are now felonies to misdemeanors. In cases of theft, shoplifting, and forged or bad checks it simply clearly sets any crimes involving under $950 in the misdemeanor category.
Felonies are serious crimes, typically punishable by imprisonment for a year or more (or in uncivilized nations that still retain the death penalty, by death). Typically felons are sent to state prison, though they may be but in local jails or even just probation.
Misdemeanors are crimes which are less serious and typically involve smaller fines and imprisonment for less than one year. Criminals sentenced for misdemeanors serve their time, if any, in local prisons.
Many people who regularly commit crimes assess the risks versus rewards of a particular crime. Reducing a felony crime to a misdemeanor may encourage criminals to commit more crimes.
So why reduce sentences? Keeping prisoners for long periods of time in state prisons is expensive. When such prisoners are not already career criminals or gang members, they often "graduate" to that status, with state prisons acting as schools.
For many people who are not hell bent on a career of crime, a short jail stay is about as effective as a long one in deterring future criminal activity. They are less likely to join gangs in local jails.
There are a number of crimes covered under Proposition 47, but probably the most important one is drug possession. Apparently in a typical year 40,000 people in the state of California are given felony convictions just for possessing small quantities of illegal drugs. Most are probably not drug dealers. They are just users. They are astray, but may otherwise be law-abiding, productive citizens. Sending them to state prison is a waste of prison space and taxpayer dollars.
Effects of 47 will be mixed, but on the whole they are fairer and will allow state resources to be freed up for better uses. Including stopping serious crimes.
Yes on 47, no felony charges for drug possession for personal use.
California Proposition 47 official text and arguments
California Proposition 47 changes several crimes that are now felonies to misdemeanors. In cases of theft, shoplifting, and forged or bad checks it simply clearly sets any crimes involving under $950 in the misdemeanor category.
Felonies are serious crimes, typically punishable by imprisonment for a year or more (or in uncivilized nations that still retain the death penalty, by death). Typically felons are sent to state prison, though they may be but in local jails or even just probation.
Misdemeanors are crimes which are less serious and typically involve smaller fines and imprisonment for less than one year. Criminals sentenced for misdemeanors serve their time, if any, in local prisons.
Many people who regularly commit crimes assess the risks versus rewards of a particular crime. Reducing a felony crime to a misdemeanor may encourage criminals to commit more crimes.
So why reduce sentences? Keeping prisoners for long periods of time in state prisons is expensive. When such prisoners are not already career criminals or gang members, they often "graduate" to that status, with state prisons acting as schools.
For many people who are not hell bent on a career of crime, a short jail stay is about as effective as a long one in deterring future criminal activity. They are less likely to join gangs in local jails.
There are a number of crimes covered under Proposition 47, but probably the most important one is drug possession. Apparently in a typical year 40,000 people in the state of California are given felony convictions just for possessing small quantities of illegal drugs. Most are probably not drug dealers. They are just users. They are astray, but may otherwise be law-abiding, productive citizens. Sending them to state prison is a waste of prison space and taxpayer dollars.
Effects of 47 will be mixed, but on the whole they are fairer and will allow state resources to be freed up for better uses. Including stopping serious crimes.
Yes on 47, no felony charges for drug possession for personal use.
California Proposition 47 official text and arguments
No on 46, Drug and Alcohol Testing for Doctors, California Proposition
Doctors do need to be better regulated or policed. Normally we would support a proposition that headed us in the right direction even if it was not exactly what we wanted. But Proposition 46 ignores real issues while focusing on insubstantial ones.
Do some doctors abuse drugs? Yes! A small percentage of doctors either take painkillers and other mood-changing drugs themselves or prescribe them for patients based on getting paid for it, not based on medical need.
But all doctors should not be required to take drug and alcohol tests. That is a Big Brother solution to a human failure problem. Plus doctors are smart: if ordinary cons can beat drug tests, you know doctor-addicts will find a way to beat them.
What really needs policing in the world of Doctors today?
In addition to having the existing, doctor-dominated Medical Board of California tighten up on incompetence, we need a separate board to examine complaints about physicians overcharging patients (or insurers). "Drive by" charges, when a friend who is out-of-network peaks at a patient, or even performs a real service, and then charges far more than insurers normally allow, should be stopped cold by heavy fines for such practices.
Doctors who refuse to take insurance, or refuse Medi-Cal or Medicare patients, or try to cheat the system in any way should lose their licenses and suffer heavy fines.
There does seem to be a doctor shortage in California. This results from the American Medical Association's longstanding policy of refusing to license new medical schools. In addition, current medical schools should be enrolling and graduating more patients. The shortage of doctors drives the price of medical care up more than any other single factor.
We do believe the cap on pain and suffering damages is too low. But Proposition 46 is not the way to address that issue.
No on 46. We need genuine reform of the profession, not Big Brother tactics on a narrow issue.
California Proposition 46 text and arguments
Do some doctors abuse drugs? Yes! A small percentage of doctors either take painkillers and other mood-changing drugs themselves or prescribe them for patients based on getting paid for it, not based on medical need.
But all doctors should not be required to take drug and alcohol tests. That is a Big Brother solution to a human failure problem. Plus doctors are smart: if ordinary cons can beat drug tests, you know doctor-addicts will find a way to beat them.
What really needs policing in the world of Doctors today?
In addition to having the existing, doctor-dominated Medical Board of California tighten up on incompetence, we need a separate board to examine complaints about physicians overcharging patients (or insurers). "Drive by" charges, when a friend who is out-of-network peaks at a patient, or even performs a real service, and then charges far more than insurers normally allow, should be stopped cold by heavy fines for such practices.
Doctors who refuse to take insurance, or refuse Medi-Cal or Medicare patients, or try to cheat the system in any way should lose their licenses and suffer heavy fines.
There does seem to be a doctor shortage in California. This results from the American Medical Association's longstanding policy of refusing to license new medical schools. In addition, current medical schools should be enrolling and graduating more patients. The shortage of doctors drives the price of medical care up more than any other single factor.
We do believe the cap on pain and suffering damages is too low. But Proposition 46 is not the way to address that issue.
No on 46. We need genuine reform of the profession, not Big Brother tactics on a narrow issue.
California Proposition 46 text and arguments
Yes on 45, California Proposition Regulating Health Insurance Rate Changes
Individual Californians are required to buy healthcare insurance.
But we have little power to negotiate rates with the big healthcare insurance companies. Currently they set rates, and we just have to pay them.
We the people of the State of California need a way to fairly negotiate rates with the insurers.
While it is not perfect, the only reasonable way to do that is to empower the State of California government to reject rate hikes that are unfair to us.
That is what Proposition 45 establishes. Rate hikes (with the exception of those negotiated by large corporate employers) would have to be approved by the office of the Insurance Commissioner.
It is not ideal. But the Insurance Commissioner is elected, so at least we can change Commissioners if we don't like the results.
Yes on 45, Healthcare Insurance Rate Oversite.
Text and official arguments for California Propositon 45
But we have little power to negotiate rates with the big healthcare insurance companies. Currently they set rates, and we just have to pay them.
We the people of the State of California need a way to fairly negotiate rates with the insurers.
While it is not perfect, the only reasonable way to do that is to empower the State of California government to reject rate hikes that are unfair to us.
That is what Proposition 45 establishes. Rate hikes (with the exception of those negotiated by large corporate employers) would have to be approved by the office of the Insurance Commissioner.
It is not ideal. But the Insurance Commissioner is elected, so at least we can change Commissioners if we don't like the results.
Yes on 45, Healthcare Insurance Rate Oversite.
Text and official arguments for California Propositon 45
Yes on California Rainy Day Fund, Proposition 2
Californians have suffered from fundamental budget problems that will be at least alleviated, if not fixed, by Proposition 2.
Currently the state budget amplifies the pain of recessions while adding to the joys of boom times. Amplifying swings in the economy does long-term damage to the economy. Since we are at a point of upswing in the economy, now is a good time to fix this junky-mentality.
In good times the government is flooded with tax revenue. Everybody wants to spend it. It is hard for legislators to say No to teachers and other state employees, welfare recipients, rich friends, pork projects or raises for themselves when the economy is booming. Despite the long series of booms and busts in the economy, they can't plan for the inevitable slowdown, which sometimes becomes a bust.
In bad times, when lots of newly unemployed people need help, suddenly there is not enough money to cover even the old crowd sucking on the tit of government. Teachers won't give back raises, so their youngest, most vulnerable members are laid off. New road construction grinds to a halt. All along the line there are cutbacks even as the state runs an illegal deficit (California is supposed to balance its budget each year, but it does not, especially during recessions).
As a result California has among the highest taxes in the nation, but it no longer has the best schools or roads. Too much money goes to paying interest on debt.
You can argue with the details of Proposition 2, but it represents a fix that is urgently needed. When the state has a surplus it will be used partly to pay off debt and create a Rainy Day Fund that can be used in times of recession.
My main argument with Proposition 2 is that it does not go far enough, but we are not likely to be offered a chance to vote on a better version of this idea.
So please vote Yes on 2 in the November 4, 2014 election. Help California steady its budget, so that government can do the job it is supposed to do both in boom and bust economies.
Summary and Text of California Proposition 2 (at California Secretary of State site)
Currently the state budget amplifies the pain of recessions while adding to the joys of boom times. Amplifying swings in the economy does long-term damage to the economy. Since we are at a point of upswing in the economy, now is a good time to fix this junky-mentality.
In good times the government is flooded with tax revenue. Everybody wants to spend it. It is hard for legislators to say No to teachers and other state employees, welfare recipients, rich friends, pork projects or raises for themselves when the economy is booming. Despite the long series of booms and busts in the economy, they can't plan for the inevitable slowdown, which sometimes becomes a bust.
In bad times, when lots of newly unemployed people need help, suddenly there is not enough money to cover even the old crowd sucking on the tit of government. Teachers won't give back raises, so their youngest, most vulnerable members are laid off. New road construction grinds to a halt. All along the line there are cutbacks even as the state runs an illegal deficit (California is supposed to balance its budget each year, but it does not, especially during recessions).
As a result California has among the highest taxes in the nation, but it no longer has the best schools or roads. Too much money goes to paying interest on debt.
You can argue with the details of Proposition 2, but it represents a fix that is urgently needed. When the state has a surplus it will be used partly to pay off debt and create a Rainy Day Fund that can be used in times of recession.
My main argument with Proposition 2 is that it does not go far enough, but we are not likely to be offered a chance to vote on a better version of this idea.
So please vote Yes on 2 in the November 4, 2014 election. Help California steady its budget, so that government can do the job it is supposed to do both in boom and bust economies.
Summary and Text of California Proposition 2 (at California Secretary of State site)
No on Water Bond, California Proposition 1
California is in a drought, so what better time for the state legislature to put a big boondoggle water bond bill on the ballot?
The bill will waste over $7.5 billion dollars, not including interest. It is a hodgepodge, partly to service big business, with a few bandages for the environment in hopes of picking up the environmentalist vote.
California needs to conserve water. If we need more water for Los Angeles lawns in dry years it needs to come from outside of California. It needs to come all the way from Oregon, Washington State, or even Canada.
We need to reduce the population of California (and the U.S., and the world). California should adopt a one-child per family policy. Then in a couple of generations we would not have a perpetual water shortage.
What we don't need is a Proposition that allocates money without telling us what projects it is actually going to fund. The reality is water is likely to be pumped from northern California, where it is scarce, to southern California, where it is precious. Look at a aerial photo of Los Angeles area backyard swimming pools, and you will see what the project is really for. That and giant corporate farms in the Central Valley, which farmers have turned into a desert by using unsustainable practices.
We don't need more dams on the Klamath, Russian, Sacramento and Trinity rivers to divert water to be wasted in southern California.
Proposition 1 does not allow for spending money on water storage in the northern and central coastal regions. All the storage money is limited to being deployed in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys and in southern California.
Proposition 1 says it will safeguard the quality of water supplies for both humans and the environment, but throws just enough money at those ideas to assure us that the money will fund endless environmental litigation and "planning" of projects that in the end will be mostly left unfunded.
Instead of a giant boondoggle, show us a plan for each project, and fund each project that is truly worthwhile out of increases in water rates by the people who will actually use the water.
Vote NO on California Proposition 1
Text of California Proposition 1
The bill will waste over $7.5 billion dollars, not including interest. It is a hodgepodge, partly to service big business, with a few bandages for the environment in hopes of picking up the environmentalist vote.
California needs to conserve water. If we need more water for Los Angeles lawns in dry years it needs to come from outside of California. It needs to come all the way from Oregon, Washington State, or even Canada.
We need to reduce the population of California (and the U.S., and the world). California should adopt a one-child per family policy. Then in a couple of generations we would not have a perpetual water shortage.
What we don't need is a Proposition that allocates money without telling us what projects it is actually going to fund. The reality is water is likely to be pumped from northern California, where it is scarce, to southern California, where it is precious. Look at a aerial photo of Los Angeles area backyard swimming pools, and you will see what the project is really for. That and giant corporate farms in the Central Valley, which farmers have turned into a desert by using unsustainable practices.
We don't need more dams on the Klamath, Russian, Sacramento and Trinity rivers to divert water to be wasted in southern California.
Proposition 1 does not allow for spending money on water storage in the northern and central coastal regions. All the storage money is limited to being deployed in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys and in southern California.
Proposition 1 says it will safeguard the quality of water supplies for both humans and the environment, but throws just enough money at those ideas to assure us that the money will fund endless environmental litigation and "planning" of projects that in the end will be mostly left unfunded.
Instead of a giant boondoggle, show us a plan for each project, and fund each project that is truly worthwhile out of increases in water rates by the people who will actually use the water.
Vote NO on California Proposition 1
Text of California Proposition 1
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
No on California Proposition 41 Bond Act
California Proposition 41, which is up before the voters for the June 3, 2014 primary election, is the sort of thing every voter has seen before. Despite the state being overburdened by debt, special interests will devise a plan to borrow more while hiding their true agenda.
Veterans Housing and Homeless Prevention Bond Act of 2014 might help veterans including homeless veterans a bit, but its real victors would be the investment banks that sell the bonds; construction moguls; and land speculators.
If the people of California want to help the homeless or veterans, through the State of California, the money should come out of an annual budget, not further borrowing.
Where will this alleged housing be built? Will your city, town, or county benefit? Probably not. It will go where the most corrupt politicians and bureaucrats want it to go, where it most profits their patrons.
Where is all the housing from prior, similar bond acts? Not much of anywhere, because the interest on the bonds, and the bankers' commissions for selling the bonds, and the bureaucratic pay for planning housing, and rezoning, and fighting with the neighborhoods that usually don't want the housing anyway, will eat up most of the taxes paid.
Except that all the taxes paid, despite the astonishingly high tax rates in California, are already being eaten up, not just with ordinary state expenses, but with interest and principle payments on prior bonds. [We supported the recent tax hikes to get us out of a mess, not to reinvigorate the mess]
The tragic inability of the State of California to help people during the late Great Recession was a direct result of overspending before 2008, including endless bond measures, each titled to try to appeal to enough voters to get them passed. During the recession California cut aid to the homeless, including the newly homeless who had long histories of paying taxes.
California needs to pay down its debts and deal with the underfunding of the pensions for public workers. When that is done we can fund things like alleged housing for the poor out of budget surpluses, if necessary by stopping funding items that are less important to us.
While it can be found everywhere, homelessness should be addressed at a detailed level. Some homeless people just need a job; some need medical or psychiatric help; individuals have individual issues. These issues can best be addressed at the local level.
The only homeless persons these bonds might help are veterans. While the vast majority of homeless people in California are not veterans, they would be left out in the cold by this program.
Don't be fooled by the title. Vote NO on Proposition 41 in the June 3, 2014 primary.
See also: California Official Voter Guide Proposition 41
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Action Needed: California Doctors Who Refuse Medicare or Medi-Cal
There is a simple and fair solution to the increasingly common problem of California doctors refusing to accept Medicare and Medi-Cal patients.
What point is there to giving seniors, the disabled and the insolvent Medicare and Medi-Cal if many doctors refuse to accept them as payment?
What kind of person refuses to accept Medicare and Medi-Cal? An anti-social person. A person who entered the medical profession driven by greed, not by the desire to help people. A person who does not even care about other doctors, whose own incomes are hurt when they have to take too high of a ratio of Medicare patients to make up for sociopath doctor behavior. In short, a criminal, but a white collar criminal who can do far more harm to people through negligence than an ordinary street criminal can do through theft.
Before going further, let me say that, on the whole, Medicare and Medi-Cal pay scales are fair. When a doctor or hospital says they are losing money when they accept Medicare or Medi-Cal, in truth they are saying they cannot ream these patients, and the taxpayers, the way the ream private insurance companies and the poor saps who come in without any bargaining power over the price of services. Medicare payments are enough to cover costs and provide an upper middle-class standard of living for doctors and fair wages to other health workers. If some payments for some services need to be raise a bit to be fair, I have no problem supporting that.
What happens when a doctor refuses Medicare patients? A senior will likely end up on a long waiting list, their health deteriorating while they wait. In some cases there may be no similarly qualified specialist in their area. Turning away a sick person because Medicare will pay for their treatment is a form of malpractice.
The solution is obvious. Any doctor who refuses Medicare/Medi-Cal patients should lose their license and pay a hefty fine. There should be a regular system to check for these abusers of our system.
In writing legislation to include good social behavior as a licensing requirement, there does need to be care taken to be fair. For instance, the Medicare load differs by location and specialty. It would not work to set a specific percentage of Medicare patients all doctor must see in order to keep their licenses. An individual doctor might reject a new patient because they are truly already fully booked, perhaps even mostly with Medicare patients.
The current Medicare bureaucracy should be sufficient to monitor physician compliance and take into account variations in locality and specialty. Some parts of America have a high percentage of seniors, others low percentages. That should not be hard to take into account with a formula that would flag potential bad eggs. Area doctors can be surveyed. If, of ten in the same specialty, nine complains that 70% to 90% of patients are on Medicare or Medi-Cal, while the tenth is near 0%, it should be clear what is going on.
Of course the first thing the bad doctors will do is stop saying why they are refusing patients. They might also try seeing patients, charging Medicare, but not actually treating patients, something that already happens all too much.
We all (or almost all) pay into Medicare throughout our working lives. To be denied care in our old age by a doctor is a crime. We should be able to call an authority to report such criminal behavior, and they should be happy to end up with only a suspended license, not behind bars with the other criminals, where they really belong.
It is difficult to get a slot in medical school, and so the number of doctors is limited. With a license to practice comes the responsibility to practice fairly, including taking a fair load of Medicare and Medi-Cal patients.
What point is there to giving seniors, the disabled and the insolvent Medicare and Medi-Cal if many doctors refuse to accept them as payment?
What kind of person refuses to accept Medicare and Medi-Cal? An anti-social person. A person who entered the medical profession driven by greed, not by the desire to help people. A person who does not even care about other doctors, whose own incomes are hurt when they have to take too high of a ratio of Medicare patients to make up for sociopath doctor behavior. In short, a criminal, but a white collar criminal who can do far more harm to people through negligence than an ordinary street criminal can do through theft.
Before going further, let me say that, on the whole, Medicare and Medi-Cal pay scales are fair. When a doctor or hospital says they are losing money when they accept Medicare or Medi-Cal, in truth they are saying they cannot ream these patients, and the taxpayers, the way the ream private insurance companies and the poor saps who come in without any bargaining power over the price of services. Medicare payments are enough to cover costs and provide an upper middle-class standard of living for doctors and fair wages to other health workers. If some payments for some services need to be raise a bit to be fair, I have no problem supporting that.
What happens when a doctor refuses Medicare patients? A senior will likely end up on a long waiting list, their health deteriorating while they wait. In some cases there may be no similarly qualified specialist in their area. Turning away a sick person because Medicare will pay for their treatment is a form of malpractice.
The solution is obvious. Any doctor who refuses Medicare/Medi-Cal patients should lose their license and pay a hefty fine. There should be a regular system to check for these abusers of our system.
In writing legislation to include good social behavior as a licensing requirement, there does need to be care taken to be fair. For instance, the Medicare load differs by location and specialty. It would not work to set a specific percentage of Medicare patients all doctor must see in order to keep their licenses. An individual doctor might reject a new patient because they are truly already fully booked, perhaps even mostly with Medicare patients.
The current Medicare bureaucracy should be sufficient to monitor physician compliance and take into account variations in locality and specialty. Some parts of America have a high percentage of seniors, others low percentages. That should not be hard to take into account with a formula that would flag potential bad eggs. Area doctors can be surveyed. If, of ten in the same specialty, nine complains that 70% to 90% of patients are on Medicare or Medi-Cal, while the tenth is near 0%, it should be clear what is going on.
Of course the first thing the bad doctors will do is stop saying why they are refusing patients. They might also try seeing patients, charging Medicare, but not actually treating patients, something that already happens all too much.
We all (or almost all) pay into Medicare throughout our working lives. To be denied care in our old age by a doctor is a crime. We should be able to call an authority to report such criminal behavior, and they should be happy to end up with only a suspended license, not behind bars with the other criminals, where they really belong.
It is difficult to get a slot in medical school, and so the number of doctors is limited. With a license to practice comes the responsibility to practice fairly, including taking a fair load of Medicare and Medi-Cal patients.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Demand California's Fair Representation in the U.S. Senate
How do you feel about the allegedly democratic government of (not its real name) Syriastan?
To keep control of the Syriastan its ruling class has created electoral districts that each get two votes in its parliament, but have vastly different populations. One district in particular is discriminated against. It gets the same two votes as the others, but it takes 22 other districts to attain its population.
This goes against the basic democratic ideal of one citizen, one vote (one man, one vote in traditional patriarchal speak).
If the people of that oppressed district rebelled, demanding equal representation, would you support them? Of course you would. Why, such nations are Un-American!
Sadly, Syriastan is the United States. As the following table and graph show, it takes the population of the 22 smallest states to overtop the population of California. Those states get a combined 44 votes, enough to prevent any legislation they don't like from getting through the U.S. Senate (because of rules requiring a supermajority to pass a law).
California's estimated 2012 population: 38,000,000.
Our equivalents in population:
This major flaw in our system goes back to the original compromises made to get the U.S. Constitution in place in 1789. At the time the decision was made to give each state two representatives in the federal Senate, the total population of the U.S. was less than four million. The least populous state was Delaware with 59,000 people, the most populous state was Virginia with 747,000 people (including 292,000 slaves).
In 1789 the population ratio between the least populous and most populous states was approximately 1 to 13. Today the ratio between Wyoming and California is 1 to 66.
It was an undemocratic decision at the time, basically the result of political blackmail by the small-population states, whose elites feared federal control.
It has gone on too long. Demand reform.
Every U.S. citizen should be represented fairly in the U.S. Senate.
To keep control of the Syriastan its ruling class has created electoral districts that each get two votes in its parliament, but have vastly different populations. One district in particular is discriminated against. It gets the same two votes as the others, but it takes 22 other districts to attain its population.
This goes against the basic democratic ideal of one citizen, one vote (one man, one vote in traditional patriarchal speak).
If the people of that oppressed district rebelled, demanding equal representation, would you support them? Of course you would. Why, such nations are Un-American!
Sadly, Syriastan is the United States. As the following table and graph show, it takes the population of the 22 smallest states to overtop the population of California. Those states get a combined 44 votes, enough to prevent any legislation they don't like from getting through the U.S. Senate (because of rules requiring a supermajority to pass a law).
California's estimated 2012 population: 38,000,000.
Our equivalents in population:
| State | Population |
| Wyoming | 576,000 |
| Vermont | 626,000 |
| North Dakota | 834,000 |
| Alaska | 732,000 |
| South Dakota | 834,000 |
| Delaware | 917,000 |
| Montana | 1,005,000 |
| Rhode Island | 1,050,000 |
| New Hampshire | 1,320,000 |
| Maine | 1,330,000 |
| Hawaii | 1,392,000 |
| Idaho | 1,596,000 |
| West Virginia | 1,855,000 |
| Nebraska | 1,856,000 |
| New Mexico | 2,086,000 |
| Nevada | 2,759,000 |
| Utah | 2,855,000 |
| Kansas | 2,886,000 |
| Arkansas | 2,950,000 |
| Mississippi | 2,985,000 |
| Iowa | 3,074,000 |
| Connecticut | 3,590,000 |
| ----------- | |
| total: | 39,108,000 |
This major flaw in our system goes back to the original compromises made to get the U.S. Constitution in place in 1789. At the time the decision was made to give each state two representatives in the federal Senate, the total population of the U.S. was less than four million. The least populous state was Delaware with 59,000 people, the most populous state was Virginia with 747,000 people (including 292,000 slaves).
In 1789 the population ratio between the least populous and most populous states was approximately 1 to 13. Today the ratio between Wyoming and California is 1 to 66.
It was an undemocratic decision at the time, basically the result of political blackmail by the small-population states, whose elites feared federal control.
It has gone on too long. Demand reform.
Every U.S. citizen should be represented fairly in the U.S. Senate.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Democrats Now in Charge of California
The new California legislature has been sworn in, and the Democratic Party, or at least its elected politicians, are in charge. There are Democratic super majorities in both the State Assembly and the State Senate, and of course Governor Brown presumably stands ready to sign into law anything his fellow Democrats pass. To block any legislation Republicans would have to get at least a few Democrats to join with them.
The Democrats are limited by nothing but reality now. They owe their usual constituencies big time, but how can they pay up? The passage of Proposition 30, which increased income and sales taxes, insures that there should be enough income to balance the budget in 2013. The economy seems to be thawing, which could also boost revenue a bit. But there is little or no room to increase the budget for teachers, other civil servants, or public welfare. This is after four years of fairly drastic cutbacks. Teachers and police remain out of work, medical and dental help for the poor remains cut to the bone. As always, to raise more funds either the economy has to pick up steam or taxes need to be raised.
The Democrats could become real unpopular real quickly if they raised taxes again significantly. Don't expect it.
California is still dealing with two giant legacy issues: bonds and public employee pensions. Ever since the Great Depression, California had been able to depend on growth in population and per person income. In that situation it made sense to fund projects with bonds, since they would be relatively easy to pay off over time. The same with pensions: by promising great things in the future, current wage concessions could be minimized. The bonds carried what seemed to be low interest rates, but for years now we have been in a super-low interest rate environment, making the bonds relatively expensive and hard to pay off.
Pensions were premised on above-historical average returns in the stock market. Need we say more? To keep past promises the state government (and local governments too) would have to gut services and cut into the number of public employees even further.
California might still grow its way out of this mess, but the way forward is no longer clear. We are no longer the state that everyone wants to move to. We no longer have the world's best schools and universities. We have little buildable land that is not protected by environmentalists (and the environmentalists are right!). To the extent the population of California grows it needs to be urban growth, growth in the direction of high rise buildings, not further suburbanization. If the population stabilizes or grows slowly we need to raise wages for the average worker if we want the economy to expand. Yet raising wages can be difficult when globalized manufacturing and services is based on wages that are already lower than are paid here.
Then there is the issue of being part of the United States of America, which now has a debt so vast it is hard to imagine that it can remain solvent in the long run. California would probably be better off becoming its own nation, with its own ability to manage its economy, money, and debt system, but that won't happen. The U.S.A. has an out-of-control military and homeland security complex that is sinking our entire economy. Expect federal taxes to increase, leaving Californians less money to spend near home.
Our own tax mess hardly leaves the sense that California is governed any better than the nation. For many residents real estate taxes are low, since they are based on ancient property values. But many other residents are paying real estate taxes on expensive homes, and inflation is not easing their burden over time. We have compensated with a sales tax that gives many people pause when spending money. If you are lucky enough to have $100 to spend, you can only take $90 or so to the checkout counter, because taxes will eat up the difference. That makes a huge difference both to consumers and to the merchants that service them. Our California state income tax is quite progressive, but makes our state unattractive as a home for many upper income people.
We are short of water. We are well past the point where there is enough water to satisfy fish, farmers, and consumers. Despite having some of the best agricultural land on earth, we have so many residents that we are net food importers.
We used to have steel mills, foundries, and semiconductor fabrication plants. All gone, and unlikely to come back. Even Hollywood makes as many films as possible anywhere but California. We are strong on design, but also need to compete in the national and international markets, providing both services and real goods.
Herbert Hoover handed Franklin Delano Roosevelt a bigger mess in 1933. While economic in nature, it was a different sort of mess than confronts us today. Californians are watching the Democratic Party. Failure to deliver prosperity will almost certainly mean a cataclysm is in our future.
The Democrats are limited by nothing but reality now. They owe their usual constituencies big time, but how can they pay up? The passage of Proposition 30, which increased income and sales taxes, insures that there should be enough income to balance the budget in 2013. The economy seems to be thawing, which could also boost revenue a bit. But there is little or no room to increase the budget for teachers, other civil servants, or public welfare. This is after four years of fairly drastic cutbacks. Teachers and police remain out of work, medical and dental help for the poor remains cut to the bone. As always, to raise more funds either the economy has to pick up steam or taxes need to be raised.
The Democrats could become real unpopular real quickly if they raised taxes again significantly. Don't expect it.
California is still dealing with two giant legacy issues: bonds and public employee pensions. Ever since the Great Depression, California had been able to depend on growth in population and per person income. In that situation it made sense to fund projects with bonds, since they would be relatively easy to pay off over time. The same with pensions: by promising great things in the future, current wage concessions could be minimized. The bonds carried what seemed to be low interest rates, but for years now we have been in a super-low interest rate environment, making the bonds relatively expensive and hard to pay off.
Pensions were premised on above-historical average returns in the stock market. Need we say more? To keep past promises the state government (and local governments too) would have to gut services and cut into the number of public employees even further.
California might still grow its way out of this mess, but the way forward is no longer clear. We are no longer the state that everyone wants to move to. We no longer have the world's best schools and universities. We have little buildable land that is not protected by environmentalists (and the environmentalists are right!). To the extent the population of California grows it needs to be urban growth, growth in the direction of high rise buildings, not further suburbanization. If the population stabilizes or grows slowly we need to raise wages for the average worker if we want the economy to expand. Yet raising wages can be difficult when globalized manufacturing and services is based on wages that are already lower than are paid here.
Then there is the issue of being part of the United States of America, which now has a debt so vast it is hard to imagine that it can remain solvent in the long run. California would probably be better off becoming its own nation, with its own ability to manage its economy, money, and debt system, but that won't happen. The U.S.A. has an out-of-control military and homeland security complex that is sinking our entire economy. Expect federal taxes to increase, leaving Californians less money to spend near home.
Our own tax mess hardly leaves the sense that California is governed any better than the nation. For many residents real estate taxes are low, since they are based on ancient property values. But many other residents are paying real estate taxes on expensive homes, and inflation is not easing their burden over time. We have compensated with a sales tax that gives many people pause when spending money. If you are lucky enough to have $100 to spend, you can only take $90 or so to the checkout counter, because taxes will eat up the difference. That makes a huge difference both to consumers and to the merchants that service them. Our California state income tax is quite progressive, but makes our state unattractive as a home for many upper income people.
We are short of water. We are well past the point where there is enough water to satisfy fish, farmers, and consumers. Despite having some of the best agricultural land on earth, we have so many residents that we are net food importers.
We used to have steel mills, foundries, and semiconductor fabrication plants. All gone, and unlikely to come back. Even Hollywood makes as many films as possible anywhere but California. We are strong on design, but also need to compete in the national and international markets, providing both services and real goods.
Herbert Hoover handed Franklin Delano Roosevelt a bigger mess in 1933. While economic in nature, it was a different sort of mess than confronts us today. Californians are watching the Democratic Party. Failure to deliver prosperity will almost certainly mean a cataclysm is in our future.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Mendocino County Measure F, End Corporate Rule, Defend Democracy
Measure F Official Title: Advisory Measure to End Corporate Rule and Defend Democracy
Mendocino County, California, election of November 6, 2012
The U.S. Supreme Court, so far, is okay with our government telling us exactly how much lead can be in our drinking water; how far apart (and from what types of trees) studs must be in the houses we build; and what banners cheerleaders can hold up, or not hold up, at public school football games. But when it comes to political campaign contributions, the Court had ruled that almost anything goes.
The effect, of course, is to allow both the average citizens and billionaires the rights to give unlimited funds to use in political advertising. How much can you give? True, most politicians have always allowed themselves to be bought and sold like so many properties on a monopoly board. The recent change is that the Supreme Court says Congress cannot regulate campaign contributions even in its own elections (even though the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power of regulating the "manner" of elections in Article I, Section 4.). The election of 2012 is consequently being characterized by almost endless political advertisements funded by the criminally wealthy. Most of this "political free speech" as the Supreme Court would characterize it, is in the form of misleading attack ads.
The billionaires may be private citizens, but in almost every case their wealth was created by corporations. These corporations themselves, according to the Supreme Court, are persons with rights granted by the Constitution.
Imagine, however, if when the Mendocino County Building inspectors showed up, someone claimed that their construction project was a person, and therefore exempt from building codes. That the house has a right to build itself from sub-standard materiasl, for instance. That may seem absurd, but if the reasoning (if it can be called that) of the Supreme Court is taken to its logical conclusion, the housing result follows. Ultimately, by saying free speech implies a total lack of regulation, the Supremes argue that government should have no power whatsoever.
Why are corporations persons? Why, per the Supremes, because they are owned by persons, and to suppress the (alleged) rights of corporations would be to suppress the rights of the real human persons who own them.
Corporations are a form of property. You can buy or sell them like any other form of property. They have a legitimate purpose: to allow investors to share risks and rewards. There is nothing wrong with that in a barbaric, pre-utopian economy.
Proposition F takes the position, and allows the voters of Mendocino to take a position, saying the obvious: property is not a person. Property does not have free speech rights, or the right to freedom of religion, or the right to make political campaign donations.
A building is a piece of property. It can (and usually does) have multiple owners. Should personhood free buildings from regulation? Should city buildings be exempt from fire and safety codes?
Of course not. In a democracy we can argue endlessly about the details of the building codes, and the food and drug safety codes, and whether every child in every car must be strapped in a special seat meeting government regulations. But we need building codes, and food inspections, and the other trapping of civilization. Unless we want to abandon civilization itself.
We need to regulate campaigns, taking into account the needs of the candidates to have fair access to voters. And of the elected officials to represent all of the citizens, not just a few wealthy donors. We need to keep any particular group of people from buying the politicians who are supposed to represent all of us.
Measure F may only be an advisory measure, but it is sound advice.
William P. Meyers, Publisher and Editor, Mendoday.com
More information:
CaliforniaDemocracy.org pages on corporate personhood and related issues.
Move to Amend seeks to amend the Constitution to abolish corporate personhood and allow for the regulation of election campaigns.
Mendocino County, California, election of November 6, 2012
The U.S. Supreme Court, so far, is okay with our government telling us exactly how much lead can be in our drinking water; how far apart (and from what types of trees) studs must be in the houses we build; and what banners cheerleaders can hold up, or not hold up, at public school football games. But when it comes to political campaign contributions, the Court had ruled that almost anything goes.
The effect, of course, is to allow both the average citizens and billionaires the rights to give unlimited funds to use in political advertising. How much can you give? True, most politicians have always allowed themselves to be bought and sold like so many properties on a monopoly board. The recent change is that the Supreme Court says Congress cannot regulate campaign contributions even in its own elections (even though the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power of regulating the "manner" of elections in Article I, Section 4.). The election of 2012 is consequently being characterized by almost endless political advertisements funded by the criminally wealthy. Most of this "political free speech" as the Supreme Court would characterize it, is in the form of misleading attack ads.
The billionaires may be private citizens, but in almost every case their wealth was created by corporations. These corporations themselves, according to the Supreme Court, are persons with rights granted by the Constitution.
Imagine, however, if when the Mendocino County Building inspectors showed up, someone claimed that their construction project was a person, and therefore exempt from building codes. That the house has a right to build itself from sub-standard materiasl, for instance. That may seem absurd, but if the reasoning (if it can be called that) of the Supreme Court is taken to its logical conclusion, the housing result follows. Ultimately, by saying free speech implies a total lack of regulation, the Supremes argue that government should have no power whatsoever.
Why are corporations persons? Why, per the Supremes, because they are owned by persons, and to suppress the (alleged) rights of corporations would be to suppress the rights of the real human persons who own them.
Corporations are a form of property. You can buy or sell them like any other form of property. They have a legitimate purpose: to allow investors to share risks and rewards. There is nothing wrong with that in a barbaric, pre-utopian economy.
Proposition F takes the position, and allows the voters of Mendocino to take a position, saying the obvious: property is not a person. Property does not have free speech rights, or the right to freedom of religion, or the right to make political campaign donations.
A building is a piece of property. It can (and usually does) have multiple owners. Should personhood free buildings from regulation? Should city buildings be exempt from fire and safety codes?
Of course not. In a democracy we can argue endlessly about the details of the building codes, and the food and drug safety codes, and whether every child in every car must be strapped in a special seat meeting government regulations. But we need building codes, and food inspections, and the other trapping of civilization. Unless we want to abandon civilization itself.
We need to regulate campaigns, taking into account the needs of the candidates to have fair access to voters. And of the elected officials to represent all of the citizens, not just a few wealthy donors. We need to keep any particular group of people from buying the politicians who are supposed to represent all of us.
Measure F may only be an advisory measure, but it is sound advice.
William P. Meyers, Publisher and Editor, Mendoday.com
More information:
CaliforniaDemocracy.org pages on corporate personhood and related issues.
Move to Amend seeks to amend the Constitution to abolish corporate personhood and allow for the regulation of election campaigns.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Yes on California Proposition 40, Uphold Redistricting
Official Title: Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum.
Proposition 40
For decades the politicians in the state legislature wrote their own tickets on California legislative districts, and also for the U.S. Congress districts in the state. The results were a disaster. It was almost impossible to defeat an incumbent in an election. Almost all districts were either heavily Democratic Party or Republican Party dominated. In order to achieve this, the Democrats in the legislature gave up roughly 3 seats in U.S. Congress.
In 2008 and 2010 the voters approved Proposition 11 and Proposition 20, setting up an independent commission to draw district boundaries without respect to the needs of individual politicians.
Republican Party politicians did not like the results of redistricting. They put Proposition 40 on the ballot. A Yes votes approves the new districts (really just State Senate districts) while a No vote allows the California Supreme Court to appoint former judges to redo the redistricting.
Meanwhile the California Supreme Court has ruled that the State Senate districts under consideration will apply in this 2012 election. Proposition 40, in effect, needed to be on the primary ballot to be effective; being delayed, it now borders on the ridiculous.
Yes on 40, up hold the independent redistricting commission.
Proposition 40 summary, official arguments, and text
Proposition 40
For decades the politicians in the state legislature wrote their own tickets on California legislative districts, and also for the U.S. Congress districts in the state. The results were a disaster. It was almost impossible to defeat an incumbent in an election. Almost all districts were either heavily Democratic Party or Republican Party dominated. In order to achieve this, the Democrats in the legislature gave up roughly 3 seats in U.S. Congress.
In 2008 and 2010 the voters approved Proposition 11 and Proposition 20, setting up an independent commission to draw district boundaries without respect to the needs of individual politicians.
Republican Party politicians did not like the results of redistricting. They put Proposition 40 on the ballot. A Yes votes approves the new districts (really just State Senate districts) while a No vote allows the California Supreme Court to appoint former judges to redo the redistricting.
Meanwhile the California Supreme Court has ruled that the State Senate districts under consideration will apply in this 2012 election. Proposition 40, in effect, needed to be on the primary ballot to be effective; being delayed, it now borders on the ridiculous.
Yes on 40, up hold the independent redistricting commission.
Proposition 40 summary, official arguments, and text
No on California Proposition 39, Public Funding of Energy Corporations
Official Title: Tax treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 39 appears to close a corporate tax loophole, and it would fund renewable, or "clean" energy in the state of California. Since in general I have supported closing corporate tax loopholes, and favor the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, why am I not supporting Proposition 39?
The California corporate income tax loophole is complex. Few corporations operate only in California. Their revenues and expenses come partly, or even mostly, from out of state. Current laws allow corporations to pick from two methods to determine how much taxable income to report. Naturally each corporation picks the method that results in their lowest taxes. Proposition 39 would impose a uniform method on these calculations.
Proposition 39 should result in an additional $1 billion of tax expense to corporations and $1 billion of revenue to the state government. If Proposition 39 stopped there, it would be a good initiative.
However, 39 continues a California tradition of misgovernment by pre-determining how the new tax revenue will be spent. At this point the money should just go to paying reducing the annual deficit. Once we have an annual surplus, it should be used to pay down debt. Once debt is at a tolerable level, it should be used to create a "rainy day" fund.
Only if the California budget situation improves vastly over the next few years should the $1 billion be considered as money that can be spent by the government. And how should it be spent? We can't know that now.
Our budget is a mess partly because past initiatives have roped off funds, forcing them to be used in certain ways, for instance to pay off bonds or for public education. The alleged benefit of this earmarking of tax revenue is that without it the Legislature would go wild and fund frivolous bureaucracies and new tax loopholes, while ignoring core areas.
It has not worked and it will work less well as time goes on. As corrupt and incompetent as the Legislature has been, it is still better to allocate funds on an as-needed basis. Some human judgment is needed to allocate funds each year, and that becomes impossible when initiatives earmark the vast majority of taxes collected by the state.
Has "clean energy" been left out? Clean Energy is itself a corporate industry. It has been highly subsidized by the federal government. Closing one corporate loophole to raise funds to shower down on a particular (and very small) set of corporations is just plain crazy. Wrapping a corporate subsidy in the flag of environmentalism may be good politics, but it is bad governance.
No on 39, No taxpayer funded bailout to the energy industry.
Proposition 39 summary, official arguments, and text
Proposition 39 appears to close a corporate tax loophole, and it would fund renewable, or "clean" energy in the state of California. Since in general I have supported closing corporate tax loopholes, and favor the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, why am I not supporting Proposition 39?
The California corporate income tax loophole is complex. Few corporations operate only in California. Their revenues and expenses come partly, or even mostly, from out of state. Current laws allow corporations to pick from two methods to determine how much taxable income to report. Naturally each corporation picks the method that results in their lowest taxes. Proposition 39 would impose a uniform method on these calculations.
Proposition 39 should result in an additional $1 billion of tax expense to corporations and $1 billion of revenue to the state government. If Proposition 39 stopped there, it would be a good initiative.
However, 39 continues a California tradition of misgovernment by pre-determining how the new tax revenue will be spent. At this point the money should just go to paying reducing the annual deficit. Once we have an annual surplus, it should be used to pay down debt. Once debt is at a tolerable level, it should be used to create a "rainy day" fund.
Only if the California budget situation improves vastly over the next few years should the $1 billion be considered as money that can be spent by the government. And how should it be spent? We can't know that now.
Our budget is a mess partly because past initiatives have roped off funds, forcing them to be used in certain ways, for instance to pay off bonds or for public education. The alleged benefit of this earmarking of tax revenue is that without it the Legislature would go wild and fund frivolous bureaucracies and new tax loopholes, while ignoring core areas.
It has not worked and it will work less well as time goes on. As corrupt and incompetent as the Legislature has been, it is still better to allocate funds on an as-needed basis. Some human judgment is needed to allocate funds each year, and that becomes impossible when initiatives earmark the vast majority of taxes collected by the state.
Has "clean energy" been left out? Clean Energy is itself a corporate industry. It has been highly subsidized by the federal government. Closing one corporate loophole to raise funds to shower down on a particular (and very small) set of corporations is just plain crazy. Wrapping a corporate subsidy in the flag of environmentalism may be good politics, but it is bad governance.
No on 39, No taxpayer funded bailout to the energy industry.
Proposition 39 summary, official arguments, and text
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Yes on Proposition 38, Income Tax increases to Pay for Education
Official Title: Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute
Proposition 38 would increase California income tax rates to fund public education at every level as well as early childhood development programs. Education is good for individuals and is also at the heart of our democratic culture. Education funding went up during the housing boom, but even then was largely inadequate. It has declined since 2008, and is set to decline more next year if both Proposition 38 and Proposition 30 fail to pass.
The other side of the equation is: who will pay this tax? In California we already have a relatively high state income tax and state sales tax. The income tax, however, is quite progressive, so that low income families pay little or no tax. The problem for the state is that real estate taxes, which are the primary funding source for public schools, are not only capped, but in most cases seriously undervalue the real estate. In my mind reforming the old Proposition 13, which got us into this mess, would be a better way of raising funds. Apparently no one thinks a proposition amending 13 could pass muster with the voters.
Proposition 38 raises income taxes taxes by 0.4% at the low end ($7,316 for a single citizen, so about $35 per year, but at that level the exemption would bring the tax to zero). It progresses gradually, with the bulk of people probably in the $38,000 to $48,000 bracket being increased from 8% to 9.4%, about $500 per year. Currently the highest tax rate, 9.3% begins at $48,000. Proposition 38 would make for graduated increases in the top bracket up to a peak of 2.2% additional for those lucky folk making $2.5 million or more per year. That would be about $55,000 additional tax at that level.
Fair enough, but while the lower middle class in particular complains about high costs at state colleges, they don't want to be taxed to pay for it. A soak the rich scheme would have had a better chance of passing, but the middle class is so large that failing to increase its taxes really limits how much money can be raised.
Interestingly, the woman behind Proposition 38, Molly Munger, has a lot of money but did not get it through having a high income and saving parts of it. She inherited her vast fortune from Big Daddy Charlie Munger, best known for his association with Warren Buffet. California's inheritance tax is pretty minimal, but for some reason no one looks at that as a source of funding. And of course the rich, represented by Mitt Romney, want to end the national inheritance tax altogether.
Ms. Munger ran some attack ads against Proposition 30, which she sees as undercutting Proposition 38. Proposition 30 barely raises enough money to keep the education budget at current levels and balance future budgets, so you can see why teachers & professors mostly favor 38. The problem is 38 is unlikely to pass (because it taxes the working and middle classes). Attacking 30, causing it to fail along with 38, would be yet another disaster for our schools.
Vote for Proposition 38. It is the right thing to do. But your vote for Proposition 30 is the crucial one, as it has a better chance of passing.
Yes on 38, Increasing Income Tax Rates to Fund Education
Proposition 38 summary, official arguments, and text
Proposition 38 would increase California income tax rates to fund public education at every level as well as early childhood development programs. Education is good for individuals and is also at the heart of our democratic culture. Education funding went up during the housing boom, but even then was largely inadequate. It has declined since 2008, and is set to decline more next year if both Proposition 38 and Proposition 30 fail to pass.
The other side of the equation is: who will pay this tax? In California we already have a relatively high state income tax and state sales tax. The income tax, however, is quite progressive, so that low income families pay little or no tax. The problem for the state is that real estate taxes, which are the primary funding source for public schools, are not only capped, but in most cases seriously undervalue the real estate. In my mind reforming the old Proposition 13, which got us into this mess, would be a better way of raising funds. Apparently no one thinks a proposition amending 13 could pass muster with the voters.
Proposition 38 raises income taxes taxes by 0.4% at the low end ($7,316 for a single citizen, so about $35 per year, but at that level the exemption would bring the tax to zero). It progresses gradually, with the bulk of people probably in the $38,000 to $48,000 bracket being increased from 8% to 9.4%, about $500 per year. Currently the highest tax rate, 9.3% begins at $48,000. Proposition 38 would make for graduated increases in the top bracket up to a peak of 2.2% additional for those lucky folk making $2.5 million or more per year. That would be about $55,000 additional tax at that level.
Fair enough, but while the lower middle class in particular complains about high costs at state colleges, they don't want to be taxed to pay for it. A soak the rich scheme would have had a better chance of passing, but the middle class is so large that failing to increase its taxes really limits how much money can be raised.
Interestingly, the woman behind Proposition 38, Molly Munger, has a lot of money but did not get it through having a high income and saving parts of it. She inherited her vast fortune from Big Daddy Charlie Munger, best known for his association with Warren Buffet. California's inheritance tax is pretty minimal, but for some reason no one looks at that as a source of funding. And of course the rich, represented by Mitt Romney, want to end the national inheritance tax altogether.
Ms. Munger ran some attack ads against Proposition 30, which she sees as undercutting Proposition 38. Proposition 30 barely raises enough money to keep the education budget at current levels and balance future budgets, so you can see why teachers & professors mostly favor 38. The problem is 38 is unlikely to pass (because it taxes the working and middle classes). Attacking 30, causing it to fail along with 38, would be yet another disaster for our schools.
Vote for Proposition 38. It is the right thing to do. But your vote for Proposition 30 is the crucial one, as it has a better chance of passing.
Yes on 38, Increasing Income Tax Rates to Fund Education
Proposition 38 summary, official arguments, and text
Monday, October 15, 2012
Yes on California Proposition 36, Three Strikes Reform
Official Title:
Three Strikes Law. Repeat Felony Offenders. Penalties. Initiative Statute
Proposition 36 would amend California's Three Strikes law, which was supposed to be aimed at career and habitually violent criminals but in addition gave life sentences to many whose offenses were not that grave.
Under the current law, if a person has two prior "serious" or violent felony convictions, upon a third felony conviction (not just a violent or serious one), the sentence is life imprisonment. Under this system two bar fights and a non-violent theft can result in life imprisonment.
Three felonies may seem like a lot to those who have led felony-free lives, but the point is to distinguish sets of felonies that should add up to life imprisonment. Under Proposition 36, if one of the felonies was rape, murder, or child molestation, the third felony still results in life imprisonment.
Proposition 36 will make changes for those whose two prior convictions were for less grievous felonies and whose 3rd strike is a "nonserious, non-violent" felony. Even then, the usual sentence for the 3rd strike would be doubled.
Will some offenders be set free and then go out and commit a fourth crime? Sure. And everyone starts with zero convictions, yet crimes occur. Do most crimes go unconvicted? Certainly. The clearance rates for murders tends to less than 10%, and those solved are usually the amateur murders, not the gang-related or professional ones. Most criminals are convicted of only a few of the crimes they have actually committed. Yet most eventually serve some prison time, if they are not murdered by other criminals, because the more offenses you do, the more likely the police are to take notice and eventually try and convict you.
Do many former criminals reform? Yes, actually. When we sentence someone to life imprisonment for relatively minor crimes, we are sending the wrong message. If the justice system is fair, and is perceived as fair, it is much easier to get broad public buy-in. If the justice system strikes people as unjust, many people will refuse to cooperate with police or prosecutors who might otherwise.
Proposition 36 appears to be well thought out. It won't do away with crime in California, but it will make the justice system fairer.
Yes on 36, Fix the Three Strikes Law
Proposition 36 summary, official arguments, and text
Proposition 36 would amend California's Three Strikes law, which was supposed to be aimed at career and habitually violent criminals but in addition gave life sentences to many whose offenses were not that grave.
Under the current law, if a person has two prior "serious" or violent felony convictions, upon a third felony conviction (not just a violent or serious one), the sentence is life imprisonment. Under this system two bar fights and a non-violent theft can result in life imprisonment.
Three felonies may seem like a lot to those who have led felony-free lives, but the point is to distinguish sets of felonies that should add up to life imprisonment. Under Proposition 36, if one of the felonies was rape, murder, or child molestation, the third felony still results in life imprisonment.
Proposition 36 will make changes for those whose two prior convictions were for less grievous felonies and whose 3rd strike is a "nonserious, non-violent" felony. Even then, the usual sentence for the 3rd strike would be doubled.
Will some offenders be set free and then go out and commit a fourth crime? Sure. And everyone starts with zero convictions, yet crimes occur. Do most crimes go unconvicted? Certainly. The clearance rates for murders tends to less than 10%, and those solved are usually the amateur murders, not the gang-related or professional ones. Most criminals are convicted of only a few of the crimes they have actually committed. Yet most eventually serve some prison time, if they are not murdered by other criminals, because the more offenses you do, the more likely the police are to take notice and eventually try and convict you.
Do many former criminals reform? Yes, actually. When we sentence someone to life imprisonment for relatively minor crimes, we are sending the wrong message. If the justice system is fair, and is perceived as fair, it is much easier to get broad public buy-in. If the justice system strikes people as unjust, many people will refuse to cooperate with police or prosecutors who might otherwise.
Proposition 36 appears to be well thought out. It won't do away with crime in California, but it will make the justice system fairer.
Yes on 36, Fix the Three Strikes Law
Proposition 36 summary, official arguments, and text
Sunday, October 14, 2012
No on Proposition 35, Human Trafficking
Official Title: Human Trafficking. Penalties. Initiative Statute
Proposition 35 increases the penalties on "human trafficking," which means forced prostitution and slave labor. In the case of prostitution, it would not seem to apply to people who are freelance, voluntary prostitutes, but would apply to pimps, traffickers and kidnappers.
Slavery, and especially sexual slavery, are bad things. They are already illegal and the punishments are not light. The problem seems to be enforcement, which has usually been a low priority. In this time of tax resistance and cutbacks, it has been nearly nonexistent.
Sadly, human trafficking is a black-market business that responds to the laws of supply and demand. Even if there are more convictions, and longer sentences if Proposition 35 passes, there will be plenty of soldier-businessmen to step in and continue the practice.
Stiffer penalties may actually endanger the girls the law is presumed to protect. The girls are witnesses and often rightly afraid to testify given the brutality of their owners. With the stakes raised, owners would have greater incentive to murder anyone they suspected would testify against them.
I admire the people who put this issue to the California voters. However, I think it would be better to enforce the current laws. How you force overburdened police to prioritize this, I don't know.
So my No is not a strong No. If you think heavier penalties will do anything about this evil, then you should vote Yes.
Another solution would be to legalize and regulate prostitution, as is done in Nevada. Even then, however, we would need to keep the laws against sex slavery, and of course against sexual coercion of minors.
No on 35, Don't increase human trafficking penalties.
Proposition 35 summary, official arguments, and text
Proposition 35 increases the penalties on "human trafficking," which means forced prostitution and slave labor. In the case of prostitution, it would not seem to apply to people who are freelance, voluntary prostitutes, but would apply to pimps, traffickers and kidnappers.
Slavery, and especially sexual slavery, are bad things. They are already illegal and the punishments are not light. The problem seems to be enforcement, which has usually been a low priority. In this time of tax resistance and cutbacks, it has been nearly nonexistent.
Sadly, human trafficking is a black-market business that responds to the laws of supply and demand. Even if there are more convictions, and longer sentences if Proposition 35 passes, there will be plenty of soldier-businessmen to step in and continue the practice.
Stiffer penalties may actually endanger the girls the law is presumed to protect. The girls are witnesses and often rightly afraid to testify given the brutality of their owners. With the stakes raised, owners would have greater incentive to murder anyone they suspected would testify against them.
I admire the people who put this issue to the California voters. However, I think it would be better to enforce the current laws. How you force overburdened police to prioritize this, I don't know.
So my No is not a strong No. If you think heavier penalties will do anything about this evil, then you should vote Yes.
Another solution would be to legalize and regulate prostitution, as is done in Nevada. Even then, however, we would need to keep the laws against sex slavery, and of course against sexual coercion of minors.
No on 35, Don't increase human trafficking penalties.
Proposition 35 summary, official arguments, and text
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Yes on California Proposition 34, abolish the Death Penalty
Official Title: Death Penalty. Initiative Statute
Proposition 34 repeals the death penalty in the State of California, replacing it with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
Killing people is wrong, no matter who does it. Even in war, once an enemy soldier is captured, the rules of war forbid killing the prisoner.
Some people may truly seem to deserve the death penalty, but they are the exception. The death penalty commonly is given to those who cannot afford good lawyers.
We know innocent people have been convicted and executed by our legal system. That is unacceptable.
If I could make an exception for imposing the death penalty, it would be for Class A War Criminals, which is those powerful leaders who plan and engage in war. However many Americans have been such Class A War Criminals in our history, not one has been brought to justice, much less sentenced to death.
The death penalty is barbaric. It has been abolished in most civilized nations.
It may not be in our power to abolish it in the United States of America, but we can at least abolish it in the State of California.
Yes on 34, Repeal the Death Penalty
Proposition 34 summary, official arguments, and text
Proposition 34 repeals the death penalty in the State of California, replacing it with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
Killing people is wrong, no matter who does it. Even in war, once an enemy soldier is captured, the rules of war forbid killing the prisoner.
Some people may truly seem to deserve the death penalty, but they are the exception. The death penalty commonly is given to those who cannot afford good lawyers.
We know innocent people have been convicted and executed by our legal system. That is unacceptable.
If I could make an exception for imposing the death penalty, it would be for Class A War Criminals, which is those powerful leaders who plan and engage in war. However many Americans have been such Class A War Criminals in our history, not one has been brought to justice, much less sentenced to death.
The death penalty is barbaric. It has been abolished in most civilized nations.
It may not be in our power to abolish it in the United States of America, but we can at least abolish it in the State of California.
Yes on 34, Repeal the Death Penalty
Proposition 34 summary, official arguments, and text
Monday, October 8, 2012
No on California Proposition 32
Official Title:
Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Contributions to Candidates.
Initiative Statute .
Proposition 32 is supposed to look like a good campaign finance reform law, but instead it is an act of class warfare designed to get working-class money, what little there still is of it, out of politics. It pretends to limit corporate money in California elections, but does not.
Proposition 32's main point is banning political contributions using payroll deductions from both unions and corporations. But corporations don't impose payroll deductions for political purposes. Direct corporate contributions would come out of shareholder's profits. Most "corporate" contributions are actually personal contributions by management and shareholders.
Union payroll deductions are actually union dues. Without payroll dues deductions it would be almost impossible to fund unions. Ask the Wobblies, or Industrial Workers of the World, who became largely irrelevant in the 1920's largely because they insisted that workers pay dues voluntarily to the union each month, rather than through payroll deductions. Payroll dues deductions are part of the deal when a business recognizes that its employees have decided to be represented through a union.
This does lead to some problems, ranging from union bureaucrats paying themselves more like CEOs than like the workers they represent, to the problem of some workers paying to finance the campaigns of candidates or issues they disagree with.
I might support a law that prevented rich people from buying elections, and also restricted the use of union dues to directly representing the workers to their employers.
California Proposition 32 is not that law. It places no meaningful restrictions on rich people or corporate management or stockholders. It would kill funding of pro-union and pro-worker candidates.
No on 32, Save Our Right to Organize and Be Represented
Proposition 32 summary, official arguments, and text
Initiative Statute .
Proposition 32 is supposed to look like a good campaign finance reform law, but instead it is an act of class warfare designed to get working-class money, what little there still is of it, out of politics. It pretends to limit corporate money in California elections, but does not.
Proposition 32's main point is banning political contributions using payroll deductions from both unions and corporations. But corporations don't impose payroll deductions for political purposes. Direct corporate contributions would come out of shareholder's profits. Most "corporate" contributions are actually personal contributions by management and shareholders.
Union payroll deductions are actually union dues. Without payroll dues deductions it would be almost impossible to fund unions. Ask the Wobblies, or Industrial Workers of the World, who became largely irrelevant in the 1920's largely because they insisted that workers pay dues voluntarily to the union each month, rather than through payroll deductions. Payroll dues deductions are part of the deal when a business recognizes that its employees have decided to be represented through a union.
This does lead to some problems, ranging from union bureaucrats paying themselves more like CEOs than like the workers they represent, to the problem of some workers paying to finance the campaigns of candidates or issues they disagree with.
I might support a law that prevented rich people from buying elections, and also restricted the use of union dues to directly representing the workers to their employers.
California Proposition 32 is not that law. It places no meaningful restrictions on rich people or corporate management or stockholders. It would kill funding of pro-union and pro-worker candidates.
No on 32, Save Our Right to Organize and Be Represented
Proposition 32 summary, official arguments, and text
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Yes on California Proposition 31
Official Title: STATE BUDGET. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
Proposition 31 reforms the California state budget process and adds flexibility to local government implementations of state mandates.
For over a decade every year the California State legislature has been late passing budgets. Often the partisan-driven deadlock in Sacramento has resulted in government workers and vendors receiving vouchers instead of paychecks. Partly that is the responsibility of voters who have sent uncompromising fools to represent them.
At least if Proposition 31 passes we will only have to go through the fiasco every two years, instead of each year. This also lines up budgets with elections for the State Assembly, which are held every two years.
The administration of state-funded programs by local governments has also become something of a nightmare and boondoggle. Proposition 31 cannot fix this, but it does have provisions to allow local governments to work together to tweek their procedures. Hopefully for the better.
31 also allows the Governor to reduce spending when there is an unexpected shortage of funds. That could have solved a lot of problems if it had been in place before the recession.
As usual, the text of Prop 31 is long and complicated, so opposers can find details to dislike.
Quoting the Argument in Favor, "Proposition 31 requires a real balanced budget." It actually makes more sense to build surpluses during good economic times and then spend during recessions, but what we have now is overspending all the time, which is leading us to disaster.
The Argument Against says Proposition 31 "will lead to lawsuits and confusion." That is not much of an argument: all law leads to lawsuits and confusion. We still want the best laws we can write. Most of the arguments against 31 seem to be scare tactics, rather than based on the actual likely effects of the law.
Yes on 31, Reform the California Budget system.
Proposition 31 summary, official arguments, and text
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
Proposition 31 reforms the California state budget process and adds flexibility to local government implementations of state mandates.
For over a decade every year the California State legislature has been late passing budgets. Often the partisan-driven deadlock in Sacramento has resulted in government workers and vendors receiving vouchers instead of paychecks. Partly that is the responsibility of voters who have sent uncompromising fools to represent them.
At least if Proposition 31 passes we will only have to go through the fiasco every two years, instead of each year. This also lines up budgets with elections for the State Assembly, which are held every two years.
The administration of state-funded programs by local governments has also become something of a nightmare and boondoggle. Proposition 31 cannot fix this, but it does have provisions to allow local governments to work together to tweek their procedures. Hopefully for the better.
31 also allows the Governor to reduce spending when there is an unexpected shortage of funds. That could have solved a lot of problems if it had been in place before the recession.
As usual, the text of Prop 31 is long and complicated, so opposers can find details to dislike.
Quoting the Argument in Favor, "Proposition 31 requires a real balanced budget." It actually makes more sense to build surpluses during good economic times and then spend during recessions, but what we have now is overspending all the time, which is leading us to disaster.
The Argument Against says Proposition 31 "will lead to lawsuits and confusion." That is not much of an argument: all law leads to lawsuits and confusion. We still want the best laws we can write. Most of the arguments against 31 seem to be scare tactics, rather than based on the actual likely effects of the law.
Yes on 31, Reform the California Budget system.
Proposition 31 summary, official arguments, and text
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Yes on California Proposition 30
Title: Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 30 raises two California taxes on a temporary, but lengthy, basis. The money would be used for education, including through the college level, and for public safety, which is mainly police and prisons.
Education, preferably free public education, is a fundamental pillar of democracy. California's public schools were underfunded even before the recession hit in 2008. College education, in particular, has become a luxury only a few families can afford.
Policing and prisons, the justice system, and the very nature of society, need fundamental reform, but in the meantime we have no viable substitute for public safety. People who live in fear of crime cannot exercise their human and democratic rights. Public safety also needs increased funding.
The taxes imposed by Proposition 30 are fairly minimal. There would be a 1/4% increase in the current sales tax, but the rate would still be lower than we had two years ago. This would last four years.
There would also be an increase in California State income tax on natural (non-corporate) persons making over $250,000 in annual income, or couples making over $500,000 in annual income. The increase is graduated, from 1% at the $250,000 to $300,000 level up to 3% at the over $500,000 level.
Given the incredibly low federal tax rates for the highest-income taxpayers, this is not really much of a burden to the most fortunate Californians. The rest of us wish we could make that kind of income and have the privilege of paying the higher rate. This tax increase would last for seven years, and my guess is that it will have to be renewed then.
If there is a problem with Proposition 30, it is that is uses the Constitutional Amendment process. The California State Constitution is already a huge mess. This will add to it. The text is complex enough to render it unintelligible not just to ordinary citizens, but to everyone who is not already an expert in the tax code and state constitutional law. I just don't see why tax increases require amending the Constitution, except perhaps that then they can't be reversed easily.
Yes on 30, save our education system
Proposition 30 summary, official arguments, and text
Proposition 30 raises two California taxes on a temporary, but lengthy, basis. The money would be used for education, including through the college level, and for public safety, which is mainly police and prisons.
Education, preferably free public education, is a fundamental pillar of democracy. California's public schools were underfunded even before the recession hit in 2008. College education, in particular, has become a luxury only a few families can afford.
Policing and prisons, the justice system, and the very nature of society, need fundamental reform, but in the meantime we have no viable substitute for public safety. People who live in fear of crime cannot exercise their human and democratic rights. Public safety also needs increased funding.
The taxes imposed by Proposition 30 are fairly minimal. There would be a 1/4% increase in the current sales tax, but the rate would still be lower than we had two years ago. This would last four years.
There would also be an increase in California State income tax on natural (non-corporate) persons making over $250,000 in annual income, or couples making over $500,000 in annual income. The increase is graduated, from 1% at the $250,000 to $300,000 level up to 3% at the over $500,000 level.
Given the incredibly low federal tax rates for the highest-income taxpayers, this is not really much of a burden to the most fortunate Californians. The rest of us wish we could make that kind of income and have the privilege of paying the higher rate. This tax increase would last for seven years, and my guess is that it will have to be renewed then.
If there is a problem with Proposition 30, it is that is uses the Constitutional Amendment process. The California State Constitution is already a huge mess. This will add to it. The text is complex enough to render it unintelligible not just to ordinary citizens, but to everyone who is not already an expert in the tax code and state constitutional law. I just don't see why tax increases require amending the Constitution, except perhaps that then they can't be reversed easily.
Yes on 30, save our education system
Proposition 30 summary, official arguments, and text
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
