RE-POST: California Propositions 2012 Voter's Guide by Conservative Political Pistachio

By Douglas V. Gibbs

A large number of proposition are on this election's California ballot.  Some of them have Republicans at odds with each other.  The battle between the establishment, Tea Party, and conservatives has made the propositions a difficult decision. As a voter it is important to not only view the recommendations by various groups, but to understand what the text of the propositions mean. . .

Here is my take on them:

Prop. 30 [NO] - Temporary Taxes to Fund Education, Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding, Constitutional Amendment:  This proposition will raise State Sales taxes to 7.5% (making California's the highest in the nation), and raises income tax on individuals making over $250,000 (soak the rich scheme, and making Calfornia's the highest in the nation).  When it comes to government, there is no such thing as temporary taxation.  Though this proposition indicates the sales tax would only be for four years, and the income tax for seven years, at the time of expiration the Democrats will do the same thing they do in Washington - claim that the expiration will cost the government too much money, and call it a tax cut for the rich.  As for the revenue being for education, the fine print in the proposition says that there is "no accountability on funds being directed to education."  The money will more likely go to the very unpopular High Speed Rail project.  The portion that changes the State Constitution eliminates State Funding for open meetings of local governments under the Ralph M. Brown Act, resulting in less local involvement at the State level, ushering in more closed door deals in Sacramento.

Prop. 31 [NO] - This is an attempt to eliminate Proposition 13, while ushering in the United Nations' Agenda 21.  The 2/3 majority to raise taxes would be eliminated, while also eliminating a number of characteristics that makes this State a republic.  Passage of Proposition 31 would result in less protections against government liberals, prop up mob-rule, and raise property taxes to ungodly levels.

Prop. 32 [YES] - At first I thought this might hurt the ability of campaigns to raise the necessary funds to run properly. I ran for office a couple years ago, and I know how expensive it can be.  However, with the stranglehold the unions have on California, this is a necessary reform that checks the unions' unethical practices, while also guarding against money-for-favors contributions by corporations.  Proposition 32 specifically restricts unions and corporations from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes.

Prop. 33 [NO] - Republicans are split on this proposition. The United Republicans of California urge a NO vote, the California Republican Assembly is neutral, and the California Republican Women's Federated are calling for a YES vote.  This proposition is similar to Prop. 14 from 2010 which was defeated, and will deregulate the auto insurance industry, if passed, allowing prices to be based on a driver's history, and removing regulations that limit the industry.  Normally, I support deregulation, because I believe the free market should prevail. However, automobile insurance is not your normal industry. In California, we are required to have auto insurance, so if the regulations put into place to protect consumers are removed, the insurance companies can collude together to make insurance more expensive. You won't have a choice. The law prohibits you from telling the insurance companies to take a hike. You have to buy the product.  In the long run, though they claim the opposite, Proposition 33 will result in higher premiums.

Prop. 34 [NO] - If this proposition is passed, it will eliminated the death penalty in California, enabling life sentences without the possibility of parole instead.  The death penalty is a deterrent, and to eliminate the death penalty is to encourage more violent crime.

Prop. 35 [NO] - This proposition claims to be about imposing human trafficking penalties, but it broadens the definitions, placing the label of "sex offender" on more people that may not necessarily deserve it, and allows the government to confiscate assets to the benefit of law-enforcement agencies, non-profits, and the like.  The intent of the law seems reasonable, but the implications are dangerous, giving the government powers that we may later realize was not a good idea.

Prop. 36 [NO] - Though Proposition 36 keeps the very successful three strikes law intact, it adds to the 3 Strikes quiver "firearms possession."  This is an attempt to further erode the right to keep and bear arms.  In California we already have counties arresting people for firearm possession outside of their home, even if they have a concealed-carry permit, simply because the permit was issued in a different county.  In those cases, this proposition would also include such an "infraction" as a part of the three strike law.  In fact, this proposition would place a person behind bars even if the third strike was not a felony conviction.

Prop. 37 [NO] - This has been a difficult one for me to decide on.  I recognize the dangers of genetically modified foods, and I do think that we should be made aware which foods are GMO, and which are not. However, the negative fiscal impact of this law on producers, the lawsuits it opens up, and the very fact that it is going to give government the ability to force companies to do something that could be very costly and push producers out of the State, concerns me.  I believe foods should be labeled, but that the effort to do so ought to be through a grassroots effort.  One way to accomplish the same would be for non-GMO food producers to label their foods as non-GMO, and if the consumer sees no such labeling, it would be safe to assume the food not labeled as non-GMO is genetically modified.  Groups could also produce guides and packets.  If you want something done, sometimes it is better to do it through private channels, not necessarily through government mandates.

Prop. 38 [NO] - A tax increase designed to provide for our children's education.  As with 30, there is no accountability, and this is just another scheme to put more tax dollars into government coffers for general use.

Prop. 39 [NO] - A tax increase against multi-state businesses, for clean energy funding.  California is hostile to businesses, and these companies are leaving California in droves.  Now, with this tax increase, the liberal left is trying to drive multi-state businesses out of California, as well.  The claim is the money will go into much needed green technology, but we've seen what happens when you try to force green energy on the people through government funding that plays favorites - it fails.  This proposition will not create a new green technology industry, and it will not create jobs.  The problem in California regarding jobs is not whether or not we have green technology, but because of the hostile environment towards businesses this State has become - Proposition 39 simply makes California more hostile against businesses than we already are.

Prop. 40 [YES] - A tough one to decide upon. A YES vote protects the new State Senate districts drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission, a NO vote rejects them.  The new lines are not perfect, and there is still a lot of work to be done, but by voting NO on Proposition 40, we will hand the controls back into the hands of officials supervised by the California State Supreme Court. Simple question: Do you want citizen groups drawing the lines? Or politically motivated officials?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary