The Evil Twin of William Jennings Bryan 2006 California Voters Guide

Last year I gave much more individual attention to the ballot propositions. This year, my frustration with California's choices had led me to some very simple conclusions. So, to start, I will give a quick rundown of each ballot proposition and then I'll discuss my decision.

The first set, 1A-1E were created by the state legislature. The second set, 83-90, was created through the initiative process (voter petition).

Prop 1A: Transportation funding restrictions.
Right now, the taxes that we all pay when buying gas (about 24 cents/gallon) is supposed to go to building and maintaining roads and public transportation. However, the government can "suspend" this requirement in times of financial crisis. The proposition would tighten the rules on these suspensions to the point that you could, at most, use them twice in any 10-year period. Basically, it makes it harder for lawmakers to take that money out of the transportation fund.
My vote: NO. I don't like the idea of making transportation this huge of a priority in our budget. Maybe if this prop set restrictions that allowed them to transfer money to the education budget I'd be OK, but otherwise I'm not buying it.

Prop 1B: Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond
This prop would allow the state to sell $19.9 billion in bonds to be used on the things listed in the title. Most of the money would go to public transportation with only $1.5 going to security
My vote: NO. Let me make my point about bonds here. They are stupid. California currently has a debt of $45 billion. That's roughly equivalent to 1/3 of our total state budget. There are still $30 billion in unsold bonds for projects not yet started. If all of the bonds on this ballot passed we would increase that debt by $42 billion. We would eventually be spending almost 10% of our yearly budget just servicing that debt. Bonds are a way for legislators to create new programs and spend more money without directly raising taxes. We have to pay these things back!! They are a fucking loan! Imagine if a person making $50,000/year borrowed $20,000 every year from the bank. Not smart. Bonds are a cop-out. Legislators need to make priorities and spend wisely like everyone else.

Prop 1C: Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund.
This would create a $2.85 billion bond. The money would be used to create re-development programs in lower-income areas. They could build parks transportation, sewage, etc. There would also be a home buying assistance program and other homeowner programs.
My vote: NO Again, bonds are stupid. These programs would be awesome. So let's fund them through the general fund.

Prop 1D: Public Education Facilities Bond
This $10.4 billion bond would give money to re-build public schools and universities.
My vote: NO Another great need, but another bond.

Prop 1E: Disaster Preparedness Bond
This $4.1 billion bond would go towards protecting us from the flooding like they had in Katrina by building/renovating levees and other flood control systems.
My vote: NO Do you see a pattern?

Prop 83: Increased Punishment for sex offenders
This law would do several things including: require a lifetime use of a GPS tracking device by all convicted sex offenders, prohibit them from living within 2000 feet of a school or park, increase the penalties for sex offenders, and broaden the official description of "sex offender".
My vote: ???? I really won't know this one until I get to the ballot-box. I'm all for all of the things that this statute proposes to do except the broadening of the definition. There are sex offenses like a 50 year-old man molesting a 10 year-old, then there are sex offenses like a 19 year-old having sex with his 17 year-old girlfriend. The first guy needs his balls chopped off. The second just needs to find someone his own age or wait another year. This law seems to put both of these guys in the "balls chopped off" category, which I don't like. Plus, other states that have gone this direction said that it doesn't really work since the law focuses on people that are not likely to be a danger. They also said that this took officers from other needed areas. However, I really like the GPS thing, and this law makes the offender pay for it. Again, I'm pretty stuck here, but I'm leaning towards yes just because I don't care much for sex offenders.

Prop 84: Water Quality, Flood Control, Natural Resource Protection, etc. Bond
This prop would create an $11 billion bond that would go towards a lot of conservation projects including the ones listed in the title. Most of them involve water.
My vote: NO. Great programs, let's pay for them out of our general fund.

Prop 85: Parental Notification for abortion
This would require doctors to wait 48 hours after notifying the parents before performing an abortion on a minor. The waiting period can be waived by the parents or a court.
My vote: NO. I really like the premise behind this law, but I don't see how it would actually work. I like the opening statement of the rebuttal to the argument in favor: "No law can force families to communicate." I think that parents do have a right to know what is going on with their children, but at the same time I think there are parents that shouldn't even have children. Those are the parents that I worry about in this law. In the end, I don't want to see a girl not get help because she is afraid of her parents. Also, I feel like this is a sneaky way to start moving towards overturning abortion laws in general.

Prop 86: Cigarette tax
This prop would create a 13-cent tax on every cigarette sold ($2.60/pack). The money would go towards several programs dealing with health issues, not all directly tobacco-related: nursing education programs, loan re-payment for doctors working in low-income areas, disease prevention, etc.
My vote: NO. Smoking is gross. I don't think anyone should smoke (except for cigars on occasion). Its addictive, causes cancer, makes your mouth taste like an ass, reduces your ability to taste food, turns your teeth yellow, etc. However, I like to drink alcohol and eat greasy food, both of which are also bad for your health. I don't think there should be extra taxes on that. If a person wants to kill themselves by smoking, that's their deal. However, I also want to say that if you decide to smoke, then you should be exempt from free cancer care. People need to be accountable for their decisions. This law, however, picks on smokers who are simply exercising their right to do what they want. I feel that I have the right to judge them for that decision, but I don't think the law does. On the other hand, I will always support limits on where people can smoke because its gross and I don't want to smell it when I'm eating.

At this point I'm tired of writing. I'll hit up 87-90 later.