the california propositions

Prop 1A: Transportation Funding Protection
Prop 1B: Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security
Prop 1C: Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund
Prop 1D: Public Education Facilities
Prop 1E: Flood Protection

These five propositions are billed as an integrated Rebuilding California plan. The very fact that the plan is split into smaller propositions is an indication of two things to me. First, while they complement each other, it is not necessary to pass all of them in order for any one of them to be effective. Second, the drafter(s) recognize that they're asking for a crapload of new bonds that will push the California debt to new highs. Accordingly, I did not vote yes on all of them.

Prop 1A - No
The budget is deadlocked enough already. This prop further restricts the ability of the legislature to shift funds to vital services in recession years. Now, I'm not going to argue that the Legislature knows best, but the real issue here is that Infrastructure is something that can wait in bad years, and there is already a good deal of protection in place such that borrowed Transportation funds will eventually be repaid.

Prop 1B - No
I believe in the importance of infrastructure as the foundation of a prosperous commercial economy, but this is both too much money given our state's current debt load, and too little money in terms of fully rebuilding California's enormous road network. The clincher for me is that most of the money appears to go to local projects. California's state-wide arteries are federal highways (101) or interstates (I-5) - thus, not covered by this bill. The only major artery that is covered is SR 99 - which is great for the Central Valley, but who else uses it? Meanwhile, most of the line items are specifically for local projects. Again, I'm not saying California as a whole doesn't benefit from local infrastructure improvements. It's just that, like all bond issues, we have to balance debt load against prioritized needs, and my view is that until our budget outlook improves, transportation is not the highest priority (this is the largest bond issue on the ballot).

Prop 1C - No
I don't have any confidence the state government has the ability to provide adequate low-income housing.

Prop 1D - Yes
I do believe education is the top domestic priority of government, with the possible exception of health care. I think it should be the responsibility of both local and state governments. While I generally believe this is something that should be covered by our already substantial state taxes, clearly that's not working.

Prop 1E - No
This is mostly about fixing flood protection in the Central Valley. The bill is timed to take advantage of the recent specter of Katrina, and it is an important lesson. We do need to make sure we have drinking water in case of catastrophic failure of flood control. But let's not pretend the problem is as bad as it is for below-sea-level New Orleans - the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers do not flood like the Mississippi floods, and hurricanes are exceedingly unlikely a hundred miles inland in a Mediterranean climate. Ultimately, though, this is the same issue as with the roads: not an immediate priority, yet they're asking for a fraction of the total cost for flood control updates.

Prop 83 - No
Tracking sex offenders with GPS? Give me a break. America at its hysterical, fear-mongering worst.

Prop 84 - No
Sounds like too much pork barrel.

Prop 85 (Parental Consent for Abortion) - No
How exactly does requiring parental notice "protect our daughters"? Maybe our granddaughters if you happen to be a pro-lifer. Why can't the proponents be honest and say this a pro-life/pro-choice issue? Because they know pro-lifers are in the minority among California voters.

Prop 86 (Tobacco Tax) - No
Although I have bronchitis and welcome the reduction in public smoking over the last two decades, I do not believe in morality-based taxation, and that's ultimately what tobacco taxes come down to. The government should not be in the business of coercing people in their private lives.

Prop 87 (Alternative Energy Tax) - No
A strange tax on California oil producers, presumably with the ancillary purposes of shutting down in-state oil production and increasing the cost of gasoline. Laudable (at least in general concept), but not important enough for California to be increasing its inefficient bureaucracy and debt load right now.

Prop 88 (School Parcel Tax) - No
You know, I may have been wrong on this one (I may have been wrong on every one), but when in doubt, I vote for the status quo. The doubt here is that this introduces a new parcel tax in perpetuity (whereas the bond will eventually be paid off).

Prop 89 (Public Campaign Funding) - No
I don't think public funding will reduce negative campaigning, nor do I think it will significantly increase the chances of people without powerful connections winning elections. Actually, I don't believe in the value in campaign advertising at all. The number of independent thinkers among the voting population is too low as it is.

Prop 90 (Eminent Domain Restriction) - No
My main problem with this one is the removal of the ability of the government to require plaintiffs to pay legal fees in case they bring a suit against the government over eminent domain. This could greatly increase the litigation burden on the government, which we pay for, after all. Honestly, is eminent domain abuse truly a widespread problem (and if so, why haven't I heard about it before?), or is this just a few disgruntled business owners?