It's time to vote again in California so once again I have studied the issues and will share my insights.

It's a pretty pathetic selection we have this year. If the length of this blog looks daunting, remember the following and you'll do very well.

Simple Rule:
Just vote NO.
Summary of Recommendations:
In reality, there is one rather trivial issue I recommend voting Yes on, but since it's rather trivial, you can vote No on that one as well without it making much of a difference. Here's the simple breakdown:
  • 1A - No
  • 1B - No
  • 1C - No
  • 1D - No
  • 1E - No
  • 1F - Yes
Full Analysis:


Proposition 1A: STATE BUDGET. CHANGES CALIFORNIA BUDGET PROCESS.
Nay
While on the positive side, I like the fact that this proposition grants special budget cutting powers to the governor, I cannot support this proposition. After the last election, it seems clear that fairness and honesty in the description of propositions has gone out the window. In particular, here, the short description of this proposition completely fails to mention that it extends certain tax increases. Instead, the overview cites an ambiguous "Higher state tax revenues", which tipped me off that I should try to find out why revenues would be expected to increase. This is rather minor example in isolation, but it is not an isolated occurrence. The proposition is packaged here to be sold, not simply impartially proposed. The fact is that the relatively minor increase in power for the governor simply doesn't compensate for the downside of raised taxes combined with a reduction in the amount spent to pay down debts. This is just short of stealing money from tax payers, and borrowing to subsidize and enable fiscal irresponsibility.
Proposition 1B: EDUCATION FUNDING. PAYMENT PLAN.
Nay
This proposition is endorsed by the California Teacher's Association. A good rule of thumb is that anything supported by the California Teacher's Association is no good for California. In this case, our rule is vindicated when we discover that while this proposition would result in short-term financial gains, it would increase the financial burden over the long term. It seems to me patently ridiculous that the state should hold itself in debt to the educational system. The real solution is for the state to just forgive itself of the "debt" and move on. Instead, we are deferring repayment and increasing the long-term financial burden. This makes no sense.
Proposition 1C: LOTTERY MODERNIZATION ACT.
Nay
Being opposed to gambling, in all forms, I already knew going into this that I would be against proposition 1C. However, even if you don't mind the state promoting gambling, there are still reasons to be concerned. 1C pays for for the modernization of the lottery by borrowing, under the assumption that the money will be gained back through lottery profits. Not only is the borrowing simply more of the same financial mismanagement that got California into its current crisis, but the fact that we are borrowing against the future profits seriously undercuts the supposed benefit that we would hope to derive from a modernized lottery system.
Proposition 1D: PROTECTS CHILDREN’S SERVICES FUNDING. HELPS BALANCE STATE BUDGET.
Nay (leaning)
This proposition reallocates certain funds for early childhood development programs to cover certain health services for young children. The practical effect of this proposition is to cut the overall funding of these services. Unfortunately, while I like the idea of making cuts, I'm not particularly fond of the idea of cutting these particular services. This service does nothing to "protect" funding, which makes the premise a bit deceptive. The appearance of deception, I'm sure, does nothing to win my favor.
Proposition 1E: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FUNDING.
Nay
This proposition is very similar to 1D. In this case early and periodic mental health screenings, diagnosis and treatment programs, and Mental Health Services Act programs will be made to share the same funds original reserved to just the Mental Health Services Act programs. This is not the kind of cut California needs. This is even more so than it was for 1D as these kinds of programs are much more clearly covering fundamental functions of the government.
Proposition 1F: ELECTED OFFICIALS’ SALARIES.
Yea
This proposition I have heard described as "the blood money that was paid" to get the other propositions on the ballot. That is, this proposition was offered up in order to get certain Republicans to concede to allowing the other propositions. As it is, this proposition is pretty worthless, and so, hardly worth the compromise that it won. However, despite being nearly worthless, it is the only positive thing on the ballot and deserves a Yea vote..