Well,
Angelides is not looking good, but what about all that other stuff on the ballot. The propositions most people don't read about until they are in the voting booth. To get the full description of each proposition, go to
http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ca/state/prop/In numerical order, here is how I will vote on the propositions that will be on California's ballot next month :
Proposition 1A:
Yes. Forces gas taxes to go toward road work. I think the tax revenues collected from gas sales should go to road construction. That was the original intent. If more money is needed elsewhere, than there should be another proposition to raise money for that.
Proposition 1B:
No. I don't think borrowing over $19 Billion for road work is a good idea. This will result in $32 billion future generations will have to repay. Of course transportation is important, and I think 1A needs to work before borrowing that much money.
Proposition 1C:
I want to say no. 1C is asking for $2.9 billion to fund lower income housing. As much as I want to help senior citizens and the poor, I don't think borrowing $3 billion will make a difference in housing prices for enough people to make a difference. A select few will get improved housing. But, there are some good groups backing this (Habitat for Humanity, and others). It also claims to help battered woman and kids... so I may end up saying yes.
Proposition 1D:
Yes. $10.4 Billion is a lot of money, but this will build 6,500 new class room for k-12 and 3,000 for community college. Repair another 31,000 class rooms. It is supported by both Schwarzenegger and Angelides. Basically 1D aims to make the classrooms earthquake safe and add new class rooms.
Proposition 1E:
No. This proposition is to protect us from floods. Basically I can't find anybody to tell me why we need to borrow $4.1 billion for flood prevention. We live in the desert.
Proposition 83:
Yes. This proposition should put more GPS locators on sexual offenders, keeps them further from schools, and requires more treatment for those offenders who show mental defect.
Proposition 84:
Yes. This proposition provides funds to purchase and improve natural areas, improve drinking water, flood control, and funds for state and local parks. Again, $5.4 billion is a big pill to swallow, but environmental protection and safe water is worth a lot.
Proposition 85:
No. This proposition seeks to requires minors to get parental permission for abortion. "No law can mandate family communication", and I don't think this law will protect or help anybody, it will only open the door to banning all abortions.
Proposition 86:
No. 86 is another tax on cigarettes. The easiest way to pass legislation is to help the most people while hurting the fewest. But this is not always fair, and breeds discrimination. Furthermore, I think this legislation is deceitful. It claims to fund anit-smoking programs, but less than 10% goes toward helping smokers quit or keeping kids from smoking. Hospitals get almost 40%. I'm sure hospitals need more money, but to only charge the smokers for everyone's hospitals seems biased to me. Smokers already get charged more for insurance.
Proposition 87:
Yes. I believe we need to find alternative energy sources. Even if this does mean a short term increase in fuel costs, everyone must know we need to find other fuels. California has always been a leader in clean air technology, it doesn't make sense that we should not stop trying to find alternative fuels now that gas prices are too high.
Proposition 88:
No. This proposition taxes real estate $50 / year for schools. I think one proposition per ballot per idea. They got me for 1D, and that is more money that this is. However, I see specific reasons and goals from 1D. I don't think proposition 88 is specific enough with how that money is used to be effective.
Proposition 89:
No. Prop 89 takes tax payers money to pay for campaigns. I agree it is terrible that big business has so much affect on campaigns, but there are other things I would rather my tax dollars go toward than TV commercials, signs, junk mail and phone calls from candidates I may or may not agree with.
Proposition 90:
Yes. Proposition 90 makes it harder for the government to acquire or regulate private property. It claims to stop eminent domain abuse. I have heard of some disgusting eminent domain abuse stories, and I think that the governemnt should only be allowed to acquire private property in the most dire circumstances... not just to build a large hotel or mall that would provide more tax revenues.