31 October 2008
California Propositions
When the state constitution established a populist method for amending its contents, California was much less developed and its population was small when compared to the Eastern states. Unlike the federal Constitution of 1787, Californians have had the ability to vote on any proposals to amend the state constitution without having been voted on by the legislature or signed into law by the governor.
Post a Comment
I think that at the time it was written, this populist provision was a very good idea so that the citizens could direct the affairs of government directly. It's a very democratic ideal for the governed to correct or to direct the elected officials.
In the 160-plus years since Californians wrote our state constitution, the population, economy and world position for cultural ideas, ocean and land transporation of goods and general use of the state's resources have changed so much that the use of Propositions on the ballot is now a powerful tool of special interest groups who cannot influence their elected representatives.
For instance, Proposition 1A asks voters to approve adding to the state's budget obligations $19.4 billion through a bond issue. The persons drafting Proposition 1A make it seem that the voters will receive in return a high-speed, bullet train connecting Sacramento, San Francisco Bay cities, Los Angeles and San Diego. That's a good thing and we need better means of quickly moving between major cities than the airways or highways now provide. This is not was Proposition 1A will do if passed. This item intends for the state to establish a railroad trust fund of almost $10 billion that will not add one engine, rail or car to the high speed train project. These funds will continue to pay for environmental studies, for local municipalities to construct their interfaces for passengers and, if there is any money left, to pay a portion of the actual train itself. This bond issue would cost $670 million each year for 30 years, while the train itself is estimated to cost tax payers $1 billion per year in operating costs. The annual $billion cost would be offset by ticket revenues (big assumption) at least in part. Where will the rest of the operating funds come from?
Make no mistake, Proposition 1A and the subsequent funding of the train system itself will eliminate millions of dollars each year that could be used for health care, education, police and fire services, corrections department facilities, infrastructure construction for replacing petroleum and coal as energy sources, and for bringing the state's water distribution system up to date as well as our road systems. First rule of budgeting is to pay our interest payments on the capital we borrowed.
Proposition 2 asks voters to close down the cages and barns that the food industry uses to produce great quantities of meat and fowl products for our tables. Due to the business need to maximize output within limited real estate holdings, many producers have constructed pens and cages, in which animals and birds being raised for use as food products, that severely constrain any movement by the animals and to contain as many animals as possible. Proponents of Proposition 2 would make such industry practices illegal by requiring free range periods and less confining stalls for feeding. I like this Proposition because I see a possible outcome of re-establishing the role of the family farm for our food supply. I also project humanizing emotions onto the animals (without any reason other than I've always done so). Current processing practices are dehumanizing and destroy the integrity of the animals.
Proposition 3 wants the state to issue almost a $billion for support and new facilities of children's hospitals around the state. I seriously doubt that all children's hospitals will have equal access to these funds. My skepticism comes from having voted the same dollar amount down when Oakland's Children's Hospital wanted the city property owners to pay for its ambitious expansion plans. I see no reason for public funds to go to a private enterprise unless concommitant ownership participation goes with it. I voted against the children in the campaign commercials urging passage.
Proposition 4 is pure nosiness and legitimatizing of puritanical chastisement at a time when personal responsibility and emotional support come from outside the parental sphere of influence--otherwise, why did the girl have unsafe sex? We don't need the government interfering with the patient-physician decision making. Sheesh, why don't the proponents mind the railroad tie in their eyes first. That should keep them working on themselves for the rest of their lives without screwing up anyone else's. And, why is it always the woman who has to comply with notification requirements and interference between patient and physician?
Proposition 5 asks voters to fund increased counseling and treatment resources for persons caught up in their use of street drugs, illegal drugs. As the last major vestige of Prohibition and the Temperance League of the 19th and 20th centuries, the current approach is to stop drug use by incarcerating the user. As with Proposition 4, some people in our society believe it is their right and obligation to control the behavior of other members of our society. As this Proposition 5 states, the purpose of the requested funds is to help someone who wants to stop using drugs. Like the "War on Drugs" the practice of incarcerating non-violent users hasn't affected drug trafficking in the state. Drug use is a public health problem, not an issue that isolation from those "good" citizens who haven't been caught driving while intoxicated or even losing themselves in drug-induced hazes. By assuming that drug users are criminals and confinement among criminals is the appropriate process for improving our society, the proponents do not consider illicit drug use as symptomatic of illness, mental or physical. Although the proposed programs may cost the state $1 billion per year, approximately $1 billion less cost for corrections operations plus avoidance of the $2,5 billion in capital outlays for additional correctional facilities. I voted for this change in priority for counseling and treatment of drug users because use per se is not a crime unless observed by police and because I dislike the notion of punishing shame and illness as a crime.
Proposition 6 intends to limit the power of the Judiciary by specifying sentencing requirements. We elect judges to do that. I doubt the proponents trust judges to adjudicate the law under the state constitution. Concentration camps went away when Japanese Americans were allowed to return to their homes after World War II. We don't need to create concentration camps for people who use illegal drugs.
Proposition 7 establishes requirements for the public and private electrical providers to meet specific reductuion goals by percentage and by year. What's wrong with that? The opponents argue that the Proposition is poorly written. I say it is well-written, without ambiguity or exclusions, including any allowance for additional use of nuclear power generation.
Opponents sat that the cost of electric power will increase; however, they do not state any data over time about the economics of electrical power if one considers the savings achieved by passive energy production or the length of time for the initial capital investments to be recovered through operations. The substantive change to our electrical power infrastructure requires additional money, so why not enable all users to contribute to these additional, start-up and conversion costs? My only quibble with Proposition 7 is that the time frames are too distant.
Proposition 8 should not be necessary in a secular government-led state. Marriage is a sacrament of religions that should not be a delegated function of the state. The California Family Code should be amended to withdraw the delegation of state legal authority to religious organizations. The federal Constitution's amendment 14 established the requirement for equal justice under the law for all citizens. There are sufficient numbers of present and former state officials available to perform the legal function of establishing the legal status of two persons as 'married' and entitled to all the privileges and responsibilities that state law includes.
Within Christianity, some churches do not recognize a valid marriage unless it meets the particular tenets of that church. In the Roman Catholic Orthodox Church [Orthodoxy exists in more churches that those of Russia, Greece and Constantinople.], the church as a religious community is not involved with a marriage except to celebrate it and to acknowledge its sanctity. Two individuals in God's presence form a marriage, thus the prohibition that no man render that which God has joined together. Secular laws came about to protect the property of families under the law. Before that, two children could in all innocence commit to each other in marriage and their respective families had to deal with the consequences for property ownership arising from that marriage. The state's interest in marriage results from the implications of property ownership, inheritances and accountability for children's behavior. None of those implications involve God, so why should the state delegate its power to legitimize marriage to religious leadership?
It also would help if the public discussion of two men or two women getting married if the term 'same gender' rather than 'same sex' were used.
Proposition 9 intends to interject the victims of a convicted criminal into the parole granting process. I think the victims' involvement ended with the trial (probably not emotionally, but in legal terms) and sentencing. Further, there are programs within the state to assist victims to recover from crimes committed against them. To me, the parole process within corrections is complex enough without injecting victim emotions into it.
Proposition 10 in effect changes the state's budget priorities by continuing the subsidies for consumers who purchase alternative energy-fueled products, primarily automobiles. The subsidization extends tax credits that lower state revenues at a time when deficit budgets are a plaque on Sacramento. Sure tax credits are a nice incentive for consumers, but those consumers choose to purchase their products mostly for other reasons. The decision to purchase something for a specific need has already been made without considering the tax break. If the consumer decides to purchase a hybrid-fueled car, the new car will give the consumer a lower cost of ownership without any subsidy via tax credits. With lowered demand for gasoline, state tax revenue will diminish accordingly. So, extending tax credits rewards consumer choice while cutting tax revenues to fund the state's expenditures I think this change in budgeting should remain with the legislature and the governor, the people we elect to perform that job.
Proposition 11 is an attempt to wrest control of redistricting from the legislature and placing responsibility with a new commission. Texas is not the only state to use creative redistricting for the protection of certain politicians from electoral challenge and to change the power dynamics within the legislature in ways the voters have not. I think a commission approach is worth trying. It can't do worse.
Proposition 12 requests a $1.8 billion bond obligation to improve services and facilities for California's military service veterans. As a veteran, I think it is worthwhile.
I find it interesting that only two of the twelve propositions were placed on the ballot by tghe legislature. All of the ten others qualified by petition submissions. Of the twelve, I think the least controversial issues are the ones from the legislature. Why doesn't the legislature deal with the other issues? What's up with that?!
<< Home
