June Ballot Propositions
by Wes Morris -
June 4, 2010
It is that time of the year again for an election and that also means another barrage of ballot propositions to confuse us. Let's take a look and see what we have.
Proposition 13
Proposition 13 will provide that construction to seismically retrofit existing buildings will not trigger reassessment of property tax value, regardless of the type of building. Additionally it will set a statewide standard for the types of seismic retrofit improvements exempt from reassessment.
As much as I hate government regulation, there is a reason we can have powerful earthquakes in California and our casualties are so low; we have stringent building codes. Having high quality public and private buildings saves lives. If we can encourage people to retrofit existing buildings by removing the tax penalty of doing so, then why not?
Plus no one rebutted this proposition. Again, I am not sure why the legislature couldn't just handle this and approve it. I guess we will have to do their job for them.
Proposition 14
Proposition 14 will change California election law and allow candidates (other than for President) to run without party affiliation. During the June primary, all voters will be eligible to vote for any candidate in any party. The top two candidates will then run against each other in the November election.
First off this sounds like a bad idea. As it stands now, we still have an option to vote for candidates in other parties in the final elections and each registered political party is guaranteed their candidate in the final election. Under this system, in California's horribly gerrymandered assembly districts, most races will have a final run off between two candidates for the same party.
For example, Nancy Pelosi is usually re-elected in the 8th district with over 80% of the vote. Under this system, in the primary election she might get the largest number of votes and another Democrat would probably get the second most votes. In the final election, the choice would be between two Democrats. In conservative areas like ours, the final elections would probably be between two Republicans.
It would appear to me that third party candidates would effectively be banned under this new system. The top two candidates would almost always be either Republicans or Democrats.
Our current electoral system is not broken in regards to party affiliation. The reason the Green Party, Independent Party, or Libertarian Party are not winning elections is because their candidates are simply not getting the votes. Eliminating their party labels and allowing two Democrats to run against each other in the final election is not going to solve this issue. In fact, it would eliminate any chance of these people being on the final ballot.
I will be voting no on Proposition 14. I still want a third party option regardless of the primary elections. I am sure the Democrats wouldn't mind eliminating our choices.
Proposition 15
Proposition 15 seeks to provide public funding for the Secretary of State elections in 2014 and 2018. Candidates that accept these public funds would be subject to strict regulation and be mandated to participate in debates. This program would actually generate revenue by charging new fees on lobbyists to register as lobbyists in the State of California.
Part of me thinks we shouldn't waste tax payer's dollars on political campaigns. At the same time are we surprised when candidates seem to buy elections with huge party machines or a vast personal fortune? Probably the vast majority of my readers will never have the money to run for a political office.
This proposition seeks to increase the fee for being a lobbyist in order to fund public elections. If this passed, candidates would suddenly have an interesting choice. They could vow never to spend a dime of their election at the tax payer's expense and simply collect all of their money from special interest groups willing to buy their campaigns. Or a candidate could vow to never take a dime of private funds from special interest groups and run a fair campaign based on ideas, open debates, and fewer attack ads on TV, radio, and the telephone.
My only question is if we were to pass this, would there continue to be as many lobbyists in Sacramento? Like most other government taxes on business, would we drive lobbyists out of Sacramento and on to greener pastures? Would that then decrease the number of lobbyists and thereby decrease the amount of funds available for these public campaigns?
Should we try a scheme to make elected positions more accessible at the expense of Sacramento lobbyists? I think so.
Proposition 16
Proposition 16 would require local governments to receive 2/3 majority vote before providing local electricity service. The supporters of Proposition 16 are claiming that this 2/3 majority vote is necessary to protect the tax payers from local governments wasting tax dollars on the electricity business.
The interesting thing is that PG&E is heavily in favor of Proposition 16. Now why would PG&E want to make it harder for local governments to compete with them in the electricity market? It wouldn't be to protect their profits would it?
The energy crisis of 2001 was complex and to this day the blame is thrown around all sides. The people in support of Proposition 16 are arguing that when the government gets involved in the energy business, the disasters of 2001 happen.
That might be, but we the people can still hold local governments accountable for their decisions. If local representatives advocate entering the electric business against our will, then we can fire those representatives. Adding a more difficult challenge through a 2/3 majority seems to only benefit one group: PG&E.
I'll be voting no on Proposition 16. All one has to do is follow the money. PG&E wouldn't spend millions to try and pass this proposition unless it directly benefited them.
Proposition 17
Proposition 17 changes current law to permit insurance companies to offer a discount to drivers who have continuously maintained their auto insurance coverage, even if they change their insurance company. Additionally it will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who do not have a history of continuous insurance coverage.
There has to be a reason the insurance companies want to see this pass. Clearly they have done their homework and the number of people who do not have continuous insurance coverage must provide less revenue than the number of drivers who have maintained continuous coverage.
Now you might want to ask yourself, have you had continuous insurance coverage? If so, this proposition will save you money. If you move out of the state or country or have any other lapse in your "bodily injury liability coverage" then this proposition is going to cost you money.
Interestingly the Secretary of State Voter's Guide states, "If an insurance company chooses to provide such a discount." There is no guarantee your insurance company has to offer this discount.
I don't trust insurance companies. Out of principle I might have to vote no on this one. However, since I have had "bodily injury liability coverage" continuously for the past 10 years, it would benefit me, especially since I have changed carriers three times in that period. If you have not had insurance coverage, then this proposition is definitely going to cost you some money, and probably quite a bit.
This proposition actually would depend on your past insurance coverage. The sad thing is the insurance companies will always get our money no matter which way you vote on this one.
Wes Morris's Picks
Proposition 13 Yes
Proposition 14 No
Proposition 15 Yes
Proposition 16 No
Proposition 17 Yes (but no is fine too)
Wesley Morris is transferring from the Kern High School District and will be starting as a history teacher at Taft Union High School in the fall. He also owns Ten Percent Firearms here in Taft. You can send him comments at wes@tenpercentfirearms.com or leave a comment on the Taft Independent Facebook Page.
Proposition 13
Proposition 13 will provide that construction to seismically retrofit existing buildings will not trigger reassessment of property tax value, regardless of the type of building. Additionally it will set a statewide standard for the types of seismic retrofit improvements exempt from reassessment.
As much as I hate government regulation, there is a reason we can have powerful earthquakes in California and our casualties are so low; we have stringent building codes. Having high quality public and private buildings saves lives. If we can encourage people to retrofit existing buildings by removing the tax penalty of doing so, then why not?
Plus no one rebutted this proposition. Again, I am not sure why the legislature couldn't just handle this and approve it. I guess we will have to do their job for them.
Proposition 14
Proposition 14 will change California election law and allow candidates (other than for President) to run without party affiliation. During the June primary, all voters will be eligible to vote for any candidate in any party. The top two candidates will then run against each other in the November election.
First off this sounds like a bad idea. As it stands now, we still have an option to vote for candidates in other parties in the final elections and each registered political party is guaranteed their candidate in the final election. Under this system, in California's horribly gerrymandered assembly districts, most races will have a final run off between two candidates for the same party.
For example, Nancy Pelosi is usually re-elected in the 8th district with over 80% of the vote. Under this system, in the primary election she might get the largest number of votes and another Democrat would probably get the second most votes. In the final election, the choice would be between two Democrats. In conservative areas like ours, the final elections would probably be between two Republicans.
It would appear to me that third party candidates would effectively be banned under this new system. The top two candidates would almost always be either Republicans or Democrats.
Our current electoral system is not broken in regards to party affiliation. The reason the Green Party, Independent Party, or Libertarian Party are not winning elections is because their candidates are simply not getting the votes. Eliminating their party labels and allowing two Democrats to run against each other in the final election is not going to solve this issue. In fact, it would eliminate any chance of these people being on the final ballot.
I will be voting no on Proposition 14. I still want a third party option regardless of the primary elections. I am sure the Democrats wouldn't mind eliminating our choices.
Proposition 15
Proposition 15 seeks to provide public funding for the Secretary of State elections in 2014 and 2018. Candidates that accept these public funds would be subject to strict regulation and be mandated to participate in debates. This program would actually generate revenue by charging new fees on lobbyists to register as lobbyists in the State of California.
Part of me thinks we shouldn't waste tax payer's dollars on political campaigns. At the same time are we surprised when candidates seem to buy elections with huge party machines or a vast personal fortune? Probably the vast majority of my readers will never have the money to run for a political office.
This proposition seeks to increase the fee for being a lobbyist in order to fund public elections. If this passed, candidates would suddenly have an interesting choice. They could vow never to spend a dime of their election at the tax payer's expense and simply collect all of their money from special interest groups willing to buy their campaigns. Or a candidate could vow to never take a dime of private funds from special interest groups and run a fair campaign based on ideas, open debates, and fewer attack ads on TV, radio, and the telephone.
My only question is if we were to pass this, would there continue to be as many lobbyists in Sacramento? Like most other government taxes on business, would we drive lobbyists out of Sacramento and on to greener pastures? Would that then decrease the number of lobbyists and thereby decrease the amount of funds available for these public campaigns?
Should we try a scheme to make elected positions more accessible at the expense of Sacramento lobbyists? I think so.
Proposition 16
Proposition 16 would require local governments to receive 2/3 majority vote before providing local electricity service. The supporters of Proposition 16 are claiming that this 2/3 majority vote is necessary to protect the tax payers from local governments wasting tax dollars on the electricity business.
The interesting thing is that PG&E is heavily in favor of Proposition 16. Now why would PG&E want to make it harder for local governments to compete with them in the electricity market? It wouldn't be to protect their profits would it?
The energy crisis of 2001 was complex and to this day the blame is thrown around all sides. The people in support of Proposition 16 are arguing that when the government gets involved in the energy business, the disasters of 2001 happen.
That might be, but we the people can still hold local governments accountable for their decisions. If local representatives advocate entering the electric business against our will, then we can fire those representatives. Adding a more difficult challenge through a 2/3 majority seems to only benefit one group: PG&E.
I'll be voting no on Proposition 16. All one has to do is follow the money. PG&E wouldn't spend millions to try and pass this proposition unless it directly benefited them.
Proposition 17
Proposition 17 changes current law to permit insurance companies to offer a discount to drivers who have continuously maintained their auto insurance coverage, even if they change their insurance company. Additionally it will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who do not have a history of continuous insurance coverage.
There has to be a reason the insurance companies want to see this pass. Clearly they have done their homework and the number of people who do not have continuous insurance coverage must provide less revenue than the number of drivers who have maintained continuous coverage.
Now you might want to ask yourself, have you had continuous insurance coverage? If so, this proposition will save you money. If you move out of the state or country or have any other lapse in your "bodily injury liability coverage" then this proposition is going to cost you money.
Interestingly the Secretary of State Voter's Guide states, "If an insurance company chooses to provide such a discount." There is no guarantee your insurance company has to offer this discount.
I don't trust insurance companies. Out of principle I might have to vote no on this one. However, since I have had "bodily injury liability coverage" continuously for the past 10 years, it would benefit me, especially since I have changed carriers three times in that period. If you have not had insurance coverage, then this proposition is definitely going to cost you some money, and probably quite a bit.
This proposition actually would depend on your past insurance coverage. The sad thing is the insurance companies will always get our money no matter which way you vote on this one.
Wes Morris's Picks
Proposition 13 Yes
Proposition 14 No
Proposition 15 Yes
Proposition 16 No
Proposition 17 Yes (but no is fine too)
Wesley Morris is transferring from the Kern High School District and will be starting as a history teacher at Taft Union High School in the fall. He also owns Ten Percent Firearms here in Taft. You can send him comments at wes@tenpercentfirearms.com or leave a comment on the Taft Independent Facebook Page.
