A Painful Guide to California's Propositions--it's all about the accountability, stupid:
I especially find ironic the argument of the "No on 73" crowd that says "The government cannot impose good family communication"...This is an argument that liberals are making?!? The sameProposition 73: Parental notification about abortion
The way it is now:A pregnant minor (an unmarried girl under 18 years of age) can get an abortion in California without telling her parents about it.
What Prop 73 would do:
Change the State Constitution to require a doctor to notify a parent or guardian at least 48 hours before performing an abortion on a pregnant minor. Exceptions would be made in the case of a medical emergency or if the minor gets approval from juvenile court.
Doctors would have to report to the state about all abortions performed on minors. The minor’s identity would be kept confidential in these reports and in any court proceedings.
Effect on government spending:
Possible increase in state costs of several million dollars per year for health and welfare programs and court expenses.
folks who say the government is so good at doing everything else like provide health care, give free benefits to illegal immigrants, be involved in every aspect of our lives, etc. The guide doesn't really talk about how much less the government will be spending on continuing taxpayer-support of Planned Parenthood... Teach those brats accountability at a younger age instead of a free ticket to whore themselves out. Of course, if we voted 'no', we would be reducing the crime rate, right? I thought that minors weren't supposed to do all sorts of things because they didn't have the mental capacity to make these difficult decisions...but then again, some people never grow out of that True, many parents don't know how to parent...but it is doubtful that ignoring it will help very much at all...VOTE YES ON 73!Proposition 74: Public School Teachers
The way it is now:
New teachers are evaluated every year during the first two years. During this trial period, the teacher has no guarantee of a job for the next year. A teacher who is hired for a third year becomes a permanent employee. School districts must follow a strict process to fire a permanent teacher.
The trial period for new teachers would go up to five years instead of two years. Prop 74 would make it easier to fire a permanent teacher who has received two unsatisfactory evaluations in a row.
Effect on government spending:
Might save money in some school districts and cost more in others, depending on school district actions and how teachers respond.
Permanent employee + sweet pension deal after 18 years? Sweet Jesus. Even officers in the military can be canned at 18 years if they make a mistake, let alone an actual, conscious offense! Bottom line? The public school system here in California sucks regardless of whether or not they put teachers' tenure from 2 years to 5 years. It probably won't help matters much, but it will help some. Accountability, people... VOTE YES ON 74!
Do you see any problems with this? Neither do I. Unions that are accountable to its members shouldn't be worried if they're worth their salt. VOTE YES ON 75!Proposition 75: Government Employee Union Dues
The way it is now:
Government employee unions can charge their members dues which can be used for political contributions. Government workers who are not union members also pay fees to the union, because the union negotiates salaries and benefits for all workers. Fees collected from a nonmember cannot be used for political purposes if the nonmember objects.
Require government employee unions to get written agreement from each worker before using that worker’s dues or nonmember fees for political contributions.
Effect on government spending:
No major change in state or local spending.
Oh no! Control spending by using a rolling average as a baseline and make the legislature accountable first? Don't spend what you can't afford? Sounds pretty reasonable to me. VOTE YES ON 76!Proposition 76: State Budget and School Funding
The way it is now:
The state of California has had budget problems since 2001. A stock market drop and economic downturn caused state income to fall below spending commitments that were made when the economy was strong. Even though state income is growing again, it is still not enough to cover current state spending.
The largest budget item is for education. In 1988, voters approved Prop 98 that sets minimum funding levels for schools and community colleges based on the number of students and economic growth rates.
Change the State Constitution about how the state budget is managed. It would:
- Add a new spending limit. State spending would be limited to the last year’s spending plus an average of the past 3-years’ income growth.
- Give the Governor greater power to cut state spending. If state income falls below expected levels, the Legislature would have 45 days to fix the problem. If the Legislature and Governor could not agree on a solution, then the Governor would have the power to cut programs.
- Change how the minimum funding level is calculated for schools and community colleges.
Effect on government spending:
Future state spending would probably be less than under current law, but lower state spending on some programs could increase county government spending for those services. Ups and downs in the economy may have less effect on the state budget than in the past. State money to schools would depend more on decisions of the Legislature and Governor and less on Prop 98 minimum funding levels.
Frankly, I don't see how this can work. Who will these retired judges be? And how will sending the newly drawn district lines to the voters for approval make things better? The average voter is pretty retarded, as evidenced by a majority of them voting 98% of the time for the incumbent. But by principle, having an independent commission drawing district lines is a lot more fair than having interested parties doing the same thing. And California's Congress is a nightmare to begin with. Separation of power = Accountability. VOTE YES ON 77!Proposition 77: Political Districts
The way it is now:
The state of California is divided into political districts. Each federal and state lawmaker represents a “district” of Californians. The lines for these political districts are redrawn after each federal census, which last happened in 2000 and will happen next in 2010. The State Constitution gives the state Legislature the authority to draw the district lines for state legislators and the U.S. House of Representatives.
Change the California Constitution to give authority for setting up political district lines every ten years to a panel of three retired judges, instead of the state Legislature. Prop 77 also requires new district lines to be set up for the statewide June and November 2006 elections. These new districts would also have to be approved by voters in 2006. If voters reject the new district lines, then another panel of three judges would be chosen to redraw the boundaries again for elections in 2008.
Effect on government spending:
There are one-time costs for creating new political districts of about $1.5 million for the state and $1 million for the counties.
Proposition 78: Prescription Drug Discounts
The way it is now:
Several state and federal programs provide prescription drug coverage to those who are eligible based on income, age and/or disability. In California, the Medi-Cal and Healthy Families programs provide prescription drug coverage for low and moderate income families. People with Medicare can buy drugs at a discount at some pharmacies.
Create a new drug discount program for people who do not already have coverage from a government program or private insurance. Californians in families with incomes up to three times the federal poverty level (about $29,000 for one person or about $58,000 for a family of four) could get a drug discount card for $15 per year. The card would be used to buy drugs at a set discount at participating pharmacies.
The state would negotiate drug company rebates. The participation of drug companies would be voluntary.
Effect on government spending:
State costs to run this program would range from millions to low tens of millions of dollars each year. The drug discounts might save money in state and county health programs.
Or this one...
Proposition 79: Prescription Drug Discounts and Medi-Cal
The way it is now:
Several state and federal programs provide prescription drug coverage to those who are eligible based on income, age and/or disability, such as Medi-Cal and Healthy Families. People with Medicare can buy drugs at a discount at some pharmacies.
Federal law requires drug makers to give the Medi-Cal program lower prices. The State also negotiates additional discounts in exchange for giving drugs “preferred status” in the Medi-Cal program. Preferred status means that the drug can be prescribed to Medi-Cal patients without a doctor first getting approval from the state.
Create a new drug discount program for people not in Medi-Cal or Healthy Families. Californians in families with incomes up to four times the federal poverty level (about $38,000 for one person or about $77,000 for a family of four) could get a drug discount card for $10 per year. The card would be used to buy drugs at a set discount at participating pharmacies.
The state would negotiate drug company rebates. Drug companies that do not agree to low prices for this new program could have their drugs removed from “preferred status” in Medi-Cal. Also under Prop 79, drug companies could be sued for making excess profits (“profiteering”) on the sale of drugs.
Effect on government spending:
State costs would probably be in the low tens of millions of dollars each year. The drug discounts could save an unknown amount of money in state and county health programs.
Prop 78 = Prop 79 lite. Prop 79 cost > Prop 78 cost. I only have one question. Will illegals get to benefit from this? If yes, then screw them both. This is all about how big you want state government to become. And lookie. You can sue with Prop 79. And how much exactly would we save? Who the hell knows. VOTE NO ON 78 AND 79!
Proposition 80: Regulation of Electric Service
The way it is now:
There are three major utility companies serving different parts of California: Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric. Some areas like Los Angeles are served instead by a power company owned by local government. There are also some other electric service providers used mostly by larger businesses. California’s Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has a lot of control over the three major utility companies and little control over the other companies.
In the 1990’s California began reducing state control of electricity with the goal of lower prices from more competition. In 2001, this “deregulation” was put on hold because of electricity shortages.
Increase state control (“regulation”) over California’s electricity market and make it harder to reduce state control. Prop 80 would make permanent the current ban on customers switching from the major utility companies to other providers. The state PUC could regulate the rates of all electric service providers except utilities owned by local governments. All PUC-controlled electric sellers would also be required to use more renewable energy resources, with a goal of 20 percent moved up to 2010 (instead of by 2017).
Effect on government spending:
The costs for increased state regulation could be up to $4 million per year, paid by electricity customers. It is not clear how Prop 80 would affect overall costs for electricity.
Just what we need! More regulation! The supporters of this regulation cite the blackouts in California as the reason why we need regulation back, when in fact, voting yes on this will increase the prices of energy in California by requiring the "green"-ing of its energy 'portfolio'. Remember when MBTE was added to California gasoline in the mid-90's? Yeah. Here's to regulation. VOTE NO ON 80!
|