Posted on 11/02/2010 12:39:52 AM PDT by beaversmom
Prager California Voting Guide Sunday, October 31, 2010 | Posted by: Dennis Prager at 10:16 PM
The Prager 2010 Voting Guide
Many of you have asked how I'm voting. Since I live in California, here's my list and my reasons for California candidates, propositions and judges. Non-Californians may wish to read this for my thinking on similar propositions on other state ballots.
I. Candidates
All Republicans. No exceptions. The notion that one votes for the candidate, not the party, may have once been valid. It is no longer. Unless you are a leftist, there is every reason to vote Republican. The Democratic Party in California is no more than an adjunct to the unions in California. One of the most prominent Democrats in California told me this in private years ago: We do what the unions tell us to do. It is worse today. The result is that the Democratic Party is ruining what no one ever believed could be ruined, the State of California. To reward these people is an act of self-destruction the likes of which have rarely been seen in democratic societies.
II. Propositions
Prop 19 -- Legalizing Marijuana NO
This is a classic case of liberal Stage One thinking. The results will be nothing like liberals envision. Nothing good will come of this (certainly not the billions they claim it will generate in tax revenue) and the quality of life in California will further deteriorate. When government sanctions something, people engage in more of it. Do we really want to encourage Californians to smoke more pot?
Prop 20 Redistricting Congressional Districts YES
I would prefer that there be no human involvement in drawing Congressional districts. It escapes me why computers cant simply calculate population figures and draw our districts that way. Well, actually, I do know the reason: politicians would have to pay attention to a diverse electorate to get elected. Redistricting lets them draw the political map to assure themselves safe seats. That is a major reason the California Democratic Party is so Leftwing: most Democratic congressmen dont have to compete in their perfectly-designed-for-Democrats districts. This measure takes the power out of the state legislatures hands and gives it to a neutral committee. I still prefer computers, but this is better than leaving the way it is now. I might add that I oppose the way it is now even in those states where Republicans control the state legislature.
Prop 21 -- Annual Vehicle License Surcharge NO
They have to be kidding.
Prop 22 Pumbaa and Timon should be on the state seal (or something like that) NO
The highly complex Prop 22 sounds reasonable once one begins to understand it; and the fact that the Teachers unions and the SEIU oppose it makes it painful for me to also oppose it. But listen to what a conservative Lew Uhler, President National Taxpayer Limitation Committee, says: Prop 22 locks in protections for redevelopment agencies that take over 10% of all property taxes and use them to enter into billions of dollars of long-term debt without voter approval.
Its the abuse of eminent domain that makes me oppose Prop. 22
Prop 23 Suspends implementation of air pollution control law AB 32 YES YES YES
Prop 23 would suspend California law AB 32 until the California unemployment rate goes does down for four consecutive quarters. As George Will, who does not live in California, writes in his latest column, AB 32 is a loopy economy-suffocating law that preposterously aims to cool the planet by requiring a 30 percent reduction of carbon emissions by 2020. He then adds, If Californians reject [Prop 23] that would suspend this law . . . this latest act of self-impoverishment will be a (redundant) reason for making Californians clean up the mess they have made.
Prop 24 -- Repeals legislation that would allow businesses to lower their tax liability NO
One would think that voting no on Prop 24 is as obvious a recommendation as possible given how hostile California already is to business. But for the Left, taxing those who make money in business is a greater good than enabling those who make money in business to hire more workers.
Prop 25 -- Changes legislative vote requirement to pass budget from two-thirds to a majority NO
One of the only things stopping Californias Titanic-like economy from sinking like the ill-fated ocean liner is that Democrats in Sacramento must take Republican objections on spending increases into consideration. If Prop 25 passes, there will no reason for Republican legislators to leave home. The Democrats will pass their union-pleasing budgets without one Republicans vote. Which is why the unions are so supportive of Prop 25.
Prop 26 -- Requires that certain state and local fees be approved by two-thirds vote -- YES
I would support a change to a four-fifths vote, but two-thirds is fine.
Prop 27 -- Eliminates state commission on redistricting NO
Prop 27 ensures that state legislators continue to draw congressional districts. The proposition should be renamed Ensure Democrats run for Congress in districts with little or no Republican opposition.
III. Judges
I finally found a reliable guide to electing judges in California: Guide to Judges
Thank you. He has a link to a good site for picking judges in CA!
You’re welcome. Are you going to the polls tomorrow or have you already voted?
For sake of comparison, here’s Tom McClintock on the Propositions:
(Basically, they just disagree on Prop 22)
Prop 19: When Worlds Collide. NO. If this simply allowed people to cultivate and smoke marijuana themselves and left the rest of us alone, it would be worth considering. But it goes much further and provides that no person shall be discriminated against or denied any right or privilege for pot use, inviting a lawsuit every time an employer tries to require a drug test, for example. If you want to smoke pot in your own world, I dont care. But dont bring it into mine.
Prop 20: Congressional Redistricting. YES. This finishes the work we began in 2008 to get redistricting decisions away from self-interested state legislators and into the hands of a bi-partisan commission. The original reform omitted Congressional districts this simply adds them.
Prop 21: Highway Robbery. NO. Right now, state park users pay a nominal fee that helps pay for upkeep, assuring that those who use our state parks help pay for them. This measure ends the day-user fee and shifts the cost to the rest of us by imposing an $18 per car tax increase whether we use the parks or not. Stealing money from highway travelers used to be called highway robbery. Now its called Proposition 21.
Prop 22: Hands Off Our Money. YES. This takes a giant leap toward restoring local government independence and protecting our transportation taxes by prohibiting state raids on local and transportation funds. Local governments are hardly paragons of virtue, but local tax revenues should remain local.
Prop 23: Liberation from the Environmental Left. YES. In 2006, Sacramentos rocket-scientists enacted AB 32, imposing draconian restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions (yes, thats the stuff you exhale). They promised to save the planet from global warming and open a cornucopia of new jobs. Since then, Californias unemployment rate has shot far beyond the national unemployment rate and the earth has continued to warm and cool as it has for billions of years. Prop 23 merely holds the Environmental Left to its promise: it suspends AB 32 until unemployment stabilizes at or below its pre-AB 32 level.
Prop 24: Because Taxes Just Arent High Enough. NO. This is a predictable entry by the public employee unions to impose an additional $1.7 billion tax on businesses. The problem, of course, is that businesses dont pay business taxes we do. Business taxes can only be paid in three ways: by us as consumers (through higher prices), by us as employees (through lower wages) and by us as investors (through lower earnings on our 401(k)s).
Prop 25: Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire. NO. This changes the 2/3 vote requirement for the state budget to a simple majority a reform I have long supported. Experience has shown that the current 2/3 vote requirement for the budget does not restrain spending and it utterly blurs accountability. But such a reform MUST repair the 2/3 vote requirement for all tax increases and restore constitutional spending and borrowing limits. Without these provisions, Prop. 25 would be a disaster for taxpayers and a recipe for bankruptcy.
Prop 26: Calling a Tax a Tax. YES. Under the infamous Sinclair Paint decision, virtually any tax may be increased by majority vote as long as it is called a fee, gutting the 2/3 vote requirement in the state constitution to raise taxes. Prop. 26 rescinds Sinclair Paint, restores the Constitution, and calls a tax a tax.
Prop 27: OMG. NO. Want to go back to the days when politicians drew their own district lines, literally choosing their own voters? This will get us there.
Living in Cali has got to be painful these days for Prager as he watches the Rats turn what once was a golden state into a wasteland of poverty.
It has got to be. It’s painful to me and I have never even stepped a toe into CA. All of our nation is precious, but I’m partial to the West because I live out here. I don’t even feel like I can visit CA because of their gun laws and outrageous rules and regs and prices. It’s got to be so hard to live out there. So big and so beautiful and still full of potential, but run by dunderheads.
I don’t understand how so many leftists ended up populating CA. Has it always tended that way? If not, when was the turning point when things really started going South?
It’s painful to all of us CA freepers too. To go into a store, say Target, and 90% of the people in there are Hispanic, speaking Spanish... I don’t know how many are illegals but none of them seem to know that they are in the United States, and I feel like a foreigner. Customers AND clerks speaking only in Spanish to each other at the checkstand. Every sign translated into Spanish. Are Mexican people not smart enough to figure out that Cosmetics = Cosmeticas??? I learned two languages and one dialect as an adult; come on. We must force newcomers to make a bleeping effort. Patronizing allows them to bring Mexico here with them. Not even the next generation is interested in this country any more.
hmmmm, was going to vote yes on 22. Otherwise everything matches what I was planning.
Thanks for posting McClintock’s guide.
Looks like McClintock is voting yes on 22. I’m not in CA and don’t understand what has been proposed.
I agree with his views on redistricting. I want to see gerrymandering abolished in this country so we have real competitive elections. I don’t want either party to draw lines to protect incumbents. That’s wrong and antithetical to democracy.
Bookmark
I remember as a youth when the saying was Go west young man, of course they were talking about Cali, the golden years I suppose were in the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, and things started to go south in the mid to late 80’s.
I voted absentee yesterday and turns out my ballot was marked EXACTLY as suggested by Praeger. Im turning more and more for advice to various conservative websites when faced with confusing ballot initiatives. The first rule is NO TAXES, NO BOND ISSUES. Ive also discovered the Judge Voter Guide as well and find it a reliable measure of the person seeking a judgeship. Unfortunately, this time round, all the state level judge candidates got terrible ratings, so it was a NO vote against them all.
Lastly, this is the first time in ages we do not have a single bond issue to spend $2 GAZILLION dollar to rescue some heretofore unknown species, pay for murdering embryos to harvest their cells, or build a super-duper shiny new toy somewhere in the state.
Prop 22 prevents the state from raiding local (city and county) tax revenues. Most of the counties here in CA have a small addition to the sales tax that is SUPPOSED to go to fix roads and such in that county (among other similar programs, and along with local general fund monies). The state has been reaching down and pulling the moneys from the local areas and using it to pseudo-balance the budgets over the last few years (with supposed IOUs that will be paid back “someday”) leaving the counties with bad local roads, and helping to bust the county and city budgets on top of the already-broken state budget.
Given that local governments are usually both more efficient and more responsive (especially in LARGE states like CA) having the state take the money like they do is totally irresponsible and just plain nuts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.