Propositionaggedon 2012: California Democratic Party Endorsements

on those endorsements.

Here is a complete list of positions taken by the California Republican Party during its Fall Convention:

Proposition 30: Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. OPPOSE

Proposition 31: State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute (Two-year state budget cycle). SUPPORT

Proposition 32: Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Prohibitions on Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute. SUPPORT

Proposition 33: Changes Law to Allow Insurance Companies to Set Prices Based on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute. SUPPORT

Proposition 34: Death Penalty Repeal. Initiative Statute. OPPOSE

Proposition 35: Human Trafficking. Penalties. Sex Offender Registration. Initiative Statute. SUPPORT

Proposition 36: Three Strikes Law. Sentencing for Repeat Felony Offenders. Initiative Statute. OPPOSE

Proposition 37: Genetically Engineered Foods. Mandatory Labeling. Initiative Statute. OPPOSE

Proposition 38: Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute. OPPOSE

Proposition 39: Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficient Funding. Initiative Statute. OPPOSE

Proposition 40: Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum. SUPPORT

There is no link at the Democratic Party website.

I have mixed feelings about the DP thing I guess I'd rather see it abolished than have one innocent person fried but there are still crimes that are so horrific that revenge seems totally appropriate.

There is a shitload of money being spent on 32 and it's plain to see why. This is the equivalent of Citizens United on a state level and it would be a disaster for a state that is still recovering from the Enron/Schwarzeneggar disaster of the early 2000's.

We've been thinking about looking for a list of the props.

they say it's based on more harsh penalties rather than a cooperative approach.

I'm leaning against 39. Once again, it closes a major tax loophole, but diverts the money (or most of it) away from tohe budget and to someone's pet cause.

I think my standard for judging these propositions is that unless it clearly meets an urgent need or enacts a clear reform that it is probably just someone's personal machination.

Wanna bet his hedge funds are heavily invested in green energy companies?

under the guise of stopping human trafficking, they slipped in a little time bomb that reuires sex offenders to give their emails and userids -- like their DU usernames -- to the authorities.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10401779





Bear in mind that not all sex offenders are monsters. Some poor sap who gets busted for indecent exposure for peeing in an alley outside a club could end up with Big Brother following his postings.

I admit I was confused at first about Prop 32. It makes me mad that the Cock Brothers have to resort to misleading people about propositions now that more people are aware that their party has no decent policies to offer the common man. They tried to paint it as if corporations wouldn't be able to dump money in the state's politics, but they'd actually be exempt!

PG&E painted its Prop 16 as some sort of green initiative. It went down like a stone anyway.

Much in the same way that Citizen's United will gut the power political parties. (I know, I know, what's wrong with that? Well, it all depends on what replaces them, in this case of what replaces them is people wealthy enough to run without much help: e.g. Rmoney, and we have a plutocracy in full.)

It is one of the most cynical props that's ever been put on the ballot. It unilaterally disarms unions while preserving the already dominant power of big corporations. And the lying pro-32 ads are flooding the airwaves. Sickening.

Taxes on Multistate Businesses gets a "NO" vote from the Chamber of Commerce and a "YES" vote from all major church groups, CA League of Conservation Voters and the CA Labor Federation, AFL-CIO. My understanding of it is that there is currently a loophole that lets multistate businesses choose their method of paying CA tax that's most advantageous to them. Supposedly this costs the state about $1 billion in lost revenue each year. Claim is that half of the new moneyh raised over 5 years will be reserved for the support of energy efficient projects.

This needs a closer look. Where does the other half go? That's a lot of moola.

Is the remainder discretionary money? General fund?

You raise a valid question, and I would like an answer to it, but I suspect there may be nothing nefarious about how it will be spent.

After reading both, I've decided to vote for 30, and not 38. I think it's a stalking horse designed to stop Jerry's initiative, which has much broader effects, beyond the financial. I was tempted anyway, but let's face it we've been far too trusting with these initiatives.

Prop. 38 dips much deeper into the low end of the income scale: $7316 vs $250K.

Prop. 30 collects more money in the over $250,000 range, but for 4 years, not 12, so it does not hamstring future legislatures, which we might have elected honestly and want to act.

Prop. 38 creates ANOTHER huge pot of public money which will be available to private enterprise, with the usual boilerplate about how the money must not be misused.

The fact that Munger's brother likes it (the guy pushing Prop. 32) does not fill me with confidence either.

I think it is a very good thing also to punish rich people and politicians that try to buy elections with their money. (Hi Meg!)

And who do you trust?

The tax law change is needed, the green provisions are sunsetted, and the corporations have backed off on their objections.