Calif state ballot propositions 83-90

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Little-Acorn, Nov 7, 2006.

  1. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Gold Member

    Jun 20, 2006
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    San Diego, CA
    I know you've all been waiting with bated breath to hear Acorn's advice on how to vote, without which your life would just not be complete. So without further ado....


    Prop 83: Increases penalties for violent and habitual sex offenders. YES

    Prohibits them from living near schools and parks, requires them to wear a GPS tracking device, etc.

    All this hoopla over cracking down on sex offenders AFTER they complete their jail sentences, is mute testimony to the fact that their sentences weren't long enough or harsh enough in the first place. The reason for throwing them in jail in the first place, is to persuade them not to do their thing any more. Or, if they still want to anyway, to at least keep them from getting to the other members of society. But a lot of them keep right on "offending" after they get out. What more reason do you need, to increase sentences, require hard labor, etc.

    We've found out the hard way, over and over, that they'll always want to rape women or pork little boys or whatever, that is hard to change. So we have to make them realize that they'll be a whole lot worse off if they do, not better off. Or, we have to put them where they CAN'T do it even if they still want to. That place is called "prison". It's the reason prisons are there.

    But until we come to our senses in sentencing, we have to do our best to control them OUTSIDE of prison.


    Prop 84: Borrows $5.4 billion for flood control, conservation etc. NO

    California is already more in debt than most medium-sized countries. Flood control is good. But we should divert money from bad programs rather than put the taxpayers even more in debt, to accomplish it.


    Prop 85: Parents must be notified before underage girl gets abortion. YES

    Opponents say that out of the next 1,000 underage girls to want abortions, a few of them may have parents/guardians who don't handle the news well, and will scare or abuse them. For that reason, all 1,000 must be told that it's now OK to do a bad thing with no repercussions. And so the state tries to take over yet another responsibility that should rest with parents. This ballot measure prevents the state from doing so. It's the lesser of several evils. When people become perfect, it won't be necessary any more. Until they do, this WILL result in the least-bad overall outcome. And we have to find a way to crack down on those few abusive parents, while letting the rest do what parents must... including alternatives such as having the baby and giving him/her up for adoption by a capable, loving family rather than simply killing him/her.


    Prop 86: Tax increase of $2.1 billion, on cigarettes and tobacco. NO

    It's humorous to find yet another group that thinks we don't pay enough taxes, and need to pay more.

    This one is the quintessential modern-liberal proposition: When citizens are doing something that's unhealthy for them, it's a good idea for the state to step in and prevent them, for their own good of course. Even though they have committed no crime, broken no law, bothered no one else. And, of course, charge them a huge amount for the privilege of being inhibited from doing what they want.

    The crowning absurdity is, of course, that very little of the tax increase will be spent on anti-smoking programs, even by those who think they're a good idea. Most will go for unrealted health programs and hosptial costs, to make up for people who use hospitals and emergency rooms without paying. Many such hospitals are on the verge of going bankrupt and closing. For that reason, this proposition is known locally as the Illegal-Alien-Welfare bill.


    Prop 87: Tax increase of $4 billion on oil produced in Calif. NO

    It's humorous to find yet another group that thinks we don't pay enough taxes, and need to pay more.

    Speaking of absurdities, the people who wrote this bill inserted a provision saying that the companies producing the oil can't increase their prices to pass the tax increase on to consumers who buy the gasoline, diesel etc. That's like drilling a big hole in the bottom of a boat, and then passing a law forbidding the boat from sinking. The taxed companies will simply produce less, and other companies will have to fill the void - companies NOT covered by the ban on raising prices.

    Have these people forgotten the numerous recent examples of what happens when supply is restricted? What happens EVERY TIME there's a refinery fire, or an Alaskan oil pipeline is shut down, or new power plant construction is forbidden in a constantly-growing population, or a new special blend of gasoline is mandated in Calif that other states don't need and so won't produce? (Hint: Prices don't go DOWN!)


    Prop 88: Tax increase on property, to fund schools even more. NO

    It's humorous to find yet another group that thinks we don't pay enough taxes, and need to pay more.

    Funding schools is good... but we've been doing exactly that in ever-increasing amounts, for years. After every increase, comes the word that it's not enough.

    Vote your own word.


    Prop 89: Tax increase on corporations and banks, to fund political campaigns. NO

    It's humorous to find yet another group that thinks we don't pay enough taxes, and need to pay more.

    Speaking of absurdities, here we're asking (acutally forcing) corporation to pay politicians to tell everyone how bad the corporations are and how they must be forced to pay more by politicians. Ami I the only one who detects an exquisite blend of humor, arrogance, and unmitigated gall in this proposition? Is Hillary going to run for Senator from this state next?


    Prop 90: Restricting Eminent Domain to forced taking of private property for public use ONLY. YES

    The umpteenth state to react sensibly to yet another unconstitutional Supreme Court decision - the Kelo case, where the Supremes voted 5-4 that governments could force people to sell their property whether they wanted to or not, merely to benefit other private groups that could pay the government more taxes. Eminent Domain is a necessary evil, which must be restricted to direct public use ONLY... as specified by the U.S. Constitution, and ignored by 5 Supreme Court justices. This proposition should be on every state ballot, with three possible checkboxes: "NO", "YES", and "HELL YES".


    Now everybody be good and vote the way Acorn has told you to. No need to thank me, I already know the level of your gratitude. :eek: So let it be written, so let it be done.


Share This Page