2012 General Election California Propositions

Besides the Presidential election, there are several ballot propositions in California.  Here's the recommended vote by the California Republican Party:

California: Vote NO On Proposition 29

On June 5^th, voters in California will have a chance to reject Proposition 29, a flawed and poorly-drafted measure that raises taxes on California consumers by $735 million dollars.

Click HERE to Pledge to Vote NO on Prop 29

Contrary to claims made by special interest groups who stand to gain financially from the passage of Prop 29, it will do nothing to solve the state’s budget crisis. Instead, it will create more bureaucracy filled with political appointees and expand government spending.

Even worse, there is nothing to stop these appointees from treating the money taken from California taxpayers like a personal slush fund to reward favored organizations. That is no way to balance a budget.

On June 5th, please remember to Vote NO on Prop 29. 

California GOP Primary and Propositions Recommendations - Part 2

Here, as promised is the California GOP Primary and Propositions Recommendations - Part 2. Some are repeats of previous recommendations.

Statewide

Governor: Meg Whitman. Not my idea of a great conservative but far better than Poizner who is worse than she is. A part of my rationale is that her money could possibly help other GOP candidates on the ballot that are in close races by bringing out more Republicans and like-minded independents to vote.

Lt. Governor: St. Senator Sam Aanestad. He has been endorsed by major conservative groups. Need another reason? The current Lt. Governor, Able Maldonado is a lying liberal wienie.

Secretary of State: Damon Dunn. The other guy is a lunatic birther! Not just a lunatic birther but a big-time lunatic birther!!!

Controller: Tony Strickland. A conservative, who knows how to campaign. Best shot at wining in November. A hack politician, but a good guy and we have to get over our fears of hack politicians if they are good guys!

Treasurer: Mimi Walters. Currently a Republican state senator, and more importantly, the only GOP candidate running for Treasurer.

Insurance Commissioner: Brian Fitzgerald. Best reason? He's not Mike Villines, a well-known wienie.

United States Senator: Carly Fiorina. Not nearly as conservative (especially on social issues) as Chuck Devore, but Chuck Devore will go down the tubes big time in November if he is the GOP nominee. Just a fact. Tom Campbell is a liberal! His campaign using Ronald Reagan's name and image is disgusting to me. Another reason for Carly Fiorina is she can and will finance her own campaign with what it takes to run a great campaign. And like Whitman, the money she spends to draw out voters could help other GOP candidates.

Board of Equalization, District 4: No GOP candidate filed to run. No recommendation.

Superintendent of Public Instruction: You are on your own here. I'll probably vote for Karen Blake because she says she will end bi-lingual education. That's a good start. But I haven't had time to research the candidates for this office and have found no endorsements for anyone yet.

STATEWIDE MEASURES

Prop. 13. Seismic Retrofits. YES: Earthquake proofing your house shouldn't trigger a tax increase until you're ready to sell. Any questions?

Prop. 14. Distorted Primary. NO: (Note: Beware of the deceptive language in the title of this Proposition) Instead of voters of each party putting their best candidate forward, this jerry-rigged system is designed to disguise the difference between the parties and force those pesky third parties off the general election ballot entirely. It could result in run-off elections between two Democrats rather than a Republican, a Democrat and other third parties. Political parties should have the right to choose who their candidate is. This is a bad proposition for the possibility of electing Republican (or third party) candidates in the future.

Prop. 15. Taxpayer Funded Elections. NO: The real purpose of this measure is to allow the legislature to tap taxpayers to finance political campaigns. Jefferson said it best: "To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

Prop. 16. Utility Elections. YES: Cash-guzzling city governments have been taking over the territory of utilities through eminent domain and PG&E wants to put it to a vote. This measure gives you the choice upon whose mercy your future electricity bills will depend: the monopoly of city hall or the monopoly of your utility. Here's a better idea: restore the freedom of individual consumers to choose among competing providers who actually have to earn their business. Alas, that part was left out by the suits at PG&E.

Prop. 17. Insurance Rates. YES: A simple question: should drivers be able to take their "continuous coverage" discount with them when they change insurance companies? A simpler question: why are our laws such a micro managing mess that we have to vote on something as self-evident as this in the first place?

LOCAL MEASURES

Prop. E. LAUSD Parcel Tax. NO: The LAUSD is proposing a parcel tax of $100.00 per household for additional school funding. LAUSD has been unable to manage its funds efficiently, has made no efforts to significantly decrease its wasteful spending. We believe that no parcel tax should be imposed on already over-burdened homeowners. Let LAUSD do the work of reducing spending before it asks homeowners to bail it out.

Judicial Recommendations (from the California Republican Party)

The following are our recommendations for Los Angeles County Superior Court Judges. This is based, for the most part, on the recommendations of Craig Huey on his site, Judge Voter Guide.

Judge-Superior Court; County of Los Angeles; Office 28
Kim Smith

Judge-Superior Court; County of Los Angeles; Office 35
Soussan G. Bruguera

Judge-Superior Court; County of Los Angeles; Office 73
Laura A. Matz

Judge-Superior Court; County of Los Angeles; Office 107
Tony De Los Reyes

Judge-Superior Court; County of Los Angeles; Office 117
Pattricia M. Vienna

Judge-Superior Court; County of Los Angeles; Office 131
Maren Elizabeth Nelson

Thanks to Glenn H. Thornhill, B.A., ECV, noted political analyst, for his assistance in compiling these recommendations. For the races not mentioned, go to Part 1.

California Ballot Propositions In Trouble (Good!)

The Sacramento Bee is reporting that five of six California ballot propositions are failing.

Their pollings show that Propositions 1A-1F are in serious trouble except for the proposition limiting legisators' pay hikes:

A plurality of voters favored one measure -- Proposition 1F -- which would ban pay raises for state elected officials when there is a budget shortfall. Prop 1F was favored by 45 to 35 percent.

Their other findings are as follows:

Proposition 1A, trailed 51 percent to 38 percent, according to the poll. Prop 1A would impose state spending restrictions and a "rainy day" budget fund while triggering $16 billion in extended tax hikes.

The Proposition 1B educational funding measure -- which is pegged to passage of Prop 1A -- trailed 50 percent to 41 percent, according to the poll.

Proposition 1C, would allow $5 billion in borrowing from a revamped state lottery, was by far the least popular measure. It trailed 52 percent to 29 percent and was losing in every geographic region in California.

Majorities also opposed Propositions 1D and 1E. The measures would allow voter-approved funds for child development and mental health programs to be used for other purposes.

Talk show host Hugh Hewitt took a look at this and noted:

The single biggest driver behind the "no" vote is, however, the dishonesty of the "yes" campaign. The brain trust in Sacramento decided to try and sell their massive tax hike and theft of money from designated funds as a "spending cap," and in so doing conveyed enormous contempt for the voters. Every time Arnold calls Measure 1A and its sister stealth proposals as other than a massive tax hike and a series of tax grabs --1D is literally stealing money from kids programs like dentistry and autism/asthma treatment even as the legislature kept its cars and staffs-- the public feels, correctly, that Arnold and the Sacramento Dems thinks they are idiots. The smart guys running the campaign have managed to telegraph a sneer with every ad that shows a weary fireman pleading with the voters not to end firefighting in the state. Voters know they are being conned, and no amount of campaign spending can erase the complete knowledge that the electeds and their sharpie advisors think the voters a vast crowd of fools.

The significance of the "no" vote on 1A through 1E is that it signals more of the same disgust as powered the Tea Parties: Government is too large, takes too much of our money, and lies about doing so.

It looks very encouraging that California voters are catching on that the Sacramento government (i.e., Schwarzeneggar and the Democrat-controlled legislature) have overspent and brought the state to its knees.

With the exception of Proposition 1F, I also urge a 'no' vote on these measures.