TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Just don't vote on it, then. A 'no' vote will be interpreted as support for the status quo.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
California Ballot Propositions - Fall 2012 Election Edition
- Thread starter Cornballer
- Start date
- Status
Just don't vote on it, then. A 'no' vote will be interpreted as support for the status quo.
CountAntonius
Member
My sister had been a teacher in The long beach unified school district for ten years and got laid off two years ago. She has had temporary contracts since but gets laid off every summer again with no benefits or guarantee for work. Its pretty ridiculous that even after a decade in service in a single district your job as a teacher isn't secure. Definitely voting yes on 30. Both of my sisters are teachers and the amount of stuff they need to pay for out of pocket and the size of their classes really doesn't make their jobs any easier. Education is far too important to keep getting cut.
Gentleman Jack
Member
The state legislature has lacked the balls to enact serious budgetary reform for several decades running. These tax hikes gives them the slack necessary to continue being stupid about the budget. I refuse to make their jobs easier.
jamesinclair
Banned
Folks, make sure you look at the list of donors before you vote.
Like the GMO prop?
Why are the food companies spending millions to keep customers in the dark?
Im 100% ok with GMO....but whats the harm in a damn label? Since when is transperancy a bad thing?
Vote yes.
And folks, always vote yes on taxes.
The state is packed with ignorant voters like this
And those of us who are informed need to counter it.
Let me guess, this poster is unaware that taxes actually dropped during the recession due to republican obstructionism?
Like the GMO prop?
Why are the food companies spending millions to keep customers in the dark?
Im 100% ok with GMO....but whats the harm in a damn label? Since when is transperancy a bad thing?
Vote yes.
And folks, always vote yes on taxes.
The state is packed with ignorant voters like this
And those of us who are informed need to counter it.
Let me guess, this poster is unaware that taxes actually dropped during the recession due to republican obstructionism?
I am amazed pretty much every time by how accurate the admins are at matching tags to posters.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
In no small part because of tax cuts.
I think there's a certain amount of Norquistian general anti-tax sentiment, where you vote down any tax increase no matter what the situation is and how much it's needed. Then there's the "the politicians screwed it all up and now they want me to fix it?" mentality, which is understandable if maybe a touch unfair. And then there's the view that the real problem is spending, and if we let Sacramento fix the current difficulties via raising taxes, they'll never learn to stop spending. Which sort of ignores that a large part of our spending problem is our direct democracy system.
Edit:
And in the time it took me to post, we got several examples.
what other state has companies like apple, yahoo, disney, millions of people already being taxed up the ass and is still broke? come on.
Honestly, it's constantly baffling to me how often I hear "and the state can't touch the money from this proposition!" Well, what if I want them to? That's why I elected them, to make decisions about budgets. The primary reason California has budgetary problems is a proposition.
Gentleman Jack
Member
"He disagrees with me and therefore he's ignorant" is not exactly powerful rhetoric. Thanks for play.
Because higher taxes isn't going to solve the unemployment rate that is above 10% at the moment. California has enough tax revenue coming in, and the state continues to spend like crazy. They have enough money.
For the 2012-2013 state budget, they had tax revenues of roughly $91,337,850 come into their general fund. In 2011-2012, they had tax revenues of $85,936,859 come into the general fund. This is not including all the bonds that California is giving out.
Education doesn't have to be cut, but that is exactly where Democrats are putting their cuts because they know voters care about education. If Democrats cared at all about education, they would fund that first with the additional money they've received and ask for money for the other areas that they want to spend. Since they want to politicize education, I say to heck with them.
Edit: And some sources to look at:
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/Enacted/agencies.html
http://2011-12.archives.ebudget.ca.gov/Enacted/agencies.html
Probably because it'll cost them additional money and possibly feed into future scares.
There's absolutely value in looking at the list of donors, but be wary of falling into an argumentum ad hitlerum.
Exactly this. They can't cut large swathes of spending because of ballot-box budgeting, and they can't increase taxes because of Prop 13's two-thirds requirement. Which is why a sensible tax compromise is on the ballot rather than passed through the legislature.
BertramCooper
Banned
As a curious outsider: Has there ever been an initiative to get rid of initiatives? (Or at least increase the number of signatures needed to get an initiative on the ballot?)
Because this shit is bananas.
Because this shit is bananas.
It seems like every election cycle we get a proposition about "more taxes to fund our dying schools!" and they're always supported by the teachers union.
Fuck them. School districts like the LAUSD are a giant black hole for money and deserve absolutely nothing. Inner city schools have failed and will continue to fail for a millennia no matter how much money is thrown at them for a wide variety of reasons.
The cut funds to community colleges is a damn shame, but I can't support these Prop because it goes to the black hole of funds known as the LAUSD.
Did not know that, No on 37 it is.
Being a billionaire isn't bad. Being a billionaire corporation that fucks over nations and domestic people is.
Gentleman Jack
Member
One could only imagine the pitch for such an initiative a signature-gatherer would give at the farmer's market.
So why is the Calfornia dairy industry exempt from the labeling act? Because their angelic behavior deserves the reward?
jamesinclair
Banned
False
The statement is ignorant and also happens to disagree with me.
Hes opposing taxes because OMG TAXES EVIL and backing it up with very poor logic, and ignores the fact that in 2010, the state sales tax was cut at the worst time possible.
I'm leaning on no on all 3 of them.
BertramCooper
Banned
Would the only way to reform the system be through a ballot initiative?
I would think that if there were a legislative method to fix it, it would have been attempted already. Logically, I would assume that legislators probably hate having to legislate around these initiative-imposed laws.
I'm not saying 37 is perfect. It's flawed. But some legislation is better than none.
Gentleman Jack
Member
My chief concerns are the ramifications for small growers in california that use GMO crops. They face a dire choice if the predictions that extra labels = customers that run away come true. Either they go out of business or get consolidated into a larger body of farms that distributes the cost of compliance. Neither outcome appeals to me.
Personal hatred for Monsanto doesn't mean I just blindly vote against their interests because nothing exists in a vacuum.
As I said earlier, I think 36 and 40 should really be automatic Yeses whatever your party affiliation. You might take a look and see what you think.
Human trafficking is a huge problem in the bay area
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
I'm not sure if you even know what a ballot measure is.
They should be selling 36 as a spending cut, lol.
jamesinclair
Banned
Those are the only outcomes?
I can think of a few more:
98% of customers dont give a shit, and continue purchasing the same products
The grower can move to non-GMO products
I have no problem with GMO food, but transparent information is essentially.
These people are basically arguing against nutritional labels. "But what if people stop buying my 2,000 calorie cookies!" then maybe you should use light butter in your recipe instead.
There were no tax cuts. This is a bunch of lies.
In fact, Arnold Schwarzenegger passed a budget in 2008 that INCREASED taxes for 2 years. Then, they put up Proposition 1A to get the voters to extend those taxes for 2 additional years for a max of 4 years of increased taxes. The voters killed this proposition and the taxes went back to the pre-increase amount after the initial 2 years. Stop lying that there were tax cuts because there weren't. It's as difficult to get tax cuts as it is to get tax increases in this state.
I don't see taxes and unemployment being inherently tied together, short of in those areas where budget cuts are directly tied to employment cuts, such as those we saw nationwide in a large number of states in response to the fall in revenues in response to the recession. The failure of Prop. 30 imposes further cuts on education, and to the degree that those cuts are directly to employment, that's not going to help the unemployment figures either. It also doesn't do any favors to education statewide, which has already seen some substantially large cuts.
That's a breakdown of spending, but it doesn't provide larger context, such as what spending may be required by law or what the tradeoffs are here (spending $2.5m on the University of California doesn't exactly denote whether that's a cut, an increase, etc.). Revenues have improved as growth prospects have and the worst of the recession fades, but that's expected. That doesn't necessarily mean revenues are adequate.
Perhaps. I would venture that things aren't quite that simple and that there are likely obligations beyond education that may have to come first. Frankly, I don't take much stock in that argument, especially given the ideological rigidity of the opposition.
Gentleman Jack
Member
What are you carrying on about? I'm saying the possibility of the aforementioned outcome gives me pause. Enough to vote No. "The grower can move to non-GMO products" projects an unknown financial impact on a lot of small in-state growers and the supply chain they form. The estimates from either side of the campaign are so far apart it's hilarious. Nobody is telling the truth. When this happens, I'd rather have the status quo.
jamesinclair
Banned
Why are you leaning against extending (not increasing, just extending) the transit one?
The only reason it even has to be done is because of the republican house
Taxes went down in 2010. Thats a cut.
Its not the small in state growers that are funding it, its Nabisco etc.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
The sales tax was lowered during that time. It seems silly to frame the issue in terms of the last two years, anyway Tax cuts from the '70s are still haunting us.
And who cares about the difference between a "tax cut" and letting tax increases lapse? It's all the same to the treasury.
Only in the same sense that letting the Bush cuts expire would be a tax increase.
I wouldn't expect small in-state growers to be able to fund it enough to even show up as backers. Though I have no idea if they are or not.
Gentleman Jack
Member
This is not relevant to my point.
Taxes and unemployment are certainly tied together. Along with stringent regulation and high taxes, it affects businesses that have gone out of the state or change their decision to come in state to form their own businesses. Without businesses, it is harder to lower the unemployment rate as it is more expensive for businesses to come to California.
Click on the items and you'll see more detail information on what is being spent on. There was an increase of $6 billion in the general funds from 2011 to 2012 budget. In fact, K-12 schools received $3 billion of that extra revenue, so how is K-12 education getting a cut? Again, those are lies that are being thrown out there.
The item that did get cut in relation to education is higher education where about $800 million was cut. Now was that done when there is an extra $3 billion in tax revenues in the general fund? Why not give that $3 billion to higher education? This goes back to the next point you replied to:
The only obligations that is required of the legislatures is to provide 39% of the budget towards education as mandated in Prop 98. Everything else is whatever the legislatures want to spend on. They could spend more of that money on education if they wanted to, and the fact that the voters of California had to mandate them to spend at least 39% shows how politicians would rather not fund education if they did not have to.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Semantics. We still voted to be taxed less.
The city of LA hasn't really put that money to good use.
That is definitely not a cut. If taxes weren't raised and there was a cut, then I would agree with you. Having a tax increase expire and return back to normal tax levels is not a cut. What exactly got cut?
It's not semantics. It's you not understanding the concept of what a cut actually is.
For example, if the tax rate was 8%, and then it was cut to 7%, then you are right, that is a tax cut. But if the tax rate goes up to 9%, and it expires and goes back to 8%, what was actually cut? You're still earning the same amount of tax revenue before the increase in taxes. There was no cut.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
You might have had a point if there was no vote on extending it.
Edag Plata
Banned
Yeah, because these mean something. No matter what the voters chose, if its something the courts don't like they'll find some nut that'll come along and sue, then the court will dictate whatever it wants.
jamesinclair
Banned
Youve got to be fucking kidding me.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Nice not-so-stealth Prop 8 support.
AstroNut325
Member
Aren't there major tax loopholes and kickbacks given to the large corporations (including the technology sector)? And that's not even counting for the 1% property tax BS. Doesn't sound right.
I will vote yes on 30. The state does need to take a long hard look at the budget but I hope the cuts don't come to education and medical (medicaid/medi-cal) expenses. So for that reason alone I will support prop 30. Prop 38 seems rather drastic. I would support it if it included community colleges and universities.... but it isn't so it's a no from me.
Prop 37 gets a yes from me. I want information transparency. Yes I understand it could be better but it would be much much better than the no information we have now. And the death penalty one gets a NO from me.
The rest I haven't decided on. I need to do more research.
I will vote yes on 30. The state does need to take a long hard look at the budget but I hope the cuts don't come to education and medical (medicaid/medi-cal) expenses. So for that reason alone I will support prop 30. Prop 38 seems rather drastic. I would support it if it included community colleges and universities.... but it isn't so it's a no from me.
Prop 37 gets a yes from me. I want information transparency. Yes I understand it could be better but it would be much much better than the no information we have now. And the death penalty one gets a NO from me.
The rest I haven't decided on. I need to do more research.
If only.
SnakeswithLasers
Member
To everyone who is opposed to 30, below is the graph representing per student expenditures at the UC over the past 20 years:
It isn't an issue of us being 'over funded' and 'mismanaging' the money, it's an issue of the state GUTTING education. They've crusaded to cut the fat (to pay for tax cuts), but have cut out the fat, the muscle, and are now at the bone.
If you want the state to thrive you need to fund education. The UC is a pact to residents that those who want to and who try are entitled to pursue a world class education without breaking the bank. Unfortunately, that agreement has been breaking down and the students have to shoulder more of a burden. All that a NO on 30 will do is a) reduce the level of service, b) reduce the quality, and c) reduce the availability of education.
It isn't an issue of us being 'over funded' and 'mismanaging' the money, it's an issue of the state GUTTING education. They've crusaded to cut the fat (to pay for tax cuts), but have cut out the fat, the muscle, and are now at the bone.
If you want the state to thrive you need to fund education. The UC is a pact to residents that those who want to and who try are entitled to pursue a world class education without breaking the bank. Unfortunately, that agreement has been breaking down and the students have to shoulder more of a burden. All that a NO on 30 will do is a) reduce the level of service, b) reduce the quality, and c) reduce the availability of education.
I can understand where you're coming from on this specific issue, but I would disagree with the bolded statement. There are many cases where adopting additional labeling standards can be costly, confusing and discriminatory. One case that I'm very familiar with is the recent country of origin labeling dispute involving meat traded between NAFTA members. The Congressional Research Service has written a lengthy report on the matter and I'll highlight this section:
If I understand it correctly, the labeling introduced by Prop 37 doesn't discriminate by country (so it likely wont cause trouble with the WTO), but I'm not sure if I see much value in the label itself. Is there a significant health risk to inherent to GMOs that isn't accounted for with existing regulation?
- Status