Support NeoGAF

[AstroNut325]

I really wish an issue like this would get to the ballot: Link

Remove the law requiring 3rd party dealers to sell automobiles to consumers. That's ridiculous.

 

[Cyan]

AAAS (publisher of Science) comes out against Prop 37:

AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could “Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers”

Foods containing ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques, the AAAS Board of Directors has concluded. Legally mandating labels on GM foods could therefore “mislead and falsely alarm consumers,” the Board said in a statement approved 20 October.

In releasing the Board’s statement, AAAS noted that it is important to distinguish between labeling intended to protect public health—about the presence of allergens, for example—and optional labeling that aids consumer decision-making, such as “kosher” or “USDA organic,” which reflects verifiable and certifiable standards about production and handling.

Several current efforts to require labeling of GM foods are not being driven by any credible scientific evidence that these foods are dangerous, AAAS said. Rather, GM labeling initiatives are being advanced by “the persistent perception that such foods are somehow ‘unnatural,’” as well as efforts to gain competitive advantages within the marketplace, and the false belief that GM crops are untested.

...

Moreover, the AAAS Board said, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and “every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/1025gm_statement.shtml

tl;dr: it's confusing and not useful.

Full statement here.

 

[Karakand]

I really wish an issue like this would get to the ballot: Link

Remove the law requiring 3rd party dealers to sell automobiles to consumers. That's ridiculous.

Are you talking about in California? Manufacturers can sell directly to consumers, just not within 10 miles of a third party dealer.

 

[Zhengi]

STUDIO CITY (CBS) – A CBS2 investigation found some Caltrans employees using Caltrans trucks rented with taxpayer money for their own personal use.

The workers have been using dozens of new $30,000 pickup trucks rented by Caltrans — even though the agency was ordered by Gov. Jerry Brown to reduce its fleet to save money.

Caltrans eliminated more than 1,300 vehicles under Brown’s directive, but it’s still renting as many as 200 vehicles a month.

Documents obtained by CBS2 showed monthly bills of more than $100,000 for the vehicles, which cost taxpayers $750,000 from Jan. to Sept. 2012.

Caltrans claims the trucks are used to conduct state business and can only be used for that purpose, but some employees do not appear to be following the rules.

Four workers were filmed using trucks for personal use, including Supervisor Sumner Baker from Colton.

Baker, who makes more than $100,000 a year, was seen driving a rented Caltrans truck to and from work.

On some days, Baker would leave his office a few hours after he got there and stop at a liquor store where he’d buy two small bottles of alcohol.

Baker was also caught using the truck to shop at Kohl’s, Home Depot, and Costco – he even bought a case of wine at Vons.

When he was confronted about using his work car for personal use, Baker said: “I have no more comments.”

His rented truck was later returned to the Caltrans yard.

CBS2 offered to show video of the employees using the trucks for personal use to Caltrans and Gov. Brown.

Brown accused CBS2 investigative reporter David Goldstein of withholding the video from him.

“Sir, you’ve concealed the tape,” said Brown.

“I’ll show it to you right now,” said Goldstein.

The governor then resorted to name-calling.

“This guy is like a thug,” said Brown.

Video and more in this link

Oh yeah, we definitely need to raise taxes so that such abuses can continue to happen.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

Looks bad, but why is the reporter being such a petulant prick?

 

[Piecake]

man, California sure has a crap ton of props on their ballot every year.

 

[Cyan]

Video and more in this link

Oh yeah, we definitely need to raise taxes so that such abuses can continue to happen.

:/ Seriously?

 

[Freezie KO]

I live in California! Yay! Here's what I'm voting for, but I can be swayed with a good argument.

30 - Leaning YES. Not crazy about a sales tax hike, and I understand complaints about giving more money to the crackheads. That said, I plan on living here for a while, and if education gets decimated, I don't want the state to devolve into Lord of the Flies.

31 - Leaning NO. Transfer of power to local governments seems like just some weird Republican Party ploy.

32 - UNSURE. I actually okay with SuperPACs. Yeah, I'm that guy. I'm in favor of any free speech issue, and I think organizations should be able to make any political films or ads they want. So I don't want to prohibit unions contributing money to make political ads, but I also heard that this is just to get rid of mandatory contributions from union members.

33 - NO. Increased auto insurance costs? No thanks.

34 - YES. Against death penalty. I'm not opposed morally, but we get it wrong too much. Saves money too.

35 - NO. Very weird wording. Also something like distribution of child porn becomes the same as human trafficking? Seems like that could perverted to have some weird effect on speech, which is my big issue. No pun intended.

36 - YES. Three strikes seems to be one of the pillars of our failed drug war.

37 - YES. Science says GMO food is okay. So I'll eat it. But if we find out otherwise tomorrow, I'd like to know what I'm eating.

38 - NO. This is the one opposing 30, which I'm undecided on.

39 - YES. Clean energy seems to be the future. Let's invest in science.

40 - YES. To my understanding, this is just a Republican thing to help them.

BONUS ROUND! Los Angeles -

A - UNSURE. WTF is this?

B - NO. This is just going to chase away a good cash flow.

J - UNSURE. Anyone know if these will actually help traffic? Or is it just continuing the perpetual road work that clogs my day?

 

[Badgerst3]

Prop 30 is a sham to scare voters into thinking education will be cut.

Read the wording- the majority of the sales tax hike will go to funding browns ab109 prisoner realignment bill. The funds will be used to pay the various counties for taking cons into their local jails versus prison.

This bill was pushed thru so quickly last team year but with only 1 year funding.

In theory, not a bad bill. What was horribly wrong is it did not take into account offenders prior record. A 5 time convicted armed robber, if arrested for a new "non-serious" offense, is being given local jail time and limited county probation supervision. They need prison. The bill needs to be amended to take serious prior convictions into account.

Local police chiefs and sheriffs, one year later, cite ab109 for the dramatic uptick in local crimes and even officer involved shootings.

Don't be fooled by prop 30. Ca already has the highest sales tax in the country.

Finally- brown wants a multi- billion dollar bullet train, but has the balls to threaten "education" if 30 does not pass. Child please.

 

[Cyan]

Finally- brown wants a multi- billion dollar bullet train...

Can't blame anyone but us for that one. Brown wasn't even in office when that boondoggle got put on the ballot.

32 - UNSURE. I actually okay with SuperPACs. Yeah, I'm that guy. I'm in favor of any free speech issue, and I think organizations should be able to make any political films or ads they want. So I don't want to prohibit unions contributing money to make political ads, but I also heard that this is just to get rid of mandatory contributions from union members.

I may be misreading you, but it sounds like you're a No. Unless you're opposed to unions in general, in which case you're a Yes.

 

[Freezie KO]

I may be misreading you, but it sounds like you're a No. Unless you're opposed to unions in general, in which case you're a Yes.

I'm certainly not opposed to unions. I think they should be able to contribute to a SuperPAC or a campaign. That said, I read about mandatory deductions taken from the members and that this law might be about giving notification to union members before their deductions are taken for political speech? I'd be okay with notification, but not a ban on the speech of unions.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

No on 37 is being funded by Monsanto. Fuck them, so I'm voting yes.

So what? GMO tech is not to Monsanto what the iPad is to Apple. It is an important part of our food infrastructure and would require much more land and resources to be used if we didn't have make use of the methods.

If there's evidence that GM food is lower quality, than they should label them. But labeling them without evidence makes consumers afraid because they think there should be a reason, no matter how remote, that these types of food are dangerous. I don't want people to consider miracle technology dangerous for no reason. Especially when we've had several years of studies and found nothing.

Personally, I think there's a stronger argument for labeling any food that comes from a farm/slaughterhouse that was caught using undocumented immigrants. Even if I disagree with it, I can at least understand the logic of not wanting non-Americans doing all the manual labor jobs for minimum wage. And that has just as much impact on how healthy the food is, as far as we know.

I'll be honest, I never assume the consumer is informed when walking into the store. That they'll see the label and know it only holds symbolic meaning. If producers want to label their food organic or GM-free, let them but I don't want the government to be effectively marketing against foods that don't fall into those categories.

 

[Cyan]

I'm certainly not opposed to unions. I think they should be able to contribute to a SuperPAC or a campaign. That said, I read about mandatory deductions taken from the members and that this law might be about giving notification to union members before their deductions are taken for political speech? I'd be okay with notification, but not a ban on the speech of unions.

It makes union dues voluntary rather than automatic deductions. This might sound good, it may seem weird or even underhanded to have union dues automatically taken out of a paycheck, but the actual effect of voluntary dues will be far less money going to the unions, and ultimately significant weakening of them.

This is why I've been calling it a "union-busting" bill. The end result of the proposition--indeed, the entire point of it--is to starve unions of money and slowly kill them.

If you are not opposed to unions, you should probably vote No.

 

[Freezie KO]

It makes union dues voluntary rather than automatic deductions. This might sound good, it may seem weird or even underhanded to have union dues automatically taken out of a paycheck, but the actual effect of voluntary dues will be far less money going to the unions, and ultimately significant weakening of them.

This is why I've been calling it a "union-busting" bill. The end result of the proposition--indeed, the entire point of it--is to starve unions of money and slowly kill them.

If you are not opposed to unions, you should probably vote No.

Gotcha. Thanks for the explanation. I'm still relatively new to this crazy "throw all this shit on the ballot" state.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Wow, you Californians have a lot of power with this direct voting. That looks pretty fun actually.

California's Initiative system is well-known as a long-standing political, economic, and social disaster. The saying among politicians on both side of the aisle in other states is that they must never, ever consider allowing an Initiative system like in California.

 

[jstevenson]

direct democracy is so terrible. here's my relatively libertarian take:

No on 30 - good god, way to hide a tax increase behind the kids. Already one of the worst states for taxes.

No on 31 - Why do we need this again?

YES on 32 - unions have too much power in Sacramento. Time to clip them a bit.

YES on 33 - why shouldn't you get continuous coverage if you shift companies?

No on 34 - It's cute that they throw all sorts of road blocks in the way of actually executing someone, then try to get rid of the death penalty because it costs too much (thanks to all the roadblocks they set up).

YES on 35 - more penalties for a crime? Ok. More training required is meh, but whatever.

No on 36 - 3 strikes works fine.

No on 37 - what a piece of shit prop this is.

No on 38 - because we need more income taxes on top of our sales tax.

No on 39 - yes, lets be more unfriendly to California business with our unemployment rate

Yes on 40 - cause the No side isn't even fighting it.

LA County Props:

No, no and no.

 

[jamesinclair]

J - UNSURE. Anyone know if these will actually help traffic? Or is it just continuing the perpetual road work that clogs my day?

The last measure, passed in 2008, is the reason the expo line is being built the pruple line is going forward, the orange line was just extended, the crenshaw line will begin next year, the downtown connector is under final design and the green line will be extended.

All measure J does is accelerate the projects. The original plan was for the feds to loan LA money against the existing taxes, but the GOP refuses to even listen to it, so LA is extending the tax so they can borrow on it now and speed things up.


Oh, and all those projects I listed? Thats just the transit side, half the money foes to roads.

Don't be fooled by prop 30. Ca already has the highest sales tax in the country.

Finally- brown wants a multi- billion dollar bullet train, but has the balls to threaten "education" if 30 does not pass. Child please.

The first part is simply untrue.

The second part is a childs way of looking at government.

Protip: government can work on multiple projects at once. Hiring a teacher doesnt mean you fire a cop. Building a train doesnt mean youre closing schools.

If the train wasnt being built, its estimated that twice the amount of money would be needed to provide the transportation needs via other methods (highway widening, airport expansion). So yes, child please.

 

[Cyan]

YES on 35 - more penalties for a crime? Ok.

No on 36 - 3 strikes works fine.

IANAL, but that doesn't sound very libertarian.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Right on. Saw a few comments for 'No' on 37 and was getting worried about this thread

Heres the Bill Maher interview of Gary Hirshberg from Stonyfield, interesting stuff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t7l42cIJXvM#!

Transparecy and labeling cant cost THAT much more. I see all kinds of crazy labels on multiple types and brands of food products, everything from "20% more!!" to "Less Sugar!!" to "New Hardkore Flavor!". I'm sure there will still be a demand for GMO products with competitive pricing and such, but I'd at least like to pave a pathway for me and my kids and their kids to at least see what it is they are ingesting...

It's a lot of hyperbole and bad science against GM foods, flawed studies and the like.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/09/24/bad-science-on-gmos-it-reminds-me-of-the-antivaccine-movement/

And that prop is supported by Joe Mercola, a huge anti-vaccine quack

 

[Karakand]

Proposition guides from the parties with ballot-access in the state.

California Democratic Party

Yes on Proposition 30
No on Proposition 31
No on Proposition 32
No on Proposition 33
Yes on Proposition 34
Yes on Proposition 35
Yes on Proposition 36
Yes on Proposition 37
No on Proposition 38
Neutral on Proposition 39
Yes on Proposition 40

California Republican Party

No on Proposition 30
Yes on Proposition 31
Yes on Proposition 32
Yes on Proposition 33
No on Proposition 34
Yes on Proposition 35
No on Proposition 36
No on Proposition 37
No on Proposition 38
No on Proposition 39
Yes on Proposition 40

American Independent Party

No on Proposition 30
No on Proposition 31
Yes on Proposition 32
Yes on Proposition 33
No on Proposition 34
Yes on Proposition 35
No on Proposition 36
No on Proposition 37
No on Proposition 38
No on Proposition 39
No on Proposition 40

Green Party of California

Yes on Proposition 30
No on Proposition 31
No on Proposition 32
No on Proposition 33
Yes on Proposition 34
Neutral on Proposition 35
Yes on Proposition 36
Yes on Proposition 37
No on Proposition 38
Yes on Proposition 39
Yes on Proposition 40

Libertarian Party of California

No on Proposition 30
No on Proposition 31
Yes on Proposition 32
Yes on Proposition 33
Yes on Proposition 34
No on Proposition 35
Yes on Proposition 36
No on Proposition 37
No on Proposition 38
No on Proposition 39
Neutral on Proposition 40

Peace and Freedom Party

Neutral on Proposition 30
No on Proposition 31
No on Proposition 32
No on Proposition 33
Yes (with reservations) on Proposition 34
No on Proposition 35
Yes (with reservations) on Proposition 36
Yes on Proposition 37
No on Proposition 38
Yes on Proposition 39
Neutral on Proposition 40

 

[jstevenson]

IANAL, but that doesn't sound very libertarian.

tough on crime libertarian. *shrug*

 

[Badgerst3]

The last measure, passed in 2008, is the reason the expo line is being built the pruple line is going forward, the orange line was just extended, the crenshaw line will begin next year, the downtown connector is under final design and the green line will be extended.

All measure J does is accelerate the projects. The original plan was for the feds to loan LA money against the existing taxes, but the GOP refuses to even listen to it, so LA is extending the tax so they can borrow on it now and speed things up.


Oh, and all those projects I listed? Thats just the transit side, half the money foes to roads.



The first part is simply untrue.

The second part is a childs way of looking at government.

Protip: government can work on multiple projects at once. Hiring a teacher doesnt mean you fire a cop. Building a train doesnt mean youre closing schools.

If the train wasnt being built, its estimated that twice the amount of money would be needed to provide the transportation needs via other methods (highway widening, airport expansion). So yes, child please.

Google disagrees ref sales tax rates. Take out local rates and Tennessee drops below ca.

Pro tip- much of the proposed bullet train money is tax based and will be coming from ca taxpayers. Federal funding will offset another chunk- but it's duplicitous to decry not voting for a tax increase by holding education hostage yet expect taxpayers to partially fund a boondoggle that will ultimately cost over $90 billion dollars.

Finally- people are naive or misguided if they don't realize prop 30 will be funding criminal justice realignment.

 

[Schmo Florez]

No on 32. When I signed up to be part of the union that was my consent for my automatic deduction to be used at their discretion. I know the union has my best interest in mind so I happily allow an automatic deduction to come out of every one of my checks. If 32 passes the union would have to to go around and collect union dues from every employee every month. For my union that would cover 160+ fire stations throughout LA County from Diamond Bar to Lancaster making it more difficult for us to have a voice while the super PACs can do what they want.

 

[jamesinclair]

Google disagrees ref sales tax rates. Take out local rates and Tennessee drops below ca.

Pro tip- much of the proposed bullet train money is tax based and will be coming from ca taxpayers. Federal funding will offset another chunk- but it's duplicitous to decry not voting for a tax increase by holding education hostage yet expect taxpayers to partially fund a boondoggle that will ultimately cost over $90 billion dollars.

Finally- people are naive or misguided if they don't realize prop 30 will be funding criminal justice realignment.

Sales tax:

Per wiki, sales tax in calif ranges from
7.25% to 9.75%

Illinois has a high of 11.5%, Missouri 10.491, South Carolina 9 and Tennessee 9.75

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_sales_tax#Summary_table



You know the bullet train system is required, per a proposition right? A prop that was passed under Arndold, not brown?


And again, HSR is projected to cost $70 billion (not 90) in, I believe, 2030 dollars (which was the reason it went up you know, the accounting changed, not the cost). Studies show that to get the same capacity, which will be required (California is still growing you know) it would cost double if done via airport and highway expansion.


You want a healthy economy? Than transportation is key. You can either spend $70b on a modern, clean, comfortable and popular HSR system....or $200b on runways and highway lanes that are less safe and have highly volatile (fuel) costs in the equation.

Funding neither is not an option, unless you want to kill the economy.

HSR will also mostly be funded by feds and private investors. Try getting a private investor to fund new runways.

 

[bluemax]

Ballotpedia should also be in the OP.



I'm voting no on 33.






http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.p...mobile_Insurance_Persistency_Discounts_(2012)

Ah yes! I've been trying to remember the site I used 4 years ago and it was ballotpedia. Thanks.

 

[Jetman]

It's a lot of hyperbole and bad science against GM foods, flawed studies and the like.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/09/24/bad-science-on-gmos-it-reminds-me-of-the-antivaccine-movement/

And that prop is supported by Joe Mercola, a huge anti-vaccine quack

Yeah, I think GAF, and a long argument with a coworker changed my views on 37. I'm a 'No' now. The studies on the 'Yes' side were just garbage. And I'd still like to know what I'm eating but I don't think I'd be cool with everyone's food prices going up in an already expensive state. And if something is drastically detrimental to our health with GMO's isn't that the Department of Health or the FDA's job to let the public know?

 

[Cyan]

tough on crime libertarian. *shrug*

Gotcha, gotcha. I still think 36 should be a Yes for everyone, simply because it restores Three Strikes to its original purpose of life sentences for repeat violent offenders. The people who originally wrote and supported the bill screwed it up, and were pretty shocked by non-violent felons getting put away for life.

Unless "tough on crime" means that higher sentences for any kind of crime are always good no matter what, which I'm guessing probably isn't your intent with that phrase, you might reconsider Prop 36.

 

[jamesinclair]

Heres my ballot:

30 - Yes for taxes
31 - Im about to vote no I think
32 - No on union busting
33 - No on insurance rate hikes for those who choose not to drive for a bit
34 - Yes on eliminating death penalty
35 - No on making someone who urinates in public have to disclose their internet browsing forever
36 - Yes on making three strikes for serious crimes only
37 - Yes on making natural foods natural
38 - Im thinking yes, only because it's certain to lose
39 - Yes on taxing those evil foreign companies
40 - Yes

Local:
Yes on libraries,

 

[GlassBox]

You want a healthy economy? Than transportation is key. You can either spend $70b on a modern, clean, comfortable and popular HSR system....or $200b on runways and highway lanes that are less safe and have highly volatile (fuel) costs in the equation.

Funding neither is not an option, unless you want to kill the economy.

HSR will also mostly be funded by feds and private investors. Try getting a private investor to fund new runways.

The problem you are refusing to acknowledge is that there is not any transportation problems or gridlock with people wanting to go from SF to LA and back again. The transportation issues are local within SF and LA and trying to get around place to place within those areas. HSR will do absolutely nothing to alleviate that. It's a big money pit with no good outcome at all.

And future studies are usually bullshit to begin with.

 

[jamesinclair]

The problem you are refusing to acknowledge is that there is not any transportation problems or gridlock with people wanting to go from SF to LA and back again. The transportation issues are local within SF and LA and trying to get around place to place within those areas. HSR will do absolutely nothing to alleviate that. It's a big money pit with no good outcome at all.

And future studies are usually bullshit to begin with.

So there's no need for people to move between two of the worlds economic capitals?

I suggest looking into the flight volume between the two, and also the cost of i5

 

[AstroNut325]

The problem you are refusing to acknowledge is that there is not any transportation problems or gridlock with people wanting to go from SF to LA and back again. The transportation issues are local within SF and LA and trying to get around place to place within those areas. HSR will do absolutely nothing to alleviate that. It's a big money pit with no good outcome at all.

And future studies are usually bullshit to begin with.

Not sure I agree. HSR between Irvine and Downtown LA/Pasadena would be extremely beneficial. So would Corona to downtown or Pasadena.

Edit:
Yes I understand the current planned routes are terrible since HSR will share existing rail. But at least it's a starting point.

 

[reggieandTFE]

No on 32. When I signed up to be part of the union that was my consent for my automatic deduction to be used at their discretion. I know the union has my best interest in mind so I happily allow an automatic deduction to come out of every one of my checks. If 32 passes the union would have to to go around and collect union dues from every employee every month. For my union that would cover 160+ fire stations throughout LA County from Diamond Bar to Lancaster making it more difficult for us to have a voice while the super PACs can do what they want.

Thanks for posting this. It's not often we hear from actual Union members instead of the ideologues who irrationally hate workers having power.

 

[Cornballer]

Proposition guides from the parties with ballot-access in the state.

Thanks, man. I added them to the OP.

 

[CrookedRain]

Made a decision on everything except for prop 39. I like the idea of it, but I don't really like the fact that it designates half of the money to clean/efficient energy projects. Even though it isn't perfect, I'm leaning towards yes.

 

[Flynn]

Wow, you Californians have a lot of power with this direct voting. That looks pretty fun actually.

It is a cluster fuck. Just say no to direct democracy.

 

[smurfx]

why on earth are some of you voting yes on 33?

 

[TAJ]

No on 36 - 3 strikes works fine. .

lol
My mom works for the CDCR, the primary(only?) beneficiary of 'three strikes', and even she's voting 'yes'.

 

[CrookedRain]

why on earth are some of you voting yes on 33?

Because they saw some little blurb about lower insurance rates in the 5 seconds they spent reading about it.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

They bring up education every damn time and the school system in this state is worse than it was 15 years ago with all the increases we've had.

Which increases? Go look at the chart I posted earlier. The state provides less money than the fabled 15 years ago (particularly toward UC).

Edit: Here it is in case you don't want to click

 

[desh]

Why should I vote YES on 30 and NO on 38? I like 30 because income tax is only raised on people with high income, but it doesn't seem like the revenue that is generated from Prop 30 could be mismanaged. Prop 38 seems to have better guidelines on how the revenue will be managed.

Help me out here, GAF.

 

[Karakand]

Is there any serious polling on the propositions? I'd rather abstain from some of these than hold my nose and vote yes/no.

 

[Cyan]

Why should I vote YES on 30 and NO on 38? I like 30 because income tax is only raised on people with high income, but it doesn't seem like the revenue that is generated from Prop 30 could be mismanaged. Prop 38 seems to have better guidelines on how the revenue will be managed.

Help me out here, GAF.

30 is tied to this year's budget, 38 isn't. Meaning big education cuts if 38 passes.

I'm also not a fan of ballot-box budgeting, so I prefer fewer... revenue-management guidelines.

Note that as of fairly recently, 30 is on the edge and 38 is very unlikely to pass. I suggest that if you prefer 38, you vote Yes on both.

 

[AstroNut325]

Sent in my mail ballot.

I can't believe we have so many props on a ballot. We have elected politicians for a reason. How did this come about?

Anyways.

30: Yes. Our schools AND colleges AND universities need help. They are the future.
31: No. Typically right wing BS to curb the social safety net.
32: No. Unions need to retain their power. SuperPACs .... no. One looks out for the interest of the working man. The other looks out for top 1%.
33: No. I stopped riding my motorcycle for a year because I didn't have time to fix/maintain it properly. Now I need to pay a higher insurance premium because I took a year off on the bike? Yeah... NO! Anyone voting YES on this need to get their head checked.
34: Yes. Save some money.
35: No. The wording was quite vague about convictions.
36: Yes. Save some money.
37: Yes. It's not perfect but it's a step in the right direction.
38: No. 10 billion is a large sum of money so noticeable increases in taxes across the board. And it only helps K-12. Neglects colleges and universities.
39: Yes. BS tax loop hole needs to be closed.
40: Yes. Only to save money.

A: Yes. Make it an appointed position. The state is in major trouble because a lot of people voting have no clue what they doing or voting for.
B: No. The industry will just pack it up and go to Ventura, IE, or Orange county.
J: Yes. We need more infrastructure investment.

 

[Zhengi]

Can't blame anyone but us for that one. Brown wasn't even in office when that boondoggle got put on the ballot.

Brown and the legislature have the power to actually stop the funds from being spent on that boondoggle, but they decided not to hold off on it and voted to spend the funds for it.

http://www.rail.co/2012/07/09/california-approves-high-speed-rail/

Also:

The Los Angeles teachers union has refused to sign off on Los Angeles Unified's bid for a prestigious Race to the Top grant, costing the district a shot at winning $40 million in federal money, sources said Saturday.

LAUSD had been negotiating for days with United Teachers Los Angeles, in the hope of gaining the endorsement it needed to submit the the Race to the Top application.

Superintendent John Deasy had said he needed the application approved by Friday so there would be make revisions and overnight a finalized copy to the Department of Education in Washington, D.C., by Tuesday's deadline. Sources said talks broke off late Friday, and the district and union had no further contact on Saturday.

Deasy and UTLA President Warren Fletcher could not immediately be reached for comment.

This was the first time the Education Department had opened Race to the Top grants to individual districts, with a total of $400 million to be awarded. Deasy had said he considered the district's application to be very strong, and he had high hopes of winning one of the highly competitive grants.

Sources said LAUSD's application targeted middle school students, with a multi-phased program to get and keep them on track for high school graduation.

The proposal included hiring hundreds of teachers, counselors and social workers to step in and help underperforming students, sources said. It also included the resumption of summer school at the middle
school level - courses that have been cancelled for the past several years because of the budget crisis.

Money also would have been set aside to create clusters of small learning communities on high school campuses, sources said, an effort to boost graduation rates that have reached about 64 percent. There also would have been trips to college and university campuses in an effort to inspire students to continue their educations after getting their diplomas.

Sources said the district's plan exceeded the grant total by about $3 million, but that money from private donors had already been raised to cover the additional costs.

One requirement of the Race to the Top process is that districts include student test scores as a significant factor in teacher evaluations by the 2014-15 school year. That issue has long been a sticking point between LAUSD and its teachers union, with the two sides disagreeing over how to measure student success.

Deasy supports a system uses classroom test scores and demographic data, a complex formula known as Academic Growth over Time. LAUSD is in the second year of a no-stakes pilot program that uses AGT to evaluate one teacher at each of the district's schools.

UTLA maintains that the classroom scores are too volatile, and has expressed support for a schoolwide AGT model.

In fact, the two sides have been trying to reach a compromise on a new evaluation system after a federal judge ruled said LAUSD had to start using student scores in job reviews in order to comply with the law. The district has declared an impasse in those talks, even as it tries to meet a Dec. 4 court-ordered deadline for creating a new evaluation system.

In an effort to broker a deal on Race to the Top, sources said the district had proposed that nothing agreed to as part of the lawsuit would be binding on the application. However, that apparently didn't sway union leaders.

http://www.dailynews.com/education/ci_21870327/teachers-union-refuses-sign-off-lausd-race-top

When education needs more money, the teacher's union would rather reject any money to help students if they are held accountable for their performance. And the Teacher's Union continues to pay money towards advertising that we need Prop 30 for education, when all they really want is more money for themselves without being held accountable for results.

 

[Zhengi]

So there's no need for people to move between two of the worlds economic capitals?

I suggest looking into the flight volume between the two, and also the cost of i5

Please show how HSR would relieve that volume between the two cities. Why would anyone take HSR when they can either drive up there with no problems with traffic volume or fly there for cheap with most flights ranging in price around $98?

 

[Cyan]

Brown and the legislature have the power to actually stop the funds from being spent on that boondoggle, but they decided not to hold off on it and voted to spend the funds for it.

http://www.rail.co/2012/07/09/california-approves-high-speed-rail/

Can they hold off on it, though? I mean, once it's approved by voters, they can't just arbitrarily decide they're not going to do it. I imagine the courts would have something to say about that.

 

[Zhengi]

Can they hold off on it, though? I mean, once it's approved by voters, they can't just arbitrarily decide they're not going to do it. I imagine the courts would have something to say about that.

Yes, they CAN hold off on it. The legislature decided not to and voted for the funds to go through. That's why they held a vote to approve the funds.

And there are already a few cases going through court trying to stop the boondoggle, but the legislature is ignoring those cases and trying to get the HSR projected started despite those protests. So why should the courts be a concern if they stopped the funding and HSR from going froward if they can just ignore the courts right now and approve the funding forward?

 

[Cyan]

Yes, they CAN hold off on it. The legislature decided not to and voted for the funds to go through. That's why they held a vote to approve the funds.

They voted to approve funds for building the first piece of the HSR, not the entire project. If they can just deny the whole project by a simple legislature vote, why was it even on the ballot?

 

[Mackenzie 92]

Is 37 gonna increase food prices even more? It's already bad enough, I think at this point I'll eat soylent green if it's cheap enough.

 

[overcast]

What are the chances 30 passes? My college is about to make some serious cuts otherwise..