My Vote

Oct. 26th, 2016 04:01 pm
kay_gmd: (fair)
[personal profile] kay_gmd
So last night the school board candidates spoke at our PTA meeting, which was the last part of my information gathering on this election.
So here's how I'm voting. I think everyone should vote their conscience, but if you are undecided please feel free to vote the way I am, alternately use this and your understanding of me to increase your understanding of the ballot.

One of the things someone suggested at the meeting was to start at the bottom on the local items, and work your way up, so I'm going to run through that way.

Measure H - Yes
I'm a tax and spend liberal, and this will probably concretely benefit my child. It's an increased parcel tx for schools. I actually agree that it would be better if we did funding on a statewide, or even nation wide scale in a predictable way, but until that covers education needs fully I'll probably vote for any chance to fund education.

DJUSD Board vote for 2 - Alan Fernandes and Bob Poppenga
I'm actually excited about Alan. He's focusing on children's health and happyness, and talking about needs of minorities where the other 3 seemed more interested in churning out college students. Bob seemed the best of the 3 talking about building relationships between students of different ages. Jose Granda had interesting points about English language learners, but opposes Measure H, and even if I was going to vote against it I would expect the board to attempt to get the funding. Susan Loveburg didn't adress what she would work on so much as point out that she was a veteran of the board. While I haven't been unhappy with the board so far I'm not voting for anyone who just talks about what they have done without talking about what they will do.

Los Rios - Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald
She has the endorsment of the entire DJUSD, and that's really all I know about her.

Yolo County Board of Ed - Shelton B. Yip
Experienced educator over a non local lawyer. (I don't have anything particularly against lawyers, but I think educators are better for the Board of Education)

State Assembly - Cecilia Aguiar-Curry
I went for someone more liberal in the primary, but she's the best choice in this election.

State Senator - Mariko Yamada

US Representative - John Garamendi

Prop 51 - Yes
Bonds for schools

Prop 52 - Yes
Continue Hospital fees necessary because the governonr is playing politics with this standard fee

Prop 53 - No
State approval of bonds makes it too hard to stop vital local bonds

Prop 54 - Yes
Legislation public for 72 hours before votes. I don't actually plan to look at any of these, but I want the legislature to have that time, and if we don't insist on it being public it won't happen.

Prop 55 - Yes
extention to taxes for schools and medical

Prop 56 - Yes increased tax on cigarets it seems like a big bump, but it will bring us to parity with other states, and has been shown to decrease smoking.

Prop 57 - Yes
Possibility of early parole for non-violent crimes

Prop 58 - Yes
More flexibility in bilingual education

Prop 59 - Yes
Do something to stop Citizens United. It won't actually do anything, but if it gets a strong vote people can point to it as a sign of what the public thinks.

Prop 60 - No
Porn condoms. The really problematic part of this one is that the enforcement is anyone watching it sueing. Everyone I've heard about it who works in the industry says that it makes them less safe not more.

Prop 61 - Yes
Perscription costs tied to what the VA pays. There's consern that this will hurt the VA's ability to negotiate, and the oddity of doing it as a state rather than nationally. I think with CA as the 5th largest economy in the world state vs national isn't huge. Also this one does allow the legislature to adjust things if it turns out to be problematic.

Prop 62 - Yes
End the death penalty. We've had so many instances where someone was on death row and then evidence came out that proved they were innocent.

Prop 63 - Yes
Background check for ammunition purchase

Prop 64 - Yes
Marijuana legalization

Prop 65 - No
Requires that the fee for bags go to specific funds. Currently the grocery store gets it. In large grocers they may have some profit from this, but in smaller grocers they're taking a loss, and it adds unnecessary buraucracy.

Prop 66 - No
Speed up death penalty. I actually think this would be better than the current system if it would work, but it sounds like it wouldn't.

Prop 67 - Yes
No plastic grocery bags. We already approved this once. The bag makers managed to bring it back onto the ballot. Also we've done it in Davis for a while seems to be working well.


Senator - Kamala Harris

President - Hillary Clinton
In the primaries I voted for and supported Bernie Sanders. I like his policies better, but I was happy to have my choice of 2 candidates that I liked to vote for. She's going to make an amazing president. Also I prefer to stay positive, but I think it is vital to thoroughly trounce Donald Trump. We need to make absolutely clear that he does not represent America. We need to do this to help our look internationally, but more than that we need to show ourselves that we can be better than that.

(no subject)

Date: 2016-10-27 02:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cahwyguy.livejournal.com
Most of the propositions I agree with you. Here are the differences for you to consider (cut and pasted from the appropriate pages list in my summary, http://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=12083 ).

On 51, I went with No. Analysis: Essentially, this sells bonds to pay for new construction and updates to school facilities. Unsurprisingly, teachers, parents, and school districts are in favor of it. Why not? It will improve schools. Also in favor of it is the building and housing industries. This also isn’t a big surprise: Builders win when they get construction contracts. Housing wins when neighborhood schools are better. This will also mean, in the short term, jobs for many on the construction lines. The official NO website calls it the developers bond, but otherwise hasn’t been updated. However, a number of newspapers: Mercury News, Santa Cruz Sentinel, and the LA Times oppose it. Why? According to the Sentinel: “Prop. 51 is primarily bankrolled by the construction industry, which would benefit from its open-endedness by having taxpayers underwrite what should primarily be the responsibility of developers.” The LA Times notes “the grant program is emblematic of a state system for funding new and renovated schools that is badly outdated, inequitable and inefficient. The system needs to be fixed rather than perpetuated, which is why voters should reject Proposition 51 and press for a revamped measure to come before them in the next election.” The bond was put on the ballot by the developers, not the Governor, and the Governor opposes it. The LAO notes: “the existing program fails to treat school facility costs as an ongoing expense despite the recurring nature of facility needs, allows disparities based on school district property wealth, fails to target funding according to greatest need, results in excessive administrative complexity, and lacks adequate accountability mechanisms.”

On top of all that, I’m leary about the state adding more bonded indebtedness, which the taxpayers ultimately have to cover.

On 54, I also went with no. I had a long analysis, which you can see in http://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=12062 , but the driving factors was the fact that committee meetings have to be online for 20 years, and that 's a long time for video formats. More significantly, not only does it require the video to be stored and available for 20 years, but it would allow that video to be used in political campaigns. That’s bad, because politicians in committee will then be thinking how doing the right thing can be used against them. Now, consider who primarily funded this: two influential Republicans: former state Sen. Sam Blakeslee and wealthy GOP donor Charles Munger Jr. Why would they do so? Answer: The legislature is heavily Democratic, and all that committee footage.

On 61, discussed in http://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=12064 , it is basically a good idea, but bad execution. I felt there was too much risk of the drug companies jacking up prices elsewhere to make up for their losses, and thus it would backfire -- which seems to be a common editorial opinion. This is really an issue that needs to be fixed at the national level, not state by state.
Page generated Sep. 21st, 2017 01:39 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios