I’m giving you a choice, loyal reader. You can just follow the quick, one-line Proposition Guide I have provided just below this paragraph and take my word for it, or, you can read my over 5,000-word explanation of how I reached my conclusions below.
Yes on 53, 54 and 56 - No On All the Rest!
17 state propositions, Taxifornia?! In one election cycle? Are you kidding me?! Group that with all of the local measures and then all of the national, state and local candidates, and you are all but guaranteeing that no one is going to do all of the homework necessary just to be informed enough to make intelligent decisions on every one of these propositions by Election Day.
But, Taxifornia, isn’t that your point? Isn’t that what you are trying to accomplish in the first place with your cancer-like, virus-like, perpetual, self-interested growth? It’s as if your job has changed from serving the people in their time of need to so overwhelming them with your laws and regulations, and your 17 propositions on one ballot, that they just blindly either throw their hands up in the air and don’t vote, or rely on those horribly misguiding television commercials to make up their mind. It’s as if you want us to just cover our eyes and blindly guess while voting either yes or no, probably without fully understanding what a yes or no vote means.
Well, Taxifornia, I, for one, am not going to take it. I am going to read your 223-page General Election Voter Guide because I am certain there is probably some really costly, horrible stuff in there that you and the lifetime politicians that coarse through your black veins are trying to sneak by us.
Oh, I don’t know, say something like a bond issue where you get $9 billion in income so that you finally put some money into our schools despite the fact that our property taxes are supposed to pay for that very same thing. What are you doing with our property tax money that you need more money for the schools? What exactly are you wasting, I mean spending, that property tax money on, Taxifornia?
And naturally, in government’s typical fiscally ridiculous modus operandi, getting that $9 billion in income today is going to result in return payments over the course of the next 35 years that total $17.6 billion. So, say you and I are at lunch and your lunch costs $9, but you forgot your wallet, and I told you that I would loan you the $9, but that when you paid me back, I wanted $8.60 in interest for a total of $17.60. What would you say? Well, probably right after calling me a credit card company, because those are definitely take-it-from-behind credit card company interest rates, I’d hope that you’d tell me where to go. But, this is the fantastic interest rate our beloved state of Taxifornia is willing to pay to get its hands on that $9 billion. And for that reason, I will VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 51. Our government needs to learn to be much more fiscally responsible with our money through not wasting it so horribly as they do, and not paying almost twice as much as the principle in interest on bond issues. Make better use of our property tax money, Taxifornia, before you strap us with even more debt.
Proposition 51 is a no-brainer for me. For 52, there is more of a fence to sit on. Basically, with Proposition 52, a yes vote means that a fee the government charges to private hospitals just for existing, which is set to expire on January 1, 2018, would instead continue indefinitely. There is also language in the proposition that calls for ensuring the fees go to help provide medical services for low-income families. If only Taxifornia were not famous for passing propositions that mandated funds go to one area, only to turn around and still divert those funds to other things later, oh say, like the lottery money that was supposed to go to the schools. Don’t get me wrong, I am definitely for providing medical assistance to those with low incomes, but at the same time, I always have a problem when our state taxes someone or something just for existing. Let me share the “CON” argument from the Taxifornia Voter Guide. “Removes all accountability and oversight of over $3 billion of taxpayer dollars.” No, that’s not the case, pro-fee people. This does not remove oversight, but, in fact, removes the money completely from the government’s hands and leaves it in the hands of the people who made it – the folks who own and operate the hospitals. The CON argument goes on to state, “Gives $3 billion to hospital CEOs with no independent audit and no requirement the money is spent on health care.” Once again, the CON folks are trying to mislead us. This is not government money that is going to the hospitals instead. It is the hospitals’ money that the hospitals are keeping instead of sending it in to be wasted by Taxifornia. See the slight of hand they are trying here? If it’s the hospitals’ money, they should be able to spend it on whatever the hell they want to, just like me and how I should be able to spend my money on whatever the hell I want to. And, let me provide one more argument here to show you why I will VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 52. The “NO” narrative under “WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS” in the Taxifornia Voter Guide states “An existing charge imposed on most private hospitals would end on January 1, 2018 unless additional action by the Legislature extended it.” So, what that means, boys and girls, is that even if you vote no on this proposition, like I am going to, at some point between Election Day, which is November 8, 2016, and January 1, 2018, over a full year later, if your money-hungry Taxifornia Legislature votes to extend the fee anyway, guess what happens? That’s right, even if we all vote no and tell the bureaucrats we don’t want it, they can still say “F U voters!”
So, what the hell, Old Man Savastano, are you going to vote no on everything? Actually, no. I’ll tell you something I am voting yes on, and that is 53. I will VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 53 because it will require a statewide vote on any state revenue bonds totaling more than $2 billion. Right now, there is no limit on the amount of a bond issue and there is no voter oversight. I personally think it is a great idea for the voters to at least be made aware, as well as have a say, when our Taxifornia bureaucrats are going to borrow over $2 billion dollars that we taxpayers are going to have to pay back, especially when those geniuses have shown time and time again that they have absolutely no problem paying close to $4 billion for every $2 billion they borrow. We need to end this ridiculous cycle of borrowing and paying horrible interest rates. The CON argument, which wants a no vote on 53, is saying that this oversight by the taxpayers on what gets borrowed will have an impact when money is needed for local infrastructure repairs, but I have two arguments back against that. The first, if it’s a local infrastructure project, shouldn’t the local taxpayers be the ones taking care of that? Should a taxpayer in Southern California be paying for a bridge retrofit in San Francisco, or should the people who drive on that bridge every day be taking care of that? And the second, I am sure that local infrastructure people, when faced with this $2 billion bond cap, will simply push their projects through in smaller amounts split amongst more projects. Government gets its money no matter what, boys and girls, but let’s at least make it a little more difficult for the Fat Cats in Taxramento to waste our money.
And why don’t we go ahead and keep the pattern going! I will VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 54, too. This one is actually a great idea! It’s one that I know has every Spendocrat in Taxramento tossing and turning in their big luxury beds every night. Passing Proposition 54 “Prohibits [the] Legislature from passing any bill unless [it is] published on [the] Internet for 72 hours before [the] vote. Requires [the] Legislature to record its proceedings and post [them] on [the] Internet. Authorizes [the] use of recordings. Fiscal Impact: One-time costs of $1 million to $2 million and ongoing costs of about $1 million annually to record legislative meetings and make videos of those meetings available on the Internet.” Now, you know I normally oppose government spending, but paying a few million dollars to put this little cap on the voting actions of our Taxocrats is a fantastic idea. Now, you and I might not have the time to check that website for each bill these horrible spenders pass, but rest assured, it is going to make the digging tax advocate organizations do much easier. Plus, if you’ve ever been in charge of a child, even though they might not see you, as long as they know you are there and could pop your head into that room any minute, what happens? Definitely a lot fewer bad things than if that child knew you weren’t in the house. Let’s all keep a better eye on the whiny babies who waste too much of our money in Taxramento by passing Proposition 54.
So, do we keep the yes momentum going for Proposition 55? No. Much like the classic politician, I will flip-flop back and VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 55. Proposition 55 extends for another 12 years a special income tax that the state of Taxifornia imposed on the evil bastards who make more than $250,000 a year with that money going to schools. So what gives, Old Man Savastano? You hate schools, or something? Well, let me ask you this. There are property taxes that are supposed to cover the schools, and if you remember, Proposition 51 is asking for $9 billion for the schools. So, that $9 billion is on top of the $4 to $9 billion that the tax Proposition 55 wants to extend for another 12 years. How many times over are we expected to pay for schools? Oh, and by the way, there is language in the tax that Proposition 55 will kill that says if the schools have enough money, then instead of the money going back to the taxpayers, it goes to healthcare for low-income families.
So, let’s look at this for a second. Property taxes and local taxes go to fund the schools. Then, on top of that, this tax on the evil bastards who don’t deserve to keep their money is designed to cover the costs that go beyond those taxes. But, in certain years, there is enough money for the schools and the money from the evil bastards tax then goes to pay for healthcare for low-income folks instead. Well, if there is left over school money after the property and local taxes and after the evil bastards tax, then what the hell is the money from the bond issue under Proposition 51 for? Do you see the pattern here? Taxocrats do all they can to get all the money they can out of us, and boy, do they love disguising it as something for the children. To quote Helen Lovejoy, “Won’t somebody please think of the children?!” Sorry, Helen, I am not buying it. The more taxes that pass, the more idiots like me end up having to pay them, so no, Taxocrats, I’m voting against Proposition 55, just like I will with Proposition 51.
Well, folks, we’re plugging right along through these 17 propositions, and let me warn you – get ready to pick yourself up off the floor because fiscally conservative Old Man Savastano is about to throw you for a loop and vote for a tax increase. That’s right – Proposition 56 raises the tax on a certain product an entire $2 every time someone in the state purchases it. And honestly, I have absolutely no problem with that. If you’re a smoker, you will, but hey, I believe at the end of the day, or in the morning perhaps, we all make our own bed.
Communism sucks. I oppose it vehemently, however, thanks to the nanny state, I am forced to participate in a particularly horrible form of it – health insurance. I am now required by the United States of America to have health insurance no matter what, regardless of whether or not I think I need it, or whether or not I want it. Such is the case for every single person in America. That means that we are all now communally responsible for each other’s health. Believe me, I sure don’t want to be responsible for anyone else’s health, nor do I want to be paying for their medical needs. Yet, thanks to the Communists in Taxington, D.C., here we are, so, sorry folks. You and I both know that paying $2 more a pack is not going to help you quit smoking, but the Taxocrats think fines and taxes deter behavior, just like all those speeding tickets they give us, so that’s why this one’s on the ballot. And for you e-cig folks out there, my apology as well, but this one is going to cost you more money, too. But, you know who its not going to cost more money? That’s right, those of us who do not smoke, but are still paying into the same healthcare system that you are going to use once all that tobacco and “harmless” vaping starts to kill you. I just think that if anybody should be paying for that, it should be you, and not us, so that is why I will VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 56, even though it is a tax increase.
Now, you might see some ads for the folks that are opposed to Proposition 56 in which they are crying fowl because not all of the money from the additional $2 per pack tax is going into the state coffers, but is also going to the Fat Cats at the health insurance companies, but you know what? I’d much rather have it come out of your pocket now and go into the health insurance system than out of mine later, or worse, just go to be wasted by the state of Taxifornia, solely because you should be the one responsible for your actions, not me. It’s all about personal responsibility and accountability with this fiscal conservative.
Well, loyal reader, you may not have agreed with me entirely up to this point, but chances are, if we are going to disagree on one of these 17 propositions, Proposition 57 might be it. 57 “Allows parole consideration for nonviolent felons. Authorizes sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior, and education. Provides [that a] juvenile court judge decides whether juvenile will be prosecuted as an adult.” This one was not too hard to reach a decision on. I do think that adding an extra set of eyes to cases where juveniles are going to be tried as adults is a good idea, but I must admit I am opposed enough to early parole for felons that it outweighs my agreement on the juvenile court judge oversight, therefore, it is my duty to VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 57.
I definitely want to see every single prisoner truly reform and rehabilitate. I want to see them come out of prison and never commit a single crime again. But, I would argue, they have the capability and the means to do so right now, without the passing of this proposition. I believe we all make choices in life, and while some might be right and some might be wrong, when it comes time to dole out the consequences of those decisions, it should be up to us to pay for own actions. It should not be up to the voters to provide a blanket easing of sentencing like this. Each case should be judged on a case-by-case basis based upon the laws currently in place. The saying “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time” was coined for a reason.
And this leads us to Proposition 58, the first one of the 17 that I really had to dig into to make a decision. This was because both sides’ descriptions were purposely cryptic, and both claim to have the best interest of students in mind. Even the state-written summary in the Taxifornia Voter Guide was misleading, but here’s the crux of it. Voting no on 58 means that children who enter the California public school system who do not know English will still be placed in classrooms where they are “taught English as rapidly and effectively as possible.” This means they first go into an immersion program where they may be with children not necessarily their own age, but of similar English-speaking ability, and are then taught primarily in English until they learn the language. Once proficient, the students are placed in the regular class for their age.
A yes vote on 58 means that the language, “taught English as rapidly and effectively as possible” will be removed from California law, thus removing the restriction that new English language learners be placed in these immersion programs. Instead, local school districts will be allowed to design their own programs based on what local authorities deem to be the most successful. I truly believe this is something that should be standardized across the entire state, and I also believe that immersion is the best way to learn a new language. Therefore, I will VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 58.
Now, we get to Proposition 59, which literally does absolutely nothing other than give a quantifiable percentage of the people who either vote yes or no for it to be used as a public opinion poll to tell the Taxifornia Taxislature whether or not Taxifornians believe that corporations and labor unions should be able to spend all the money they want on influencing political campaigns. This measure DOES NOT change campaign finance laws, DOES NOT change the fact that corporations and labor unions cannot donate directly to candidates, NOR DOES IT CHANGE the amount of money anyone can spend to say anything they want to about any ballot measure or any candidate on the ballot.
To be honest, I don’t care which way anyone votes on this one. If you think corporations and unions should be able to spend whatever they want influencing political campaigns, then join me and VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 59. If you think there should be caps on what entities can spend on influencing political campaigns then vote yes. Either way, THIS PROPOSITION DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO CHANGE ANYTHING. It is the same as any wasteful, costly resolution that any local government passes declaring it Bozo The Clown Day within a city. And yes, I am also voting against Proposition 59 because I think putting do-nothing measures like this on the ballot is a complete waste of resources and everyone’s time.
So, if 59 wasn’t a big enough waste of resources and time, here we go with Proposition 60, everyone’s chance to weigh in on whether or not the actors in porn should be forced to use condoms. It also requires porn producers to pay for vaccinations, testing and medical examinations to ensure that all the folks screwing, I mean acting, in porn are as clean as they possibly can be. Taxifornia estimates it will cost about $1 million a year to send regulators to make sure porn folks are using condoms. Now, there’s a government job! This is another one of those measures that I could honestly take or leave, but I will say that being as how I am opposed to the nanny state, wasteful and unnecessary regulation, and the further tossing of my tax dollars out the window, even though all those STDs floating around the porn set are going to raise my healthcare costs, I will still VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 60. Plus, all this is going to do is put money in lawyer’s pockets and increase regulatory and court costs.
And speaking of government waste, Proposition 61 is also a complete and total waste of taxpayer money and resources. 61 aims to fix a problem, the high cost of prescription drugs that are provided to citizens by government entities, but goes about it the wrong way. The Taxifornia Voter Guide provides a great way to look at Proposition 61. It says to equate government entities buying prescription drugs to a consumer purchasing a car. The car has a published MSRP, but a lot of times consumers can haggle with the dealer to get extras included in that price, or pay a reduced price. When government entities buy prescription drugs, the same exact thing happens. And while nowadays, consumers can usually find online what other people are paying for the car they are wanting to purchase, the drug companies don’t provide their customers with this luxury. Due to non-disclosure agreements, no one really knows what the government entity is paying for the prescription drug other than the person at the government entity actually making the purchase. This means that the VA can be buying a drug at a much higher rate than other state or federal entities. It also means that when government entities are negotiating prices, they have no idea what others are paying so it puts them at a real disadvantage. Proposition 61 proposes using a VA database in which the highest price ever paid by the VA is listed to cross-check the top price government entities in Taxifornia pay for the prescriptions listed in the database, and make it illegal for Taxifornia entities to pay more for the drug than the top price the VA ever paid. This is going to cost money to enforce, and cost money to monitor and prosecute. Instead of wasting money on this, Taxifornia really should concentrate on collective buying and negotiating. Why are seven different government entities buying the same drug in seven different transactions at seven varying prices instead of using the collective purchasing power of all government entities in negotiations with the drug companies? Because government is inherently stupid, asinine, and horrendously inadequate when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Proposition 61 has its heart in the right place, but it’s just going to be a waste. Instead of voting for it, we should all VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 61 and demand our Taxifornia government entities pool their resources to get better prices on prescription drugs.
Proposition 62 is one of those that you fortunately don’t really need to read too much into because you should already know the particulars, especially if you’ve lived in Taxifornia and watched the news for any length of time. When Charlie Manson was out there being Charlie Manson, we had no death penalty in the fine state of Taxifornia, and that is why we are blessed with his presence to this day. We clothe, house, feed, and put up with marvel after marvel during his regularly scheduled parole hearings. We do not endure this with Richard Ramirez because he’s dead. If you think that folks like Charlie Manson should be allowed to grace us with their presence for their entire natural life, then you’re for yes on 62. If you’re like me and you think we should still be using the chair, you’ll want to VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 62.
Now, there are some ancillaries to this one. They want the murder that lives out his or her natural life to work in the prison system to earn money by making license plates (and other fare) so they can pay restitution to the families of the dead. If you’re like me, you’d probably much rather have the bastard dead than earning $1.25 an hour to try to make up for the loved one they murdered. Yes, the death penalty is mostly symbolic at this point here in Taxifornia. Only 930 people have been sentenced to death since 1978, but I’d say some of them really had it coming. Plus, let’s not forget that staving off the death penalty in exchange for life is a great bargaining tool for prosecutors to use when building cases against criminal entities and leaders. If we do away with the death sentence, prosecutors will lose that bargaining chip. I hope you’ll join me in keeping it in place.
Now, on to Proposition 63. Let’s start with a history lesson. Back in 1988, I wrote an essay for my High School Freshman English class on gun control. And thanks to the ineptness of government in targeting legal gun owners instead of targeting criminals and criminal activity, oh, let’s say like illegal immigrants who get released back out in sanctuary cities and go on to kill people instead of being deported, I was able to turn that same essay in again in 1989, 1990, and 1991, then again in college in 1993 and 1995, and also sold versions of it for others to turn in well into the late 1990s. Now, in its infinite wisdom, while we are seriously talking about not deporting criminals, there is a measure on the ballot, Proposition 63, which would require background checks to buy gun ammunition. The libs, of course, say this will keep ammunition out of the hands of the bad guys. Yeah, just like all those gun control and immigration laws are keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and illegal immigrant criminals from committing crimes. Proposition 63 is not going to do anything other than cost the taxpayers and law-abiding gun-owners money. It will not stop crime. It will not prevent crime. It will just create an even bigger black market for ammunition like prohibition did for alcohol. Yes, we need to do something about gun violence and crazy people getting guns, but this proposition is not it. I will VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 63.
And as we move on to Proposition 64, here we go with legalizing pot again. People are still dying in drunk driving accidents, so let’s just hope and pray that they will not get high and then drive, right? You know, just how we hope and pray they don’t drink and drive. Government wants this proposition to pass so it can tax and regulate pot and earn more revenue that it can just waste like it wastes so much of the revenue it gets now. All you stoners out there can keep growing your shit in your closet and smoking it in your own home or buying it from your Cousin Larry, so you don’t need us to legalize it so you can get high. We all know you’re going to anyway. What this is going to do is make getting high more socially acceptable and that is going to lead to more people thinking it is perfectly all right to get high then do things that are going to endanger the rest of us. This alone would give me grounds to VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 64, but wait, there’s more!
Let me quote once again from the Taxifornia Voter Guide, even though I am hesitant to do so because it illustrates that Dianne Feinstein and I actually agree on something, which honestly makes me a little sad, and nauseous. “Proposition 64 purposely omits [a] DUI standard to keep marijuana-drivers off our highways.” This means there IS NOT a DUI clause in this proposition that addresses the penalty and enforcement of those who are high on marijuana while driving once it is illegal. I have a YUGE problem with that. “[Tax]ifornia Association of Highway Patrolmen and Senator Dianne Feinstein strenuously oppose. Legalizes ads promoting smoking marijuana, Gummy candy and brownies on shows watched by millions of children and teens. Shows reckless disregard for child health and safety. Opposed by California Hospital Association.” Need I say more?
Onward now from life to death in Taxifornia to the greatest evil ever devised by man…the plastic bag. Yes, that’s me laughing at you, Taxifornia. Not only because you are so worried about plastic bags while we’re going to hell in a handbasket, but because Proposition 65 stipulates one of the things that is going to happen if Proposition 67 passes. Only in backward-ass Taxifornia would 67 come before 65.
So, you’ll excuse me if I go out of order here slightly so I can attempt to alleviate some of the confusion that government has absolutely no problem burdening voters with. Proposition 67 seeks to make it illegal for grocery stores to provide customers single-use plastic or paper carryout bags. I totally get why you’re trying this, but Taxifornia, local governments throughout Orange County already tried it and, frankly, it didn’t do shit. It didn’t keep plastic bags off the ground, out of the ocean, or out of the waterways. All it did was take our money when we had to pay for bags and inconvenience the hell out of us when we were shopping. Huntington Beach tried this for two years and ended up repealing it because of all the headaches it provided. And, it didn’t cut down on plastic pollution in the environment one bit. Proposition 67 also has a flaw, too, and it is that none of the money collected from penalizing customers for not using reusable bags actually goes to the environment. Either way, plastic bag bans don’t work and have already failed all over the state, so I will VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 67.
Going back to Proposition 65, now. If Proposition 67 passes, and Proposition 65 passes as well, then Proposition 65 will require that proceeds from the penalization of customers who don’t use reusable bags will then go to environmental causes. I will still VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 65. While I do think we need to be conscious of the environment, I just feel that plastic bag bans which lead to consumers having to pay for bags to carry home the things they buy because it is mandated by the gub’ment is just wrong on so many levels.
Sixteen down, only one left to go! Are you still with me or have you done what Taxifornia wants and given up? Proposition 66 seeks to make changes to the death penalty and how it is implemented. It wants to put time limits on challenges to death sentences and revise rules so that attorneys who refuse to accept death penalty appeal cases would be forced to do so. Also, most notably, it would allow condemned inmates to be housed at any state prison, instead of at specially appointed prisons designed to do so as is that case now. You’ll forgive my laziness in quoting the Taxifornia Voter Guide again, but the CON position states, “Prop. 66 is not real reform. We don’t know all of its consequences, but we do know this: it adds more layers of bureaucracy causing more delays, costs taxpayers money, and increases [Tax]ifornia’s risk of executing an innocent person. Prop. 66 is a costly experiment that makes matters worse.” Basically, a no vote on Proposition 66 means that nothing will change with the current death penalty process, so I will VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 66.
And there you have it folks, my completely biased, self-centered take on the ridiculously overwhelming 17 Taxifornia Propositions on the ballot. Sorry I’ve only given you less than a week to read up on them, but hey, I was busy earning money to pay my taxes so I didn’t have time to read up on all the ways that the libs in Taxifornia want to tax me even more.
So, good luck out there. Read and learn as much as you can about the propositions and the politicians running for office before you vote. And for God’s sake, please vote…oh, unless you’re a lib, then I’d say don’t worry about it. These aren’t the droids you are looking for.
Photo by William L. Savastano
No comments:
Post a Comment