For you early voters here in California, some quick endorsements for next week’s special election before I leave on my trip:
1A: Yes, with ambivalence
1B: Yes, with ambivalence
1C: No
1D: No
1E: No
1F: Leaving it blank, as it’s a silly bit of misguided populism of the most vulgar sort.
There have been signs everywhere at Cal State LA urging students to vote no on Prop 1A. I still need to do my research, but the Cal State system seems to be very much against it (with the rallies and signs). I am still not sure what to think…
As for 1A, I agree that we should allocate more towards education, infrastructure, and repaying debt. My only issue is that the sales tax increase affects those of us buying tangible things (think diapers, laundry detergent, children’s clothing), and not those buying things like entertainment or personal services (think iTunes songs, concert tickets, and manicures).
I’d probably vote yes on 1A myself, but I think it’s important to think about who’s really being taxed here. It seems to me that the entire system needs to be revised; increasing tax rates here and there may only increase inflation. I didn’t major in economics, but I think I’m on the right page here.
Yikes, I reread my comment and I sound a tad repetitive towards the end. I blame senioritis and my lack of sleep :/
As somebody said, everybody in CA knows a state retiree knocking off at fifty-five with a $75 pension and gold-plated medical care, while the rest of the decreasing number of private sector employees soldier on to pay for that.
Texas, as another said, may not have the Rose Parade but they let you grow your business and keep most of the profits.
And the LAUSD has been characterized as aggressively incompetent and adamantinely (word?) resistant to audits and accountability, and, despite torrents of money, half of its students drop out.
I think opponents of 1A are looking for spending cuts.
As Margaret Thatcher remarked, the trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.
Progressives who oppose 1A do so for solid reasons, but they are fantasizing if they imagine that defeating it will somehow lead to a better deal from the legislature. Some grand constitutional convention, in which the 2/3rds requirement to pass a budget is going to magically disappear, isn’t coming. The cuts will be worse without 1A, which is why Barbara Boxer (hardly a conservative) has endorsed it. The left and the right both oppose 1A because they imagine a better deal can be had; the sensible center knows that the only alternatives will be much more painful. The right is campaigning hard against 1A because they want to shred the social safety net in this state, and they correctly see 1A as propping that safety net up. The left sees 1A as dismantling that net, when it’s actually doing radical surgery to keep it intact.
Services must be radically cut, or taxes radically raised on everyone. Anyone who thinks both can be avoided is, at this point, not looking at the numbers.
Look, 1A is going down. It will be defeated, largely because it has attracted organized opposition from the right and the left . (Which means that the GOP cannot claim its defeat is evidence of resurgent conservatism, given that there is heavy opposition among students and activists statewide.) But those who think things will be better as consequence need to realize that those whose views are diametrically opposed to their own believe the same thing. State education spending will go down dramatically when 1A is defeated, and the California Faculty Association needs to acknowledge that.
Hugo. Got any specific information that the conservatives want to shred the social safety net?
Might have other goals?
Thing is, everything, each one of props 1B-1F, hinges on 1A, if you believe the small print. So if 1A doesn’t pass, none of the others will. I already voted and did exactly what you said above.
Which means that the GOP cannot claim its defeat is evidence of resurgent conservatism
Of course, they will do so anyway.
But those who think things will be better as consequence need to realize that those whose views are diametrically opposed to their own believe the same thing
One side must be wrong.
Thing is, everything, each one of props 1B-1F, hinges on 1A, if you believe the small print.
That’s not true. Only 1B hinges on 1A. The others are independent and can take effect whether 1A passes or not.
I’m torn on 1C. (Yes 1A 1D 1E, no 1B 1F). Securitizing the lottery is a dumb idea; it’s more borrowing from tomorrow’s revenue stream to pay for today’s bills.
And yet … the budget the state adopted for 2009-2010 assumes revenue from doing this, and if it fails, the budget deficit is correspondingly larger to the tune of $5 billion.
I’m angry at the legislature for passing a budget which assumed the voters would sign on to this idea, and I think the idea is bad for the state and sets a terrible precedent.
But … where does the cut come from if 1C goes down?
No on all of them. What a disaster for California education this represents. Who cares if it means we’re “strange bedfellows” with the knuckle-dragging wingnut anti-tax crusaders? On this issue, this politically conceived solution is worse than the problem.
I’ve already voted absentee, and predict that all save 1F will fail by at least 55% or more.