Red Pill Politics’ Guide to California State Propositions
Hi Everyone,
The following were the conclusions from a “Proposition Party” that I attended tonight. A mix of left leaning liberals and recent HBS grads. I hope you find it helpful. I want to call out Proposition 2, of which I can’t believe that there hasn’t been more press stating how completely and utterly assinine the initiative is. It essentially bankrupts our domestic state farmers, doesn’t serve its function as we will likely just replace our locally grown food products with imported goods from other states that do not have to abide by same restrictions, and on top of that, we’ll add an undue hardship to low-income families who will have to pay 76% more for a food staple like eggs. Done with my diatribe. 
State Propositions
VOTE YES: Prop. 1A – To approve ~$10B bond measure to fund high-speed bullet train from SF to LA.
Argument For: 2h 45m bullet train that would help alleviate traffic congestion not only from SF to LA, but would also service major commuting routes from SF to SJ. Reduces carbon-emissions and improves overall infrastructure. ~$10B approximately the amount of money that it would take to expand increased capacity to SFO and LAX. The bullet train presents a more environmentally friendly solution. Bullet train investments have been shown to pay off in less than 20 years among other countries, which have made the investment.
VOTE NO: Prop. 2 – Standards for the confinement of animals
Argument Against: If the measure passes, it essentially bankrupts California poultry farmers. The fiscal impact is a projected 76% increase in the cost of eggs. The measure would not stop the confinement of farm animals, but encourage the importation of lower cost foods where these confinement standards are not enforced – like Nevada. Also, increasing the price of standard staples by 76% presents a signifcant hardship on low-income families. Not only does this measure not obtain the end means of improving animal confinement standards, but it will adversely affect low income families who would have to bare significant increases in food costs.
VOTE YES: Prop. 3 – Authorizes ~$980M to fund construction, expansion of Children’s hopitals
VOTE NO: Prop. 4 - Waiting period & parental notification before termination of minor’s pregnancy
VOTE YES: Prop. 5 – Increase rehabilitation for non-violent drug offenses
Split vote for Prop. 5 among the group.
Against: Assistant DA of Contra Costa Country present which stated that drug rehabilitation programs are already present under Prop. 36. Does not see need in increase drug rehab.
For: Provides for more rehab programs for NON-violent offenders. Decreases prison costs. Rehabilitation is better for non-violent offenders then minor jail terms.
VOTE NO: Prop. 6 – $1B in funding to increase law enforcement of gang-violence
Main argument against is around the appropriation of $1B from the Education fund to increase resources for law enforcement agencies. Penalties seem excessively harsh including life in prison terms for home robbery, etc.
VOTE NO: Prop. 7 - Renewable Energy Generation
Main arguments against centers around the stipulation that energy produced by “small” clean energy providers (>30 MegaWatts) will not count towards state energy goals. This essentially eliminates support to this segment of the market, which currently makes up 65% of the clearn energy source in California. In Europe, “small” (<30MegaWatt) providers comprise of over 90% of the renewable energy source. Prop. 7 ultimately inhibits the growth of renewable energy and is opposed by both major political parties.
VOTE NO: Prop. 8 – Eliminates right of same-sex couple to marry
VOTE NO: Prop. 9 – Victims’ rights. Parole.
Requires notification of victim and opportunity for input during phases of criminal justice process, including bail, pleas, sentencing and parole. Main argument against given by District DA, who stated that this proposition is too difficult to implement, would dramatically slow down operations and is excessively intrusive into the criminal justice processes.
VOTE YES/NO: Prop. 10 – Alternative Fuel vehicles and renewable energy
Gives subsidies - $5k for natural fuel vehicles & $2k for hybrid vehicles. Main argument against centers around the fact that the proposition is sponsored by Texan billionnaire T. Boone Pickens, a major natural gas mogul. His company would be a main beneficiary of the rebates provided to consumers of natural gas vehicles. Another argument against is because the $5B bond measure increases CA’s debt when major bond measures should be used for the financing of large, infrastructure projects – not consumer rebates that benefit few Californians.
Main argument for is although the incentive structure is lopsided towards natural gas vehicles – natural gas vehicles still represent a 93% reduction in emission vs. gas powered automobiles although they are not as clean and renewable an energy source as that used by hybrid powered cars.
VOTE YES: Prop. 11 – Amending redistricting processes.
Jerrymandering is bad even if it benefits Democrats.
VOTE YES: Prop. 12 – Veteran’s Bond Act.
Helps veterans to get home loans. A good program that pays for itself. We have approved since the beginning of time – 1920’s…
leave a comment