51: strong NO
52 : Yes
53: Strong Yes
54: Strong Yes
57: Strong No
58: Strong No
59: Strong No
62: Strong No
64: Strong No
66: Strong Yes
PROP 51 – $9 BILLION BOND, SCHOOLS & EDUCATION Strong No
NO, NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT!
PROP 51 supports the state issuing $9 BILLION in bonds (that is, “BORROWING"), to fund improvement & construction of school facilities for K-12 schools & community colleges.
THIS SOUNDS LIKE A VERY NICE “IDEA", huh? But I am recommending a BIG FAT NO, because of “HOW" we get the $9 Billion to make these lovely improvements!
First (and more minor), schools & school improvements should be a LOCAL issue, NOT a state issue. Individual School Districts receive money annually for school repairs & improvements. They should be setting aside these funds and incrementally making school improvements. Instead, they spend it on other things. CA residents should not have to suffer b/c school district don’t properly budget.
Second, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, our state CANNOT AFFORD TO TAKE ON MORE BOND INDEBTEDNESS. And this PROP 51 is HUGE! CA’s Bond DEBT is out of control! W/what we currently owe in Bonds and our UNFUNDED PENSION INDEBTEDNESS, CA is headed for a financial disaster.
Per State Senator John Moorlach (who is also a CPA):
“One need only look at Puerto Rico and their recent default on a $779 million [payment] of bonded debt to see the perils of issuing too many future [debt] obligations. They kept racking up the “credit card" with over $70 Billion in total debt, but currently CANNOT make even the simple maintenance payment. CA VOTERS SHOULD CONSIDER Puerto Rico’s challenges before allowing a similar scenario here at home.”
BONDS are the MOST EXPENSIVE way to pay for things. Issuing BONDS is like paying for project w/a credit card. It needs to be paid back w/interest, which usually DOUBLES THE AMOUNT BORROWED.
In PROP 51’s case, the interest ALONE will be $8.6 Billion. Per the state’s Financial Impact Statement, the repayment will be about $500 million each year for 35 YEARS! This is money CA does NOT have!
CA and CA schools, just like you and me, needs to LIVE WITHIN THEIR MEANS, and BUDGET for projects, and NOT BORROW! BORROWING presumes upon the future for repayment. If passed, our kids & grandkids will be paying on PROP 51 long after I am in glory. “Lord, help voters see the TRUTH!"
PROP 52 – VOTER APPROVAL OF CHANGES, HOSPITAL FEE PROGRAM Yes
PROP 52 has been difficult to call, because there is both good and bad aspects. Even conservatives are on both sides on this one. I have actually changed my recommendation from a NO to a YES, after doing more research and pondering.
PROP 52 requires voter approval to change the “dedicated" use of certain Hospital fees used to draw matching federal money to help fund our Medi-Cal program. It would require a 2/3 vote of both the Senate and Assembly to amend or end the hospital fee program. It would also extend the Hospital fee from “temporary" to “indefinite" program. Got it? If not, read background to better understand.!
BACKGROUND: The federal government helps pay for health care for low-income patients. In CA, this program is called Medi-Cal. In order for CA to receive federal funds, however, CA must contribute matching funds.
In 2009, a program was created that required certain CA hospitals to pay FEES to help CA qualify for the federal matching program. However, at times CA legislature has diverted some of the Hospital fees to the state’s general fund.
PROP 52 would add wording in the CA constitution to make it harder for the legislature to divert funds. This would be the “GOOD” in the prop.
The “BAD” would be that PROP 52 would extend the Hospital fees “indefinitely", rather than let it expire in Jan, 2018, as scheduled.
In my analysis, I think the good ever so slightly outweighs the bad, and am recommending a YES. However, on this one, I understand and wouldn’t argue a “NO" either.
PROP 53 – PROJECTS THAT COST MORE THAN $2 BILLION Strong Yes
PROP 53, aka, the “No Blank Checks Initiative", would REQUIRE VOTER APPROVAL before the state could issue more than $2 BILLION in public infrastructure bonds, that would RAISE our TAXES or RAISE FEES to repay.
I know, this all sounds like a lot of “gobbley-gook", if you are not an accountant or a numbers person. Basically, it is saying that the legislature can get us CA residents in a lot of debt without our consent or knowledge, via REVENUE BONDS. (Google if need to understand difference)
You see, current law mandates that GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS REQUIRE voter approval.
PROP 53 would also add “REVENUE BONDS", that are over $2 Billion to require VOTER APPROVAL.
While many CA voters don’t seem to understand BOND INDEBTEDNESS (& tend to vote for most!), at least, this measure would shine some light on CA’s HUGE INDEBTEDNESS. Also, it would put spending power back into the hands of voters, and NOT give ALL to our (Democratically-led) “tax-and-spend" legislature.
For you and me, VOTE YES on PROP 53!
PROP 54 – CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH BILLS CAN BE PASSED Strong Yes
PROP 54 PROHIBITS the Legislature from passing any bill, unless published on Internet for 72 hours prior to the vote. Includes both houses. Also requires Legislative procedures to be recorded and posted on internet.
This sounds like a wonderful idea to make government more TRANSPARENT!
YES, ABSOLUTELY YES, ON PROP 54!
PROP 55 – PERSONAL TAX INCREASES OVER $250,000 No
Background: In 2012, voters approved Proposition 30 which was a TEMPORARY tax increase for 7 yrs. Gov Brown, pleaded, at the time for voters to pass it until the CA economy could recover. His plea reiterated that it was only a “TEMPORARY TAX",
BUT LIBERAL POLITICIANS HATE TO GIVE UP A TAX.
PROP 55 would break that 2012 PROMISE and seeks to extend the tax another 12 years (to 2029), even though our CA economy HAS RECOVERED!
The TEMPORARY Tax should stay that way, and allow to expire as promised. Education spending has soared by $24.6 billion since 2012 — a 52% increase. Medi-Cal spending has increased by $2.9 billion a 13% increase. And the State boasts a SURPLUS.
If passed, our TAX & SPEND legislators will just grow our government, and when PROP 55 expires in 2029, they will have grown accustom to the extra spending and ask for a PERMANENT renewal of the “TEMPORARY TAX". Don’t wait, say NO now on PROP 55.
WHO ELSE OPPOSES PROP 55?
-State Senator JOHN MOORLOCH (my favorite!)
-CA REPUBLICAN PARTY
-CA LIBERTARIAN PARTY
-HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION
-CA TAXPAYER ASSOCIATION Association
PROP 56 – INCREASE CIGARETTE TAX TO $2/PACK No
PROP 56 Increases cigarette tax by $2.00 per pack and would add nicotine electronic cigarettes to tax. Currently, the FedGov taxes cigarettes $1.01 per pack. And CA has an 87 cent tax. W/PROP 56, CA would raise increase CA tax to $2.87/per pack, w/ total tax of $3.88/pack.
Estimated tax would be $1 billion to $1.4 billion/yr. Who gets the TAX?
1. Some replaces the reduced revenue. ie less smoking.
2. 5% to run the tax bureaucracy
3. $48 million to enforce tobacco laws
4. $40 million to physician training
5. $30 million to prevent/treat dental disease
6. $400 thousand to State Auditor to audit funds.
7. If anything left, most would go to MediCal funding and some to tobacco use prevention
A lot of groups of people don’t like this measure for distinctly DIFFERENT reasons.
CONSERVATIVES REPUBLICANS don’t like it because it raises taxes for NO GOOD REASON, giving more money to certain entities to squander.
LIBERTARIANS don’t like it b/c it means more government involvement, where they should have no business.
Unions don’t like it (esp. the education unions), b/c they WILL NOT be getting ANY of the TAX INCREASE funds, which they feel they are entitled.
I am a non-smoker, and don’t like smoking, but I agree w/both the CONSERVATIVE/REPUBLICAN and LIBERTARIAN reasons, and therefore, recommending a NO!
PROP 57 – FELONS CONVICTED OF NON-VIOLENT CRIMES Strong No
Proposition 57 would increase the chances for parole for felons convicted of non-violent crimes, giving them more credit for good behavior.(Already their sentence is cut in half for"good behavior")
It would also allow judges, to decide whether to try certain juveniles as adults in court, instead of prosecutors.
BACKGROUND: In 2009, the federal government ordered CA to reduce its prison population. It did. Then in 2011, CA was AGAIN ordered to reduce prison overcrowding. It did. With the passage of Prop 47 in 2014, certain non-violent felonies for inmates were reduced to misdemeanors, which gave even more inmates a higher chance for parole. This, too, reduced the prisons further.
Now, with PROP 57, Gov Brown cites “OVER-POPULATION" again! (No court order this time. He just wants to save money for pet projects, like his boondoggle, “bullet train".) Brown says because ONLY “NON-VIOLENT FELONS" would be eligible under PROP 57, the reduction “SHOULDN’T" have a negative impact on public safety. But NOT SO!
PROP 57 has been poorly drafted. Because neither PROP 57, nor CA state law “DEFINES" what constitutes a “NON-VIOLENT FELON", inmates convicted of crimes such as assault with a deadly weapon, rape, lewd acts against a child, hostage taking, attempting to explode a bomb at a hospital or school, hate crimes causing physical injury, false imprisonment of an elder through violence, drive-by shootings, and human trafficking COULD BE released early, or COULD BE eligible for early parole. NO BUENO!
Regarding a judge being given the authority to decide how a juvenile is charges, it is totally wrong. Why give 1 man the authority to decide? That decision/authority should stay with the prosecutor’s office.
BROWN needs to put the safety of law-abiding CA citizens first. OVERCROWDING? He needs to figure it out and be creative like other states’s leaders. That’s why CA Voters put him in office. That’s why we pay him the “BIG BUCKS". NO on PROP 57.
PROP 58 – BILINGUAL EDUCATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS Strong No
NO, NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT! PROP 58 would REPEAL PROP 227 of 1998, which was an EXCELLENT Prop. Repealing it would be A TERRIBLE IDEA!
BACKGROUND: In 1998, voters overwhelming approved PROP 227, which gave millions of NON-ENGLISH speaking children in CA hope for a better future by requiring them to learn English by taking classes that were taught in English (“English Immersion"). “ENGLISH IMMERSION" HAS BEEN INCREDIBLE SUCCESSFUL!
After its ’98 implementation, immigrant children’s school test scores improved dramatically. WHY WOULD WE WANT TO GO BACK?
Those supporting PROP 58, falsely believe PROP 227 prevents students from having a “multilingual educational experience". SO NOT TRUE!
PROP 27 allows parents of students to obtain a waiver to learn in their own language, if they choose. However, the majority of parents of immigrants PREFER their children to have ENGLISH IMMERSION, as they know it will it is so beneficial to their children’s welfare.
NOTE: This PROP would not interfere with the programs of “SPANISH IMMERSION", where English-speaking children are taught in SPANISH-ONLY classes to learn SPANISH. This has also been successful for English-speaking children to become fluent in Spanish.
“A NATION UNITES W/ONE COMMON LANGUAGE, AND DIVIDES W/MANY UN-COMMON LANGUAGES."
Immigrants can be bi-lingual, speaking native language at home, and learning English in school. Let’s continue the WIN-WIN! Let’s NOT go backwards!
SAVE ENGLISH FOR THE CHILDREN! A BIG FAT NO on PROP 58!
PROP 59 OVERTURN OF CITIZENS UNITED ACT Strong No
PROP 59 is one weird and confusing measure, that SHOULDN’T BE ON THE BALLOT. I had to read it 5 times to get the gist of it.
Basically, it asks you CA voters what is your OPINION of a Supreme Court ruling. Nothing can be done with the answer. It just hopes that elected officials will make some attempt to do SOMETHING on the issue, if the majority of voters agree w/the proponents of PROP 59. BUT, they can’t!
BACKGROUND: The US SUPREME COURT (Note: NOT the CA Supreme Court) ruled in 2010, that political contributions and spending were protected as “free speech" under the First Amendment. Whether you agree or don’t agree, this is a DONE DEAL.
However, there are some in CA, specifically in the legislatures (all liberal and all Dems) that disagree with this 2010 Supreme Court ruling. W/PROP 59, they are asking CA voters to AGREE w/their DISAGREEMENT, and hope if it passes, it MAY encourage legislators to “tinker" with this “free speech" ruling.
PROP 59 IS AN INCREDIBLY RIDICULOUS, INCREDIBLY WASTE-OF-TIME, and WASTE-OF-MONEY MEASURE, w/ NO BINDING AUTHORITY TO MAKE ANY CHANGES. I guess it just makes the liberal legislator proponents, who put it on the ballot to “FEEL GOOD" for doing “something!"
A BIG FAT NO on DUMB PROP 59!
OTHERS SUPPORTING A “NO":
CA Senator JOHN MOORLOCH
Conservative, CRAIG HUEY, of: ElectionForum.org
HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYER ASSOCIATION
PROP 60 CONDOM REQUIREMENT IN PORN FILM No
A SILLY PROP FOR CA VOTERS! Why should the State be MANDATING personal hygiene/protection for one particular industry? Vote NO!
CA REPUBLICAN PARTY also recommends a NO!
PROP 61 PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICE REGULATIONS No
PROP 61 would PROHIBITS CA agencies from buying prescription (RX) drugs from drug companies if the price is MORE THAN the lowest price being paid for same drug. The VA (Veterans Affairs) always gets the lowest prices, so PROP 61 RX prices would be tied to VA prices.
BACKGROUND: CA spends nearly $3.8 billion yr on RX drugs. 83% of amt is for Medi-Cal and Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). In CA, agencies negotiate prices to get lower prices. In some situations, agencies independently negotiate, leading to different prices being paid for the same drug. In other situations, agencies jointly negotiate drug prices. W/PROP 61, this would force RX companies to accept VA rates for all of CA’s agencies RX drugs.
While this may sounds good, that is, lower prices for a few recipients, in fact, it is NOT. There just are too many negatives, which is why I am recommending a NO on PROP 61.
First, you must understand, drug companies ARE going to make their money. By government FORCING lower prices on them, they will just figure out another way to make it up:
1. By forcing drug companies to charge LESS to 1 entity, means they will just charge MORE to another. Under PROP 61, RX prices could go up for ALL of US, who DON’T depend on these agencies.
2. VA recipients could see their RX drug prices go up, as a way for companies to recoup CA’s forced lower prices. (This is why so many VETERANS groups are opposing this prop. They DON’T WANT this prop linked to their drug prices).
3. PROP 61 places no obligations on drug companies to offer RX drugs to CA at the lowest VA price. They could simply DECLINE to offer CA agencies the drugs that the VA purchases.
4. PROP 61 will set up another COSTLY bureaucracy (WHICH CA DOESN’T NEED!) to oversee this whole program. Government, historically, is NEVER very efficient at this.
5. PROP 61 interferes w/the Free Market by forcing controls and PRICE FIXING on private business.
There are more downsides, too. like about the author’s deception, but this should be enough to convince you to
VOTE NO on PROP 61.
PROP 62 REPEAL THE DEATH PENALTY Strong No
Proposition 62 and Proposition 66 are competing measures. If both are approved, then the the one with the most “yes" votes would supersede the other.
1. Repeals the death penalty as maximum punishment for persons found guilty of murder.
2. Replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
3. For persons already sentenced to death, it would apply to them, as well.
4. Would require these life prisoners to work while in prison w/ 60% of their wages going to pay restitution to the victims’ families.
Supporters say CA Death Penalty system has failed w/only 13 executions since 1978, and wastes $150 million annually to keep on death row.
Opponents say the worst murderers get to stay alive, at the taxpayers’ expense, decades after committing their crimes. They note that the death penalty is reserved only for the worst murderers, like child killers, rape/torture murderers, serial murderers, and cop killers. Just 1- 2% of about 2,000 murders in California annually end up with a death sentence.
I agree with “AMEND, NOT END the Death Penalty" proposal of PROP 66 to make changes and to make process more efficient and oppose this REPEAL.
POLICE, SHERIFFS and other LAW ENFORCEMENT agencies, along w/virtually all of CA’s County District Attorneys all oppose this repeal
NO on PROP 62!
PROP 63 BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR AMMUNITION PURCHASES No
NO, NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT! PROP 63, proposed by ULTRA-LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, GAVIN NEWSOM, is trying to WHITTLE DOWN OUR CA 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS DOWN TO NOTHING! There are so many restrictions and laws on CA gun owners/dealers ALREADY. This PROP 63, will just pile on a ton more.
Do you think TERRORIST or CRIMINALS will comply? OF COURSE NOT! Do you think TERRORIST or CRIMINALS will still get GUNS/ AMMUNITION? OF COURSE THEY WILL!! PROP 63 will just leave LAW-ABIDING citizens more vulnerable and w/o protection. PROP 63 will make CA w/ the most Restrictive gun/ammunition laws in the Nation.
What does PROP 63 actually do? It would require background checks for anyone seeking to purchase AMMUNITION. It would also require those who ALREADY own over 10 rounds of ammunition, previously permitted, to now be in violation, IF they don’t go back and seek a permit. It would also require $50 for ever ammo purchase to cover administration cost. PROP 63 has a ton of other restrictive provisions, but the above is the gist of it.
Already, under Federal and State Laws, certain individuals are not allowed to have firearms. And these same individual are also NOT allowed to have ammunition. Under Federal Law, dealers MUST do a background checks using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), checking a number of databases.
Plus, the CA legislature in July of this this year, added a ton more restrictions. Don’t let CA continue to TRAMPLE ON OUR 2nd AMENDMENT RIGHTS! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
And, PROP 63 is overwhelmingly OPPOSED by the Law Enforcement community, too.
A STRONG NO on PROP 63!
PROP 64 LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA Strong No
PROP 64 legalizes marijuana for use by adults 21 or older and imposes state taxes on sales and cultivation.
This is a terrible law and should be voted DOWN:
1. There hasn’t been sufficient research into the long-term health effects of using marijuana.
2. Known fact: Marijuana harms developing brains.
3. Known fact: For people predisposed to schizophrenia, marijuana can trigger its onset and intensify symptoms.
4. Legalization gives another form of intoxication to cause more highway deaths. Since Washington approved legalization, deaths in marijuana-related car crashes have doubled.
5. PROP 64 does not include a DUI standard (like there is w/alcohol) making it difficult to keep impaired drivers off our highways.
6. Legalization would allow another way to endanger our kids, as there is no provision to restrict growing near schools and parks.
7. PROP 64 has no restriction on Marijuana advertisements in print or aired to protect children. Children could be exposed to ads promoting marijuana gummy candy and brownies, the same products blamed for a spike in emergency room visits in Colorado.
8. Legalization allows underage youth easier access to this form of intoxication, even while knowing marijuana harms a developing brain.
9. While some say legalization will reduce illegal drug cartel activity, in reality, since Colorado’s marijuana legalization organized crime filings have skyrocketed.
10. California is still fine-tuning its regulations on medical marijuana, and hasn’t done a good job to date.
NO on PROP 64!
PROP 65 GROCERY AND RETAIL CARRY-OUT BAGS No
PROP 65 directs that (if PROP 67 passes), the money collected by grocers & other retail stores from the sale of mandated “government-approved" carryout bags, be set aside to fund specified environmental projects.
The money going to “environmental projects, is in opposition of the funds to going to grocers & other retail stores to offset costs, and for education, that PROP 67 proposes.
NOTE: Should Proposition 67 be defeated and Proposition 65 pass, then there would be no single-use bag ban.
Confusing, huh? I think that was the intention!
KEEP IT SIMPLE! VOTE NO on 65 and 67.
PROP 66 DEATH PENALTY PROCEDURES Strong Yes
Proposition 66 and Proposition 62 are competing measures. If both are approved, then the one with the most “yes" votes would supersede the other.
1. Keeps the Death Penalty (DP) in place
2. Makes system changes in the (DP) process to speed up the appeals process, while ensuring that no innocent person is executed
3. Establishes a time frame for death penalty review
4. Requires appointed attorneys to work on DP cases
5. Require (DP) prisoners on death row to work while in prison and pay 70% of wages in restitution to victims’ families
DP REFORM is long overdue. It is ridiculous prisoners stay on Death Row for 20-30 yrs.
Also supporting the DP and it’s reform are virtually all POLICE, SHERIFFS, and other LAW ENFORCEMENT agencies, along w/virtually all of CA’s county District Attorneys.
YES on REFORM! YES on PROP 66
PROP 67 PROHIBIT PLASTIC SINGLE-USE CARRYOUT BAGS No
PROP 65 and PROP 67 are competing measures.
PROP 67 would prohibit grocery stores, pharmacies, convenience stores, and liquor stores from providing plastic single-use carryout bags.
It further mandates stores to charge a minimum of 10 cents for reusable grocery bags. In PROP 67, the money collected from the bags would go to grocers to cover costs, and some to education.
BACKGROUND: PROP 67 is really a 2014 passed law (SB 270). But the law did not go into effect, due to a successful citizens’s VETO REFERENDUM which, instead placed the law on the ballot.
The same supporters that forced this law on the ballot, then sought their own CONFLICTING measure (PROP 65), which is also on the ballot.
(PROP 65 mandates that the funds collected from the sale of the GOVERNMENT-MANDATED bags of PROP 65, if it passed, must go to certain environmental causes, instead of grocers, schools, and education.)
BACK to PROP 67: I’m recommending a NO on 67, b/c we should not be forced to pay for bags. If we want to use our own re-usable bag, fine! But Government should NOT be “shoving it down our throats". Government should stay out of businesses and citizen choices.
The CA Legislature should stop micro-managing businesses and concentrate on doing a better job at managing CA’s fiscal condition.
NOTE: If both PROPS 65 and 67 are approved, but Proposition 67 receives more “yes" votes, this allocation provision would supersede Proposition 65’s allocation provision.
If PROPS 65 and PROP 67 are confusing for you, KEEP IT SIMPLE! VOTE NO on BOTH of them.