| Search
|
|
|
Recommendations on State Ballot Measures for the Election of November 7, 2006 |
 |
|
Location: Blogs Opinions of Dan FernandesState Issues |
 | | Posted by: Dan Fernandes | 11/1/2006 12:00 AM | You will find the official state Libertarian Party position on all state ballot measures on it's website at http://ca.lp.org/voteguide_nov06.shtml The Party recommends a YES vote on Prop 1A and Prop 90, and a NO vote on everything else, except for no position on Prop 85. Just to prove my independent thinking, I dare to disagree on 1A and 85. Here is my reasoning.
NO on Prop 1A : This measure would make it mandatory to spend gasoline tax money on transportation-related projects. Sounds good, but there is some downside. One disadvantage is that transportation taxes and funding would be immune from the budget process, so that during a budget crisis, the state could be running a deficit while still spending lavishly on transportation. Another disadvantage is that more money would be available for mass transit projects such as light rail, which we don't need. What we really need is a legislature that manages the budget process properly.
NO on Prop 85 : It would make it mandatory to notify a parent before a teen can have an abortion. Last year's Prop 73 attempted to pass this same measure but failed, so anti-abortion forces are trying again. Maybe you received a large fold-out paper in the mail supporting this measure, as I did. It tells the sad story of a mother whose 26-year-old daughter committed suicide from abortion guilt, all because the mother was not given a chance to talk her daughter out of an abortion at age 13. But if Prop 85 passes, how many more young teens will choose suicide rather than tell their parents about a pregnancy? How many more will be brutalized by an abusive parent? Yes, the measure contains exceptions for these cases, but those provisions are merely traps to ensnare abortion providers into litigation and fines. Good parents don't need this measure, and bad parents don't deserve it.
NO on Prop 86, 87 : These are reprehensible schemes to take money from politically un-favored groups and give it to the special interest groups sponsoring the propositions. Prop 86 would flow cigarette tax money to hospitals. I have sympathy for hospitals because they are being crushed by federal regulations that make their business unprofitable; but why take it out on smokers? Prop 87 would tax oil extracted from under California to finance state green energy projects, but without affecting energy prices. This simply will not work. The oil market will respond to a local oil tax by producing less local oil, and importing more out-of-state oil. In response, California's energy supplies must drop, and prices must rise. Prop 87 cannot ban the laws of economics, in spite of what Misters Clinton and Gore were hired to tell you.
NO on all bond measures . In normal times, I think bonds are great; they let us borrow money at below market prices because interest is tax-exempt, then invest in infrastructure that serves us far into the future. But these are not normal times. Our state government is into bond abuse and budget abuse. It has no fiscal discipline. Before we float any more bonds, I want to see real budget reform. The only way to get budget reform is to vote no on all bonds.
NO on Prop 89 : Prop 89 would tax corporations to support political campaigns. Like all campaign finance reform schemes, Prop 89 promises to reduce corruption, but in fact will do just the opposite. Tax money should never be used to finance political campaigns because it constitutes involuntary speech, which violates basic human rights.
YES on Prop 90 - to prevent abuse of eminent domain power. I am disappointed that my local paper recommends a no on 90. Their argument is that Prop 90 would allow property owners to sue government for losses due to such use restrictions as rent control. But Prop 90 would only protect property owners from new restrictions, not existing ones. This seems like a good compromise to me. All claims that Prop 90 would allow property owners to abuse government are merely speculation; meanwhile, government abuse of property owners is real and ongoing. It is government that has earned our fear, not property owners.
| | | Permalink | Trackback |
|
|
| | |