Peotter’s Proposition Picks, Part II

3
335
Share this:

Since over 27,000 absentee ballots are going to Newport Beach voters this week, I thought I would give my voting recommendations for the propositions on the November ballot.

In case you are a Newport Beach City Councilman, I do NOT purport to provide independent analysis of these issues. Anybody who knows me, knows that I am very opinionated. But most will also tell you that I always like to hear all sides before making up my mind. Be forewarned though, I come from a very freedom-minded, small-government, and conservative perspective.

Although space does not permit me to explain each proposition in great detail, I do try to explain the proposition and give my reasoning for my recommendation. I would consider it an honor to have you use this voter guide as one of your many resources for this November’s elections.

Remember to vote, regardless as to your positions. Our Republic thrives on informed voters.

Last week, I went through Props. 30-33. I’m tackling the rest this week, plus Measure EE on the municipal ballot.

Prop 34 (End the death penalty): NO

Supporters claim that the death penalty process is too long and expensive. But rather than fix the system so that it isn’t long and expensive they want to get rid of it.

Prop 35 (Prohibition on Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery): YES

Increases prison sentences and fines for human trafficking convictions. Requires convicted human traffickers to register as sex offenders. Requires registered sex offenders to disclose Internet activities and identities.

Sad that this is needed at all, but…

Prop 36 (Limits the “Three Strikes” Law): NO

“Revises law to impose life sentence only when new felony conviction is serious or violent…”  Three Strikes has been very effective as a deterrent. But people feel bad when they have to sentence that repeat offender to 25 years, for a relatively minor felony.  I feel better when that guy is locked up, how about you?

Prop 37 (Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food): NO

“Requires labeling of food sold to consumers made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits marketing such food, or other processed food, as ‘natural.’ Provides exemptions.”

This reminds me of Prop. 65’s required warnings on cancer-causing materials.  Everyone has them and everyone has a sign and nobody cares anymore.  Same with Prop. 36.  There is huge debate over what is “engineered,” or whether engineered food is good or bad, or what levels are required for warnings.  If passed eventually everything will have a warning and the warnings will be as useless as Prop. 65.

Prop 38 (Molly Munger’s State Income Tax Increase): NO

“Increases taxes on earnings using sliding scale, for twelve years. Revenues go to K–12 schools and early childhood programs, and for four years to repaying state debt.”

As I said about Prop. 30, the revenues are required to go to the schools, but that is only because if they said it was going to bloated bureaucracies and inflated $200,000 lifeguard pensions, who would vote for it? Face it: Sacramento has a spending problem not a revenue problem. It is time to put them on a diet, just VOTE NO.

Prop 39 (Income Tax Increase for Multistate Businesses): NO

Requires out-of-state businesses to calculate their California income tax liability based on the percentage of their sales in California. Dedicates $550 million annually for five years from anticipated increase in revenue for the purpose of funding projects that create energy efficiency and clean energy jobs in California.

Can you say SOLYNDRA? Sacramento is now smarter than even OBAMA?  Sacramento can add this Internet tax and give the money to “clean energy” i.e., their cronies. If it sounds like a tax, walks like a tax, smells like a tax, then it must be a tax.

Prop 40 (Referendum on the State Senate Redistricting Plan): NO

Even the proponents are advocating a No vote.

Measure EE (Newport Beach City Charter Amendment): NO

There are 38 changes to the City Charter.  One of them allows compensation for the City Council, where right now compensation is illegal and only an expense allowance is legal. The council, as admitted by Mayor Pro Tem Keith Curry in these pages, rather than obeying the Charter and not accepting compensation, instead has been taking compensation outlawed by the Charter and now is amending the Charter to legalize what they have been doing since 1999. This includes taking a government pension for their “service.”

Unfortunately, we can’t vote against the salaries and for the rest of the Charter amendment – it’s all or nothing. VOTE NO

Any questions, feel free to contact me at [email protected]  Further detail can be had at www.taxfighter.com


Share this:

3 COMMENTS

  1. Dang! I was thinking the same thing for the state propositions. Thanks Scott.

    I read all the skinny on these from the state. I like getting into the actual written language of the proposition. I learned thins long ago to cut the wheat from the chaff. I wish all voters would be well informed voters and not vote by what they see on commercials or hear from others. Research it, then make an educated decision.