This November, there are many reasons to vote no on most of the initiatives that will be presented to California’s voters.

Proposition 1C sells bonds for housing.  This is one where I say let the feds handle it—if they are stupid enough to keep HUD’s doors open—let them run low income housing projects.  Not only won’t we have to pay for it through bonds, but fewer and fewer people will want to live in these projects and be motivated to get out.

Proposition 1 D sells bonds for education, didn’t we just pass one of those? 

Proposition 86 is brilliant.  Tax poor people (who make up the majority of smokers) and use the money to fund their healthcare.  The more intellectually honest approach to the health concerns that surround smoking would be to ban the practice all together.  But the left knows this would be too tough a fight—too many jobs at stake.  So they just go to the first page in their play book: if it moves, tax it. 

Proposition 87 is another great one.  Apparently if you tax Chevron, Mother Nature will produce more wind.  That is essentially their argument.  They also suggest that the oil companies won’t be able to pass the costs associated with the tax on to the consumer.  Wow.  In one breath the left accuses big oil of price fixing and gouging and then they actually expect us to believe that the same companies that successfully collude to over charge us for a tank of gas won’t figure out how to stick it to us for another dime a gallon. 

Don’t get me started on Proposition 89.  Bring it on.  I am done fighting stupid campaign finance restrictions and laws.  I am ready to teach the McCain-Americans how stupid they really are.  California voters beware.  If you pass this law I along with some other people who are much wealthier than me will spend millions in personal money (something that cannot be restricted by any law because it is protected by the 1^st Amendment) and take over.  That will be the net impact of these laws in the long-term.  When you restrict the rights of the average small to medium size donor, you empower the rich. 

Even the good ones have flaws.  Proposition 90, the Kelo decision eminent domain fix is conceptually great and I hope it passes.  Critics say it will be tied up in the courts.  That’s ok.  At least the judges will know where the people of California stand on the issue.

Even Jessica’s law, a noble concept, has some problems.  The law severely restricts where convicted sexual predators can live.  Great.  Except now places like the more rural parts of San Bernardino County will end up with a uniquely larger population of these people.  Polling shows more than 80% support for Jessica’s law statewide.  However, in rural parts of the state that worry about the onslaught of a new class of resident: the sexual deviant, support drops to the mid- to high- 50%. 

During the American Revolution our founders and indeed all the people of the colonies gave up security, property and most importantly young able bodied men who fought our war against the British. 

You might think the analogy dramatic, but it works.  If we are to vote no on Proposition 83, 85 (parental consent) and 90 we will be sacrificing our property rights and indeed our unborn and sadly one could argue the security of our youth.  But given the choice, I would argue the sum total of the damage the other measures would bring, I would oppose them all. 

Of course the real world ballot does not require the voters to vote a yea or nay on them as a package.  So choose wisely, but if you get mixed up on which measures are good and which cause damage, just vote no on them all.

This entry was posted on Monday, October 2nd, 2006 at 12:00 am and is filed under Blog Posts.