SMSlate: Part One - The Propositions
*drumroll please...*
The Propositions:
Prop 1A: High Speed Rail - No. Ok, we're in a financial crisis so it's open season on government spending. It damn well better be. Government spenders have been procreating like rabid, power hungry, fuzzy little bunnies with checkbooks. $20 billion to construct and a billion a year to maintain? Where's the mention of the project's potential income? *crickets chirp* Because really, who the hell knows if anyone will even ride our new multi-billion dollar toy? A track to nowhere?
Prop 2: Confining of farm animals - No. These animals are not pets. And besides, what's a little leg stretching worth when you're destined for slaughter? I love animals, but as I've said before on this very blog, I'm not exactly what you'd call a PETA-person and I'm not comfortable with the idea of telling people how to run their businesses.
Prop 3: Children's Hospital funding - No. Yeah, I know, it's for the kids, but then you also know how strongly I feel about reducing the size of government. With that, I encourage everyone to make a donation to the childrens' hospital of their choice.
Prop 4: Parental notification of pregnancy termination - Uhh, duh, NO! Two words folks: President Palin. This is an attempt to put restrictions on abortion in the bluest state in the nation in a wacky election year that sees an underage pregnancy as a controversial highlight, and it will hopefully backfire loudly, bringing Palin's divisive 'my daughter didn't have an abortion, so you can't either' politics down with it. There are parents who still beat their children for looking at them 'wrong.' Do they really need this too?
Prop 5: Non-violent drug offenses - Yes. I just know I'm going to be ridiculed for this one because I'm Libertarian and a medical marijuana patient, but I gotta do what I gotta do. Sending addicts to treatment instead of jail? Whodathunk we could save money in the process? I did. Been saying it for years. Drug addicts need treatment, not jail. Whose idea was it to treat them like criminals instead of sick people in the first place? Why I believe it was none other than good ol' Ronald Reagan on what was apparently not one of his more lucid days.
Prop 6: Law enforcement funding - No. $500 million dollars and 30 changes to the criminal code. I'm not inclined to give out that kind of money without an explanation of each of the 30 changes, and since providing them that would be impossible on the ballot statement and I don't think a proposition should be described this vaguely, I have to ixnay this. Besides, with less 'drug money' coming in due to Prop 5, there's no telling how the courts might like to make a quick buck next.
Prop 7: Renewable energy - No. You know it's bad when even the Dems don't want it. Oh yeah, the Republicans don't either, nor the Libertarians. Oh, and it'll raise your electric bill - sort of a tax by proxy. Need I go on?
Prop 8: Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry - Gee, I wonder: FUCK NO! I could start with the bigotry. I could start with the constitutional implications. I could talk about the court ruling that paved the way for this initiative. I could start with Jeff Flint, Frank Schubert, Matt Cunningham, or the LDS (Latter Day Saints aka Mormon) Church, or even the lunacy of Joseph Smith that inspired said church, or even the insanity that has it honestly believing it can use gay marriage as a smoke screen for their polygamy in order to curry favor among the other X-tian faiths - the new Evangelicals? I could keep going like the Energizer Bunny, but I'll spare you and ask you instead: What would Jesus do? Forget what the church told you and meditate on this for all of 5 minutes and you will come to the realization that Jesus would not want discrimination of legal partnerships any more than he'd want to redefine the concept of religious marriage to include gay people, and that's fine. It's called co-existence. You Reeps should learn something about it so that you can clean Obama's clock in 2012. Don't get me wrong, I prefer Obama to McCain, but it wasn't always that way, nor does it mean that I wouldn't have voted for Ron Paul.
Prop 9: Victims' rights - Yes. Protects crime victims and may actually save the state money. Oh yeah, if someone came after my family, it would be nice to know that, once caught, they couldn't do it again.
Prop 10: Alternative fuel vehicles and renewable energy - No. Yes, it is deja vu. Why do some people insist that slapping the words 'renewable energy' on a bad proposition will make us feel guilty enough to vote for it? Well, I tossed out my political guilt years ago. People make their own bad choices and placing these energy schemes on the ballot are great examples. Oh yeah, and it costs $10 billion. Yes, with a 'b.' Thanks, but no thanks.
Prop 11: Redistricting board - Yes. As some have already correctly pointed out, the legislature could not do a worse job in drawing its own borders, nor should it be allowed to. Does anyone else see the conflict of interest inherent? I thought so. That's why nearly the entire state will vote yes on this.
Prop 12: Veterans' Bond - Yes. The VA has been a running joke since the Vietnam War. There is no government organization that takes worse care of its people than the military. I mean sure, most of the federal spending goes to hardware intended to take them off the front lines, but seriously, isn't it time we literally put our money where our mouths are and give Vets what they deserve? I'm sick of seeing our troops get lost in the system as soon as they're no longer able to fight. Let's help our men and women in uniform. This is the only spending bill that I'm for, and I truly believe that it's justified. Cost? $2 billion versus the $20+ billion necessary for Prop 1A - that's 10% folks.
Thanks for tuning in. Later: Part Two - The People.
SMS
Labels: ballot initiatives, sarah michelle spinosa
Posted by Sarah Michelle Spinosa @ 11/02/2008 03:00:00 AM
10 Comments:
Prop 5 will not save money at all. It promises 2.5 billion in savings but that is solely based on the belief that no new prisons will have to be built, speculative at best and a one time deal.
The truth is that the actual cost of the treatment programs state wide will exceed 1 BILLION per year from now on + annual increases. And this does not include the increased local costs for the shift of incarceration, trials and other services which the LAO estimates could be "several millions of dollars" PER COUNTY! How the hell will we pay for this? Education cuts? Health care cuts? It has to come from somewhere!
But the worst part of Prop 5 is not its obscene cost with no way to pay for it, or the consistent proven failure of treatment programs, (prop 36 treatment average 70% failure rate every year according to UCLA), or that the law cannot be changed once enacted, (didn't know that did you....requires a 4/5 vote of the legislature - now when is that going to happen - never). The worst problem is that it creates a defense for anyone committing a felony who says that did it "because of drugs." Sort of a get out of jail free card.
This provision will make it impossible to hold idenity thieves, persons commiting all types of fraud, burglars and those who commit elder neglect from being held accountable. A partial list of non-violent crimes where a perpretrator could escape justice include DUI with injury, vehicular manslaughter, impersonating a police officer, grand theft, child neglect, illegal possession of a weapon and forgery.
So my question is who is going to bear the cost of the 18,000 FELONS who will immediately be released onto the street supposedly to get treatment, be cured and then live happily ever after?
If you believe that this is about treatment or that treatment works, I have some swampland in Griffith Park that I want to sell you....the reality is these 18,000 and every other drug abuser who has proven that they cannot or will not control their cravings will be back to prey on each and every one of us and will go right back to stealing and damaging the lives of law abiding folk.
If you have ever been a victim just remember how it felt to be violated now multiply it....the personal cost to victims or the cost based on losses in this has not even been considered or factored in.
One real example of how this would work in a post prop 5 world; a drug abuser who is unknowingly hired to care for your ederly grandmother neglects her, she develops bed sores and becomes sick. At the same time the abuser cleans out all of her savings and leaves her destitute, and then abandons her. You discover your grandmother's condition, get medical aid for your grandmother and then report the crime to the police. The abuser is caught and your grand mother dies, (manslaughter). A terrible situation, the killer is prosecuted and as a defense tells the court she is drug addicted and could not help herself. The court will assign her to a "treatment program", no jail period. These are NON-VIOLENT crimes folks! If you think I am puffing or making this up, think again, this is a real assessment of just one possible case.....this horrible law will create the worst possible excuses for NON-VIOLENT crime.....
Michelle you are absolutely wrong on this one...and as you stated in your indelicate comment on another proposition, FUCK NO ON PROP 5!
Miss (or Mrs.) Spinosa, I wonder what your views are on the other measures we voters face:
County (LACMTA*) Measure R:
Traffic Relief. Rail Extensions. Reduce Foreign Oil Dependence.
School (LACCD** Special Election) Measure J:
Local Community College Classroom Repair, Public Safety, Nursing And Job Training Measure.
School (LAUSD Special Election) Measure Q:
Safe, Healthy Neighborhood Schools Measure.
City (City of Los Angeles Special Municipal Election)
Proposition A:
Gang And Youth Violence Prevention, After-School And Job Training Programs Tax.
Proposition B:
Update Of Low Rent Housing Authorization.
GPA -
Prop 5 is intended for NON-VIOLENT drug offenders.
From the LAO: 'State Operating Costs Potentially Exceeding $1 Billion Annually... State Operating Savings Potentially Exceeding $1 Billion Annually... State Capital Outlay Savings That Could Eventually Exceed $2.5 Billion.'
I'm not sure what you think you're trying to do, but since the proposition also decriminalizes marijuana, I'd have to say that this is a great initiative.
SMS
PS: Stephen - please send me some info on the L.A. measures and I'll look them over for analysis. My email is editor@thecentristoc.com.
SMS
Mister Higby, what happened to my earlier comment - the one I posted prior to 11:25... or perhaps I should address this to the hostess of the post?
Stephen I have no idea. I didn't log into the comment moderation panel until about 15 minutes ago and your comment asking why your comment was deleted was the first one I saw. One of the other moderators may have deleted it and they'll have to explain if they want.
Steven -
I apologize for the inconvenience, but I'm not a moderator. I just write here.
SMS
Mister Higby, Miss (or Mrs.) Spinosa, I was under the erroneous impression that you both were moderators. My apologies to both of you.
Mister Higby, there are other moderators on your blog? Heavens alive!
Yes Stephen four of the writers on MS have the authority to moderate comments.
Ok - on the 4 L.A. measures:
On Q, well frankly I don't yet know enough about the financial state of the LAUSD, but generally spending bills are bad, especially when the district has a budget that wouldn't need to be supplemented unless the board mismanaged the money, so in my uneducated opinion, I would vote no on Q.
R is the one everyone is talking about and like most, I would vote this one down too. Too much cost for too little benefit. I have other ways of increasing transportation efficiency in mind, but since I may run for office the near future, I have to keep it to myself.
Prop A: another big no. The police have the tools to do their jobs. It's not a lack of money that keeps L.A.'s crime rate high, again, it's the lack of understanding and efficiency. As with Prop 3, I would suggest that people donate to a childrens' charity instead.
And finally, Prop B is too vague. For me, that equals a no vote..
SMS
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home