California Voter Guide - Propositions...

I'm a Conservative Independent. The following is part 1 of 2 of my California Voters guide. I tried to keep it as unbiased as possible. I'll be the first to admit that being completely fair is just about impossible for me.

If you are a liberal, communist, Anti-American, Fascist pig, you should read this and vote the opposite of my recommendations. If you are a fellow conservative or a middle of the road independent or Democrat, you should read this and use your good judgement to make a good decision.

Prop 1a - Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century

I’m voting “No”. This is what responsible tax payers would call a boondoggle. The supporters say it will cost $40 billion to complete this project. The proposition is written to raise around $10 billion via the issuance of general bonds. There is no guarantee that the High-Speed project will ever be completed. Not to mention, recent estimates put the final cost at around $80 billion.

As a conservative, I can’t in good conscious vote for a bond measure that will only cover less than 15% of the total cost of a project that may never be completed… or may never even start. If passed, this “bond money” will go towards a bunch of bureaucrats who will pretend to work towards the goal of building that shouldn’t be built by the super efficient California government.

In reality, these bonds, which will have to eventually be paid for by tax payers, will do nothing except help these bureaucrats continue to live their lives as unproductive members of society (High-Speed Passenger Train Finance Committee and the High-Speed Rail Authority).

Prop 2 - Standards for Confining Farm Animals

First of all, I don’t care about food animals. I’m voting “No” for that reason alone. I understand that some people who read this might actually care a lot about animals raised for food. If that is the case, go ahead and vote “Yes”. For those of you in the middle, read the following.

I know proponents of the proposition have been showing full grown cattle being handled by a forklift, but this proposition has nothing to do with that. In fact, the whole forklift/cow incident is already illegal. This proposition will only cover egg-laying hens, calf raised for veal, and pregnant pigs. So, most of California’s livestock industry will remain unaffected.

This is expected to hurt California farms, more specifically, producers of eggs and veal. It is estimated that the cost of an egg from California will go up 25%. This will lead to more importing (from other states and Mexico) of eggs. As of right now, the majority of eggs consumed in California are from other states.

What does this proposition do? It requires commercial farmers to confine these animals in a way where they can freely extend all of their limbs and turn around in a circle without touching their enclosure. Failure to comply will result in a misdemeanor fine not to exceed $1000 or up to 180 days in a county jail.

This proposition looks to slightly lower tax revenues in the agriculture sector (around 1%). In my opinion, this prop could pass or not pass. I don’t care. When it all comes down, this would be a minor victory for the animal rights groups. However, following the theory of “Creeping Incrementalism”, this could lead to some wacky, far left propositions in the future.

Prop 3 – Children’s Hospital Bond Act

I’m voting “No” because I’m an evil conservative who does not want my tax dollars to go anywhere until the California State Government can get their act together. If you are not an evil conservative, read below.

This bond will provide close to $1 Billion in funds to the five major Children’s Hospitals in California and to any other qualifying hospital. This money is needed for facility renovations. From what I understand, equipment and facilities are becoming outdated and are in need of upgrade.

Like all of the other propositions, I have read the entire text version of this bond measure. It seems like a pretty responsible proposition. If you have to spend tax dollars, this seems to be a winner. I was concerned at first with the “other” hospitals and facilities that could qualify for funds. After reading the requirements, I feel it is safe to say that only hospitals and clinics dedicated to children’s care are eligible to receive funds. If you are not super duper conservative, I recommend voting “Yes”.

Prop 4 – Child and Teen Safety and Stop Predators Act: Sarah’s Law

If this proposition passes, Physicians will be required to notify parents if a minor requests an abortion. I’m voting “Yes” because I believe parents have a right to parent their children.

There are a number of arguments against this proposition. The most prominent argument states that children who live in abusive homes will attempt a “back alley” abortion because of their fear of punishment. I understand this argument but it is not applicable with this proposition.

Part of the law will allow the (unemancipated) minor to take her case to a judge. The judge can then rule on whether informing the girls parents is not in her best interest. This provision was added to protect unemancipated minors from abusive parents.

In my opinion, I believe the “judge” part of the proposition is more likely to be abused by minors who want to bypass the law. California certainly has a lot of liberal judges who would rule in favor of a secret abortion on bad faith.

Regardless, I think this law would be a great victory for parental rights. I think a lot of liberals will vote no thinking they’re protecting some imaginary slippery slope that leads to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. That line of thinking is bogus and is not supported by any evidence. I recommend everyone from all political leanings to vote “Yes”.

Prop 5 – Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act

This proposition is huge. The text version takes up 21 pages… but I read them all. I’m voting No.
A little history…

New York prior to Giuliani was a cesspool of crime and drug use. Giuliani implemented a police policy that required cops to arrest anyone who was using or distributing drugs, even if they were not committing any other crime. The removal of drug users and dealers from the streets led to New York becoming one of the safest cities in the US.

This proposition would not only prevent the incarceration of drug users, but it would reduce the parole requirements of those who were already in prison. This is not good for fighting crime.
Additionally, this proposition would increase the size of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. I am never in favor of growing government.

What really makes me angry about this law, it does not allow for one dime of funding to go towards Religious-based drug treatment programs. Also, a judge can’t allow the option to go to a Religious-based program in lieu of jail. The only programs that qualify are science-based programs that don’t even have to be licensed or certified by the State.

The advertisements on TV suggest that non-violent drug offenders should be treated instead of going to jail. The advantage is that jails will be less crowded and drug offenders are more likely to kick their addiction. In my opinion, I think this is relatively an acceptable idea but the proposition is poorly written. I would recommend a “No Vote” or voting “No”. There is too much extra baggage for this proposition to be considered good law.