Part 1 of 2
While our attention has been drawn toward national politics, 10 state propositions will be on the ballot this November. It would be wise to pay attention to these propositions as they may have almost as dramatic an impact on our daily lives as who is elected president.
• Proposition 2: California wishes to raise $10 billion for public school and community college construction, upgrades, and modernization. Democrats in the Legislature are asking taxpayers to allocate about $17.5 billion over 35 years, including interest costs, to upgrade our state school facility infrastructure.
Many bond measures are slick scams to conceal new taxation. Bonds in the end often cost taxpayers nearly double due to interest and execution fees.
Funding this endeavor as a “bond” would cost us about half a billion dollars every year for 35 years instead of $1 billion over 10 years. Both methods of funding, pay-as-you-go or financed over time, essentially are paid from the same general fund. So why not just pay for direct expenses as they are incurred?
In general, I vote “no” on most bond measures in protest of unnecessary added expenses and attempts to hide the true burden of taxpayer obligations regardless of the merits of the measure.
• Proposition 3: Recall that Proposition 8, passed by voters in 2008, defines “marriage” as being between a man and a woman. Prop. 3 implements a constitutional amendment permitting the right of same-sex couples to marry and removes the gender definitions of matrimonial union.
If we believe in engendering “freedom” for ourselves and our neighbors, then we should not deny those from choosing a different path although we ourselves may take that same path. I am absolutely voting “yes” on Prop. 3 in solidarity with our LGBTQ+ community.
• Proposition 4 is another $10 billion bond, this time for “climate programs.” This bond issue includes $3.8 billion for sourcing additional drinking water and groundwater access, $1.5 billion toward wildfire mitigation and forestry programs, $1.2 billion for addressing pending rises in sea level, and includes hundreds of millions to pay for “cooling centers” in low-income areas.
Prop. 4 asks us to pay $400 million a year for 40 years rather than $1 billion over about 10 years to include for some unworthy projects low-income subsidies. Again, I vote “no” on most bond measures in protest of placing an extra burden on taxpayers by disguising new tax obligations as a bond.
• Proposition 5: Attempting to lower voter approval requirements for local housing and infrastructure bonds, Proposition 5 asks to lessen voter threshold needed to pass a local bond from 66.6% to only 55%. This proposed constitutional amendment diminishes the voter approval percentage to make it easier to borrow money for “affordable housing” and other local infrastructure projects.
It is clear the intent of this proposition is to increase taxpayer expenditure on government-funded housing in attempts to artificially manipulate the cost of housing. This proposition is based on an ill-conceived assumption that government is responsible for providing under-market rental rates.
There is no way local government can provide enough “low-income,” i.e. taxpayer-subsidized housing, to flood the market enough to lower rents. Rather, government-funded housing creates a stratum of taxpayer dependency. This premise also implies government has a duty to provide cheap housing to anyone in need.
The true cause of increased rents is due to artificially raising the minimum wage and handing out cash subsidies. More income means the cost of goods and especially rent rates increase. Rather than creating cheaper housing, over the long-term, the extra money folks have from cheap housing promotes inflationary pressure that negates any benefit lower rents had created.
Please consider a big “no” on Prop. 5.
• Proposition 6 asks voters to limit “forced labor” in state prisons. Some liberals in our state Legislature are equating being in state prison as the same as being indentured servitude, what they call “one of the last remnants of slavery.”
To be clear, owning a human being as property is not the same as requiring tasks to be performed while in law enforcement custody. If offering mandatory directives are illegal, then this infers that students should not be required to take tests or do homework, that law enforcement should not demand a suspect to put his or her hands in the air, etc.
I like the notion of requiring inmates to perform work and to cooperate. I am voting “no” on 5.
Part two of my propositions review will look at Props. 32, 33, 34, and 35.
Jonathan Kraut directs a private investigations agency, is the CEO of a private security firm, is the CFO of an accredited acting conservatory, former college professor and dean, is a published author, and Democratic Party activist. His column reflects his own views and not necessarily those of The Signal or of other organizations.
