We have received our voter guides and sample ballots by mail. The first thing we notice is that there are a bunch of measures to consider that have been mostly under the radar so far.
My subsequent guide is from a fiscally conservative and socially liberal point of view. I hate wasting taxpayer money, but appreciate it when government lets people follow a course they have set for themselves with minimal government constraint (called “freedom”):
Vote No on Propositions 1 and 37. Prop. 1 authorizes bonds for housing affordability programs, costing up to $100 million a year for 25 years. Wow. Distributing $11.25 billion to subsidize under-qualified home buyers. Giving money away to let folks buy houses that they can’t afford induces loan defaults and home repossessions.
Prop. 37 is also crazy. If passed, it would also pump billions in taxpayer money into the housing market, artificially raising the price of homes statewide. This deluge of cash will drive those who would have already afforded a home out of the market by bringing in those with taxpayer money to buy homes they otherwise could not afford.
Yes on Prop. 2 increases the state’s rainy-day fund. A good idea to increase the reserves last set in 2014.
Yes on Prop. 3 makes permanent an existing state tax on those with net incomes over $371,000. This income funds schools and supplements health care services.
No on Measure 4. If passed, it grants government agencies permission to spend taxpayer money on ads to sway the vote. Right now, the government cannot advocate or use public funds to support political positions, and it should stay that way.
No on Prop. 5 prevents the appointment of replacements for elected officials who are recalled. Let the people vote and pick successors.
Prop. 38 is up to you. Is it worth investing $10-12 billion into immunology medical research? Half these funds would support University of California medical projects. I am voting yes, but I can understand if someone refrains from approving expenditures on science and medical cures.
No on Prop. 39 prevents requiring you to put the last four digits of your Social Security number on the outside of your ballot to assist in verifying if you are eligible to vote.
Costing tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions annually, enacting this measure could throw out your vote for forgetting to scribe your last four on the ballot envelope despite the fact that the county had already determined that you were eligible.
If passed, Prop. 39 adds a mechanism to diminish the vote count.
Yes on Prop. 40 imposes a 5% property tax on the estimated 200 California residents with assets of at least $1 billion. These collections would be primarily designated for health care.
Opponents of Prop. 40 (billionaires) want to convince you that “not a penny of these taxes would go to health care” because ALL the billionaires would, in unison, move out of state. “No on 40” ads also falsely claim that this tax can be modified to apply to the common folk. In fact, this clause only addresses possibly making this billionaire tax permanent.
No on Props. 41 and 42. Special interests have invested lots of money to get these on the ballot. They would simply cancel out Prop. 40 if it is passed.
Yes on Prop. 43 makes self-imposed taxation harder, moving voter passage from half to two-thirds for voters to approve a new tax.
Yes on Prop. 44 would compel community health clinics to spend at least 90% of their revenue on program services and medical care. It makes law what community clinics are already supposed to do.
No on Prop. 45 prevents removing environmental review for certain development and construction projects statewide. No on Prop. 45 prevents eliminating safeguards and thoughtful evaluation, simply to enable faster development. Let’s get it right rather than rushing to get it wrong.
Happy voting everyone!
Jonathan Kraut directs a private investigations agency, is the CEO of a private security firm, is the CFO of an accredited acting conservatory, is a former college professor and dean, is a published author, and is a Democratic Party activist. His column reflects his own views and not necessarily those of The Signal or of other organizations.
