Define “frankenfood” objectively, please.
Where does it say that?
Nonsense. Tighten up the regulations to remove the “watered-down-ness” of terms such as “Natural” “Fat Free” “GMO-Free” “Organic” and whatnot.
“FRANKENFOOD” already means nothing. :rolleyes:
Which one means “Throw out the redistricting committees, and return the responsibility to the legislature, where it belongs”?
Voters of California voted to rid the legislature of that power and give it to independent committies.
Anyway here’s my revised opinions
Prop 30 -YES, while I’d prefer pension reform and adjusting the salary of public employees, that isn’t too likely with the state legislature in thrall to public employee unions that’s unlikely and considering the effects of budget cuts in schools of many of my acquaintances resulting in furlogh days and so on I reluctantly support this measure. California spends very little per student on education while having very low averages-more cuts are the last thing it needs
Prop 31 -YES, considering the disastrous deficits California has been running up for a long, long time and the gridlock in the state legislature, a measure like this to break the stalemate is highly welcome.
Prop 32-NO, considering the Supreme Courts’s Citizens United decision I’m uncertain about its constitutionality, plus this still allows for funding Super PACs and is biased against labour unions because very corporations deduct from payrolls (I’m not a fan of labour unions but this violates the basic principle of equality under the law IMO)
Prop 33-YES, unlike two years ago there is an exception for those who lost their jobs and it allows insurers to charge less for responsible people. In addition I support it on the basis of my free market principles.
Prop 34 -YES, while I have no moral problems with the death penalty there is nonetheless a good possibility an innocent (wo)man will be executed and considering the courts have deemed our method of saying "Good bye " to the condemned cruel and unusual punishment there are no executions being carried out anyways so death penalty is a moot point in this state. Plus this saves money (considering all the appeals death row inmates go through) and I love the forced labour provisions.
Prop 35 -YES, I’m not sure how to reply if you oppose this.
Prop 36 -YES, this saves money by freeing up our overcrowded prisons and allowing it to be used for TAX CUTS (:)) or increased funding elsewhere.
Prop 37-NO, this is just more pandering to Luddites while costing taxpayers more money, adding another burdensome regulation, and possibly reducing economic activity by reducing sales of GM food and thus profits for manufacturers and/or supplies
Prop 38 -NO, we already have Prop 30 and this is inferior to that measure in that there are more tax increases and are exclusively geared towards education rather than allowing for it to fund other important things such as reducing the deficit.
Prop 39-YES, this is not a tax increase but rather eliminating an unfair loophole and simply mandates that all businesses pay the same amount in taxes.
Prop 40 -YES, we voted to create this non-partisan commision to draw district lines and delaying it now just increases costs.
Now that I’ve finished my homework reading the massive Voter’s Guide, here’s what I came up with:
Prop 30 - Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. NO. California already has the highest taxes in the nation. Everybody is suffering in this recession, so make the hard choices.
Prop 31 - State Budget. NO. Admirable goals in restricting the gimmicks that the state uses to shift money around instead of actually reducing spending, but the extra bureacracy seems self-defeating. This is a solution only a politician could love.
Prop 32 - Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. YES. I’ve never been comfortable with automatic payroll deductions for political purposes. Maybe this is only half the battle because PACs aren’t included, but let’s take what we can get and go after the PACs next. The public employees unions have just as much malignant influence on state politics as corporations have, if not more.
Prop 33 - Insurance Prices Based on Driver’s History of Coverage. NO. Drivers shouldn’t be penalized for having a lapse in coverage.
Prop 34 - End Death Penalty. YES. The death penalty is too expensive, both ethically and financially.
Prop 35 - Human Trafficking. NO. We have been increasing the penalties for sex offenders for years, now we are asked to broaden the definition of sex offender. It’s a recipe for injustice.
Prop 36 - Revise Three Strikes. YES. I am generally opposed to determinant sentencing. Let the judges and juries do their jobs.
Prop 37 - Genetically Engineered Foods Labelling. NO. Silly waste of time and money. First demonstrate the threat scientifically, then talk about remedies.
Prop 38 - Tax to Fund Education - NO. See argument for Prop 30.
Prop 39 - Taxes on Multistate Businesses - YES. Removes an incentive for businesses to move jobs out of state.
Prop 40 - Redistricting - YES. A yes vote approves the lines set by the Citizen’s Commission. This was an attempt by politicians to reject the Citizen’s Commission districts and get their gerrymandering back. The state Supreme Court has already upheld the new districts, rendering the point moot.
Well, here’s how I voted:
30 - Yes. We have had a structural deficit for 8 years. Due to the two-thirds requirement we’ve been balancing the budget almost completely with cuts. I think we’ve had enough cuts; it’s time for a little balance.
31 - No. There’s a couple things in here I like, but it’s just too convoluted. I see no particular need for “Community Strategic Action Plans”.
32 - No. This is a one-sided swipe at the unions. I would be happy to support real reform of money in the political process.
33 - No. If you go without a car for a period of time, and then start driving again, you shouldn’t have to pay higher insurance premiums for it.
34 - Yes. The death penalty is ineffective and costly. There is no upside.
35 - No. This law would define all prostitution as sex trafficking, criminalizing the victims of trafficking in some cases. Anyone convicted of a prostitution-related offense since 1944 will have to register as a sex offender and also have their internet activity monitored by the state. This is another one of those “tough on crime” measures that’s designed to fill prisons moreso than actually curb crime.
36 - Yes. Though I feel this measure doesn’t go far enough. Our prison system is out of control.
37 - Yes. It’s just a label. If you don’t care if your food is genetically engineered, then just ignore the label, the same way you ignore the label that says “contains wheat, milk, and soy ingredients” if that doesn’t apply to you. I don’t care if GMO food is 100% safe. That’s not the only issue.
38 - No. This is a bigger tax increase than 30, would raise taxes on almost everyone, earmarks all of the funds it would raise, and it’s really just one rich person’s vanity measure.
39 - Yes. This seems like a no-brainer to me. The tax code shouldn’t favor out-of-state businesses over those based here.
40 - Yes. Essentially gratuitous ballot clutter. If this doesn’t pass the districts have to be redrawn again, and there’s no reason they need to be. Voting on maps is utterly stupid, which is why I opposed the redistricting prop in 2008.
NEED ANSWERS FAST!
37: Genetically Engineered Foods Labeling
Most in this Thread seem to be against it because “Genetically Engineered Foods are safe” / “the initiative is fear mongering”.
I happen to agree with that side of the argument. Doesn’t scare me at all.
However, I don’t see any harm in labeling Genetically Engineered Foods as such and I generally think more info is a good thing.
So, I still haven’t made up my mind here.
I am inclined to vote YES unless the SDMB convinces me that the initiative does harm. Y’all have 2 1/2 hours to talk me into a NO vote, otherwise I’m going with YES.
You know how virtually every business that you walk into in California has that sticker on the door that says something like “WARNING: This facility contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm”?
That’s because of Proposition 65 in 1986. On the off-chance that there might be something hazardous in the building, business owners post that sign everywhere. (There is no penalty for posting an unnecessary sign.) So the sign has, in effect, become meaningless. (When was the last time you refused to enter a store because the sign was on the door?)
My prediction: Almost every product sold in California will contain the perfunctory warning “This product may contain GMO crops.” And you will still have no way of knowing which products contain GMO crops and which don’t, because every business will cover their behinds by using the warning whether they need to or not.
The only thing that might happen is that some small business (or some out-of-state business) that was not up-to-date on the regulations will get fined or the product of some organic farmer who thought he was exempt will be tested and it will be found that some GMO pollen drifted onto his field and he will get fined for not putting the warning on his products.
Thanks, Alley Dweller!
Very good point. Still, because I am in no way worried about GMOs I therefore don’t care if the warning becomes completely meaningless- since it’s aleady meaningless to me.
Probably won’t decide until I’m standing in the voting booth.
It could also backfire; the ubiquity of the label on food will mean not only that it will go the way of the Prop 65 warning, but could pass into the “it’s everywhere, so it must be okay” realm.
I’ve been thinking this too.
Step 1: Fear Mongers put “Warning Labels for GMOs” on the ballot
Step 2: Frightened people vote it into effect
Step 3: Warning Labels go on a WHOLE LOT of foods that the frightened people had been eating all along
Step 4: Frightened people get maybe a little freaked out at first but ultimately don’t change their eating habits
Step 5: Frightened people no longer think GMOs are scary
Step 6: Ignorance fought
I really didn’t make a decision until I was in the booth. I ended up voting against it. It seems to have overwhelming support though. I expect it will pass.
Here’s how I ended up voting. I didn’t study these as much as I’ve studied issues in the past, so we spent last night doing a crash-study on them. Felt like grad school again. 
30 (taxes for schools) YES, but I was irked by the built-in marriage penalty. Extra income tax for singles starting at $250k, but for married couples starting at $380k. Because screwing over married professionals helps the schools so much more. :smack:
31 (budgeting and sales tax realignment) YES. A little hesitant but the part that requires revenue cuts (or increases) to be balanced with spending cuts (or increases) put me in the yes column.
32 (payroll deductions for political speech) NO. I’ve decided I don’t like these sneak attacks against speech.
33 (car insurance regulation change) NO. Let the insurance commissioner or the legislature deal with this. Stop bugging me.
34 (repeal death penalty) YES. I’m against the death penalty on religious grounds.
35 (human trafficking) YES. I was intending to vote no, but I read the pro and con arguments in the voter guide. The no side is insane, which was enough to push me to the yes side.
36 (soften three strikes) YES. Our prisons are overcrowded. Let’s have some more discretion.
37 (GMO labeling) NO. We can already buy GMO-free food (it’s called “Organic”). And the pro side is insane.
38 (taxes for schools) YES. I really don’t care which one passes; schools need money.
39 (tax code change on business) YES, but annoyed that I need to vote on this.
40 (confirm citizen redistricting) YES. The people who put this on the ballot need to be hunted down and publicly mocked.
And L.A. County issues:
A (non-binding, should the county appraiser be appointed instead of elected?) NO. Appointments aren’t less corrupt than elections.
B (condoms for pornos) YES. I wasn’t sure about this, but the anti side is insane, so I voted yes.
J (transit sales tax) YES. We still need to fund our transit systems, even into the future. Sorry great-grandkids, you’ll be paying for this one. 
Regarding Propositions 30 and 38, the two tax initiatives: they cannot both be enacted into law. If both measures pass, the one which receives the most ‘Yes’ votes will be enacted into law, and the other will not.
I’m not thrilled about paying more taxes in any case, but Prop 30 (which raises sales taxes by .25% and income taxes on people earning more than $250,000) is in my mind much more fair than Prop 38 (which raises income taxes on everyone making more than $7,316). Since I make quite a nit more than $7000 and quite a bit less than $250K, and I already mentally calculate sales tax rates at 10% for simplicity (rather than the actual 7.75% rate in my city), I plan to vote Yes on 30 and No on 38.
If I’m ever unsure of a proposition I always vote “no.” Someone on the board for years ago said they did that and I really liked their reasoning why.
One thing I didn’t like about Prop 38 was that it was an automatic tax for 12 years. I think that’s a bit too long off the bat.
You know, I didn’t even pay any attention to the duration of the tax increases (it looks like the sales tax is for 3 years, and the Pro 30 income tax is for 6); I always just assume that any tax increase is going to wind up being permanent, regardless of the original intent.
The Official Voter Information Guide that should have been mailed to each household with a registered voter. You can also check online here: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/30/analysis.htm Scroll down to the highlighted box labelled “What Happens if Voters Approve Both Proposition 30 and Proposition 38?”
Not one of the choices.You’d need to repeal Prop 11 which was passed 4 years ago. And give that responsibility back to the legislature? Seriously? The main reason California’s legislature is so gridlocked is every ten years the legislature gerrymandered the state so much that every district was a safe district, so the primary ended up being the real election. The one who pandered the most the extreme fringe of the base got the nomination and therefore the seat. No moderates allowed.
Yes = Keep the boundaries the redistricting committee came up with
No = Throw out the boundaries and make the redistricting committee do it again.
This is my opinion (and vote) as well. I will continue to eat GMO food, but I see no problem with labeling it as such for those that want to make the opposite decision.
Just got back from voting, and went:
30 - Yes
31 - No
32 - NO
33 - No
34 - Yes
35 - Yes
36 - Yes
37 - No
38 - No
39 - Yes
40 - Yes
Local Measures - Measure O (School Bond issue) - Yes