Ugh! I’m just making things worse, aren’t I?
IF I vote this year, it will be because of two propositions, 71 and 72.
No on both.
No on 71 because I do not believe the proper role of the State is to pay for medical research.
No on 72 because I do not believe that the proper role of the State is to mandate how private businesses operate.
You just made it better. 
Although I agree with you, I’d go beyond that. Even if you think the role of the state is to fund some medical research, I think it’s a bad idea to put the specific types of reasearch to be funded up to a general vote.
I can’t believe people are considering voting yes for 62. It is pretty clearly a way for democrats and republican to not face 3rd party competition in the November ballot.
Pleonast: I just got my Arnold guide in the mail, and it looks to be identical to your Arnold link. It only notes his position on 1-A, 59, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, and 72. How did you get his position on 60, 62, and 71?
I wondered if anyone would actually read the links and call me on it. He does take those positions, but has cleverly not put them in his pamphlet (presumably because of the disagreement with the GOP). My source was a local NPR station, but you can find other news outlets covering the story. For example, the L.A. Times (requires a free (and spammy) registration).
From his public announcements. Cite for endorsement of props 62 & 71 (couldn’t find anything on prop 60).
Pleonast, I don’t like prop 62 primarily because of this effect: “Only the two primary-election candidates receiving most votes for an office, whether they are candidates with “no party” or members of same or different party, would be listed on general election ballot.” I don’t like the idea that if 2 Democrats end up with the 1st and 2nd most votes, that they’d be the only 2 candidates allowed to run in the general election, and Republicans lose their voice entirely (and/or vice-versa). I think it’s a stupid idea. I’d like to come up with a way for Independent voters to have a voice in the primaries (I was a registered independent for many years, so I know how infuriating it is not to be able to have a say at the primary level), but I don’t think this is the answer.
There is a philosophy that employees are assets, or investments. And like other assets you want them to be in good working order to maximize the return you receive.
Now, you may say that by paying the employee you have given the employee the means to ensure they are in good working order. Reality suggests that people don’t always operate within their own self interest in these matters. And human nature demostrate that the pay given to the employees would find itself subject to competing pressures. The solution to these problems is to control the portion of pay compensation intented for ensuring the assets remain in good working order.
Funny pun. But seriously… it’s a no-brainer to drive the state further into debt to fund a research programs that’s already being funded at the federal level (albiet somewhat narrowly)? It’s easy to spend money we don’t have that other people will end up paying for multiple times, isn’t it?
Glad you included the “period” or else I might have been inclined to disagree with you. 
But even if you think that it’s necessary, it doesn’t mean that it’s necessary for the State of California to fund it.
It’s hard for me to vote for any bond, since basically it’s saying: “We’ve misspent all the money we collected from you as a fee for working here, so can you please give us some more? We’ll even make sure that you get to pay off the interest!”
Yes, I’m fiscally conservative, why do you ask?
Icarus: (with apologies to blowero) I can’t argue with that philosophy, except that I can’t agree that it should be enforced by the government. If that were the case, we should require, by law, everyone to get periodic physicals, etc.
66, 69, 71, YES.
Well, just my opinion.
Jake
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Can you explain how you arrived at this dictum?9/quote0
It’s hardly a dictum. It’s a personal opinion. The OP asked how we would vote on certain issues and why. I answered those questions. I know this thread is in great debates (I think it should have been posted in IMHO), but are all opinions forbidden here, or just mine?
I don’t know, maybe because if an employee didn’t have to foot the entire bill for health care he could afford to buy those other things for himself and his family.
Interesting that you brought up turkey. My last employer gave Christmas bonuses to middle and upper management and a frozen turkey to everybody else. (The big guys got the turkey, too.) But we all got a group healthcare plan. No complant here. It was aerospace, and on top of the usual holidays our plant was closed for the week between Christmas and New Year’s Day, the workers being off at full pay. That was in addition to normal vacation. Damn, I miss that job!
I would not advocate all that for small and medium-size business, but I do believe that health care is basic. How can people work efficiently if they are not healthy, or if they are forced to spend a large part of the wages they do receeive on health care for themselves and their families?
This is an emotional issue for both sides. If you are a worker with a family and limited resources you will want benefits where you work (the most basic being healthcare). If you are a small business person, no doubt you worry about overhead, and just being able to afford to pay benefits. I’ve never been an employer. My sympathy is woth workers.
Italicized inclusion mine
Good point. Look, you don’t want to make me think too much. I might become a ::choke!:: ::wheeze!:: Republ . . . I can’t even say it!
…ssssshhhhhh, they might hear you!
Darn, I haven’t gotten my Voter Disinformation Guide yet, just the sample ballot so far, so I don’t have all the partisan arguments plus the non-partisan legislative analysis to pick apart. And I’ve been so focused on national issues, I’ve paid scant attention to CA ballot initiatives.
General thought, not specific to any initiative:
-
If it involves mandating funding or especially borrowing for any purpose: No. Funding specific initiatives is the job of the state legislature. Amending the CA constitution to spend money is a generally bad idea, and mandating spending by passing initiatives forever enshrining that spending into the state constitution is how we’ve bankrupted the state. Stop it. Now. Instead elect better state representives to pass better spending bills that reflect our common priorities. This is how non-disfunctional states operate.
-
When in doubt, vote No. Hard to screw things up any worse by not amending the constitution.
All that said, and with 13 days left to do my homework:
-
I’m leaning yes on 66. I support three strikes, but sending up for life on shoplifting is messed up. Do 3 strikes right or not at all.
-
I’m leaning no on anything with the word Indian in it. But need to study this much more.
-
I’m waffling on 71. This amendment is basically a protest amendment. And moot if Bush loses. But stem cell research is an important cause. But amending the constitution for the cause of the week is ill advised. Gah. Decisions, decisions.
-
No on all the rest. Subject to my homework the next 1.8 weeks.
Desert Geezer: Hey, if it’s just IMHO, then no prob. But in GD, unless you say so, we generally assume that your statements have some backing. I’ll just ask that you think about your opinion, what affect it actually has on business, and if it really is the right way to manage our society. In the end. you have to vote the way that makes the most sense for you.
Amen, squeegee. My default on bond initiatives is “no”. If it’s something I think we really, really need, then I might vote yes, but I’ll think long and hard about it. But every election, they bombard us with bond initiatives, and tell us we can’t do without this or that. With the fiscal mess we’re in, we just can’t afford to pass all those things.
As I said, or tried to say before, the OP asked for opinions, not necessarily debate. That’s why I said I thought this thread was in the wrong place.
I also said that the reasons for votes are often emotional. That’s true of my Prop 72 preference. I think workers do better for their employers when they feel secure. Nothing makes them less secure than lack of health coverage for their families. Again, that’s my opinion. It’s also my argument. Whether it’s a good argument is for you to decide. But why jump on me when so many others have expressed opinions here without long debate?
For example:
No debate points there.
Again, the OP asked for opinions. One opinion I offered is that this thread is in the wrong place. As a debate it was ill conceived. Debate is appropriate on one issue at a time, but this thread is basically a poll.
Ok, that makes sense. I think some sort of ranked voting (instant run off, or condorcet) would be better, but this measure will force primary candidates to appeal to the center rather than the party extremes. In the general election, the candidates would then have to tack away from the center. Kind of the opposite of the current setup. Maybe it wouldn’t work as well as I hope, but I’m willing to give it a try.
Exactly my thoughts. There’s also long-term economic effects to consider. State funding on this level could draw in private investment in the same area. Companies set up in CA to do stem-cell research and stay for the long haul, bringing lots of high-skill jobs. But it’s a gamble maybe the state shouldn’t be taking.
In my defense, I did ask for opinions and the reasonings behind the them. I want to know how others are coming to their voting decisions, to help me think through myself. And I included all the issues because I didn’t know which ones were no-brainers and which ones were controversial. Anyway, the powers that be can always move the thread if they deem it appropriate.
Why do you suppose so many propositions are put on the ballot by the legislature? Why doesn’t the legislature do its job and make laws instead of asking the voters to do it for them? Is it that the politicians would rather have voters deal with unpopular or politically charged issues so that the politicians don’t have to take public positions on these issues? The proposition system was supposed to be a way for the public to get issues to the voters but hardly any propositions are actually put on the ballot by the public; almost all are put there by the legislature. Aren’t we paying them to make decisions? And if we don’t like their choices can’t we vote them out of office? When did we stop being a representative democracy?