Benny, an Orthodox Jew, emails his list: I have been requested to provide a list on how I am voting on the Props and why….so here it is:
A) Rule of thumb: I vote NO on propositions unless there’s a good reason
B) If it harms criminals, I vote YES (that’s a good reason).
C) Any prop that is supported/opposed by criminals means that I vote the other way. I never want to agree with criminals.
30: NO
Analysis: 52 – 55% of our State budget is spent on public school K-12. Those of us sending our kids to private schools are paying for this. The overwhelming majority of public school attendees are not paying taxes at all. So this is yet another tax increase on those who obtain no benefit from the tax.
31: NO
Analysis: Just another gibberish, waste of time, unnecessary prop. No one cares about this one at all.
32: YES
Analysis: Prohibits unions from making political donations. You know how much money unions gave to defeat this??? 90 million dollars. That’s an amazing number. Unions are set up to ensure appropriate treatment by employers. They are taking union dues, and using it to push in politicians who have only union interests at heart and not societies. It is a short term mentality, that is backfiring. The opponents to this appeal to the lowest common denominator by telling you that “Big Oil” will still get to make donations. I see a massive difference between a corporation and a employees union.
33: YES
Analysis: Allows insurance companies to charge those previously uninsured more money. Yes, that makes sense to me. If you have a car, you should be insured. If you aren’t, you’re an idiot.
34: NO
Analysis: This is asking yes or no on the death penalty. The death penalty in specific circumstance is a very appropriate punishment. There are some creatures in our society who forfeited their right to exist based on their own actions. Opponents of the death penalty cite cost as a reason for a yes vote – that isn’t appropriate. We should reform the sentence so that it is administered more cost-efficiently, but it should not be abolished. (You know what else costs a ton of money? Public schools. Should we abolish that because of cost, or should it be reformed?)
35: YES
Analysis: Human trafficking is bad. A byproduct of a yes vote is that it will greatly increase sentences for child pornography.
36: NO
Analysis: 3-strikes law is the greatest criminal law statute enacted in CA. It is a fundamentally misunderstood statute that takes a beating from uninformed people. Simply put, NO ONE CAN GO TO PRISON FOR LIFE FOR SIMPLY STEALING A LOAF OF BREAD. Petty theft is a misdemeanor, only felonies can be a third-strike. In order to be eligible for 3-strikes, a criminal must commit 2 prior violent offenses (penal code says “Serious” or “Violent” – and they have specific definitions….all are crimes of physical violence, in the simple meaning of the term). After committing the 2 prior offenses, the criminal has to pick up a third FELONY. Regardless of this law, prosecutors can choose to not “third-strike” someone AND judges have discretion to “strike a strike” and not impose a 3-strike sentence. I.e., the 3-strikes are carefully imposed.
37: NO
Analysis: Unnecessary regulation for putting labels on food that it isn’t genetically engineered. A) there is no proof that genetically engineered food has caused any damage; B) this law results in increased taxes (to regulate it), increased lawsuits by dirt bag attorneys seeking a quick buck. There are other methods…i.e., kashrus industry is very successful at getting labels put on food. Outside regulation and voluntary opt-in will be beneficial to those who seek such products and will not cost taxpayers money.
38: NO
Analysis: More taxes to fund education = NO
39: NO
Analysis: More taxes = NO
40: NO
Analysis: They wanna redistrict again. Didn’t we just do this??
