Prop. 12 veterans' bond act

Officially asks for:
-This act provides for a bond issue of nine hundred million dollars ($900,000,000) to provide loans to California veterans to purchase farms and homes.
-Appropriates money from the state General Fund to pay off the bonds, if loan payments from participating veterans are insufficient for that purpose.
-Costs of about $1.8 billion to pay off both the principal ($900 million) and interest ($856 million) on the bonds; costs paid by participating veterans.
-Average payment for principal and interest of about $59 million per year for 30 years.

argument for:
On November 7, 1922, the people of California authorized the very first Veterans’ Bond Act for the Cal-Vet Home Loan Program.

The Cal-Vet Home Loan Program enables veterans to obtain low-interest rate loans for the purchase of conventional homes, manufactured homes, and mobile homes without costing the taxpayers one cent.

All costs of the program, including all administration costs, are paid for by veterans holding loans. There have never been any costs to the taxpayers of California.

Cal-Vet home loans generate thousands of housing industry-related jobs with millions of dollars in annual payrolls.

This measure was placed on the ballot by a unanimous vote of 75–0 in the State Assembly and 39–0 in the State Senate.

Your “Yes” Vote on Proposition 12 will enable more veterans to buy homes in California and help the economy at the same time, all with no direct cost to the state’s taxpayers.

against:
money that people might put into private investments, the profits on which are taxable and generate money for the state, would instead go to buy state bonds, which do not generate tax income.

"In this time of peril in the mortgage market there might be some defaults that won't be covered" without taxpayer support

He also argued that with limited money available, any bond proceeds should go first to injured veterans and those who served in combat zones.

As the proposition is written, the bond money would also be available to those who served in the military without leaving the United States.

my take:
This is another of those "sounds good but is it" propositions. It keeps saying that taxpayers have never had to pay for this but look at the economy we live in... unprecedented waters we navigate these days.

final word:
I'm staying neutral on this on...

Prop. 11 Redistricting

Officially asks for:
-Changes authority for establishing Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization district boundaries from elected representatives to 14 member commission.
-Requires government auditors to select 60 registered voters from applicant pool. Permits legislative leaders to reduce pool, then the auditors pick eight commission members by lottery, and those commissioners pick six additional members for 14 total.
-Requires commission of five Democrats, five Republicans and four of neither party. Commission shall hire lawyers and consultants as needed.
-For approval, district boundaries need votes from three Democratic commissioners, three Republican commissioners and three commissioners from neither party.

argument for:
A “no” vote means politicians continue drawing their own districts and more gridlock in Sacramento.

POLITICIANS ARE BEHIND THE MISLEADING “NO” CAMPAIGN.

11 creates a diverse, qualified, independent commission that will draw fair districts that truly respect California’s communities.

Proposition 11 will force politicians to work together to solve real problems like health care, education, water, the budget, and the high cost of food and gas.


against:
They’re selling Prop. 11 as a cure-all—and hoping you won’t check the label.

Prop. 11 creates a new bureaucracy to draw districts—on top of the people we already pay for the job. They will spend millions of dollars—and no audits to account for their money.

The politicians backing Prop. 11 have taken more contributions from special interests than any politicians in California history. But they don’t trust voters to elect the right people—so they’re trying to change the rules to help themselves.

my take:
both sides say the "politicians are trying to fuck you over" As far as I can see a yes vote hurts the politicians so I'm guessing the bullshit side is no on this issue. I love to fuck over a politician as much as the next guy, I'm the first in line smiling. This will cost money though, so is fucking over some random people worth it? How badly does it even hurt them? It stops government from defining their own districts which means they divide up neighborhoods to create districts where they are virtually guaranteed reelection.
Once elected, these politicians aren’t accountable to voters because they don’t have to earn our votes. Instead, they pay more attention to the special interests.

final word:
This is by and far the BIGGEST MINDFUCK ON THE BALLOT. It infuriates me, the best I can make of it we will do a good thing passing it though. Here it is... the rare YES vote. YES on 11

Prop. 10 alternative fuel vehicles and renewable energy

Officially asks for:
-provides 3.245 billion to help consumers and others purchase certain high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles, including natural gas vehicles, and to fund research into alt. fuel technology.
-provides 1.25 billion for research, development, and production of renewable energy technology.
-grants to cities and colleges for research and development
-total of 5 billion

this one is too one sided so I am just going to summarize a L.A. Times editorial about the facts of this proposition. Please read it all:

"Billionaire Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens, listed by Forbes as the 131st richest American, really, really wants your money. So much so that his natural-gas fueling company has shelled out $3.2 million to further the reprehensible scam known as Proposition 10"

"true aim is to subsidize vehicles powered by natural gas, which would build a customer base for its sponsor: Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a company Pickens co-founded that operates natural gas filling stations throughout the U.S. and Canada."

"the lion's share of the bond money, $2.875 billion worth, goes for rebates on purchases of alternative fuel vehicles"

"The rebates are structured so that only a small amount of money goes to truly environmentally beneficial vehicles, while most would subsidize those that run on natural gas. For example, buyers of hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius that get combined highway-city fuel economy of 45 miles per gallon or better would be eligible for a $2,000 rebate, handed out on a first-come, first-served basis to 55,000 buyers. But if you buy a "clean alternative fuel vehicle," you get a $10,000 rebate. These are defined under Proposition 10 as cars, vans or light trucks powered by natural gas, electricity or hydrogen. Last we checked, there were no hydrogen or electric vehicles on the new-car market."

"A total of $1 billion would be allocated for rebates on purchases of natural gas-powered trucks -- an initial $50,000 rebate per truck. Nothing in the initiative says these trucks have to remain in California. So the day Proposition 10 is enacted, buyers will line up to purchase natural gas trucks, drive them to Nevada or some more sensible state, resell them and collect the $50,000-per-truck rebate as pure profit, courtesy of California taxpayers. The environmental gains for the state? Zero"

"There's a much better way to encourage clean cars"

That last part is the point, these are all written to sound good, but is it specifically good for right now? and will it have real results in an acceptable time frame?

final word:
"send Pickens packing and reject Proposition 10." NO

Prop. 9 criminal justice system, victim's rights

Officially asks for:
-requires notification of victim and opportunity for input during phases of criminal justice process, including bail, pleas, sentencing and parole.
-reduces the number or parole hearings granted
-requires that victims receive written notification of their rights
-increases the number of people allowed to attend and testify on behalf of a victim at a parole hearing

argument for:
sorry to sound bias but this is honestly just a bunch of stories appealing to emotion. I could make you vote for anything if I said, "a yes vote means no more sixth grade boys and girls will be forced to smash newborn puppies with hammers while they give their grandparents the finger"

against:
This bill was bought and paid for by one man - Henry Nicholas III. Most of the statutes of this were already approved in 1982's victims bill of rights.

my take:
this prop is much too emotion driven. it is supported by "Justice for Homicide victims" and "justice for murdered children" Their entire argument is hypothetical "jenny was a fresh young college student in the prime of life..." stories. It's all written entirely in Uppercase letters. These are the classic signs of a bullshit prop. If you have a real argument you can maintain a rational tone. You do this because you know it so well you feel it in your gut and therefore there is nothing to fear and you speak calmly and clearly. Appealing to emotions in a monetary matter is what a con artist does. "my grandma needs surgery" You tell me what options you have already exhausted, why grandma isn't covered, whether or not you've checked government aid options, if you've applied for a personal loan from a bank and so on. Show me you have taken all other routes and I'm your last chance and I might consider it. If you try to con me you deserve nothing. skeevy. It's a shame. And furthermore this bill was already passed in 1982, we don't need to throw more money at this. We can achieve these goals in other ways than a poorly written bill to funnel money into someone's pocket.

final word:
Guess what... vote NO.

Prop. 8 equals PROP HATE vote NO!

This thing makes me so angry. If you disagree with me on this let's discuss our friendship.

go to www.protectmarriage.com/contact and copy paste what I wrote here or write your own. Let them know. Be as eloquent and polite as you can, I couldn't really stop from getting a little vulgar. This is all so unimaginable in our time.

I wrote:
You should be ashamed of yourselves. You are bigots and horribly close minded people. I am not a homosexual but I realize that it is an alternative lifestyle that people are born into. It's not taught and you don't catch it in the air in kindergarten. Traditional marriage will also be taught in school which means equal choice for the child. Are you afraid your little Jimmy or Susie already have homosexual tendencies? Or are you just remembering your own thoughts as a child? You sir, did you like to stay in the shower room extra long after the football game and make sure no one needed you to soap their back? You ma'am, did you wish you and your best friend's sleepovers could have turned into a little pillow fight in the nude? Where you always the first one to suggest practicing french kissing on each other?

You are the worst kind of people in the world and I hope your end of days rapture BS comes true so the world can be rid of you. I'd rather suffer an eternity in your idea of a hell then live in one on earth with the pre-packaged ideals you read in a book you misinterpret. Your archaic ways are so misguided and if Jesus came back he would weep at his followers and you would all stone him to death for being a hippie. Get over yourselves. Ignorance and prejudice is taught to children, passed on from one deficient generation to the next. Please kill yourselves and save the world a wave of your little ultra conservative secretly gay offspring.

I can't say enough to express my dislike and disgust for you and your movement. Have a nice day.

NO ON PROPOSITION 8
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
NO.

Prop. 7 renewable energy generation

Officially asks for:
-requires utilities, including government owned utilities, to generate 20% of their power from renewable energy by 2010, a standard currently only applied to private energy
-raises requirements for utilities to 40% by 2020, and 50% by 2025
-imposes penalties, subject to waiver, for noncompliance
-transfers some jurisdiction of regulatory matters from public utilities commission to energy commission.
-Fast-tracks approval for new renewable energy facilities
-requires utilities to sign longer contracts (20 years min.) to procure renewable energy

argument for:
for profit utility companies oppose this bill that gaurentees californians cleaner energy for decades to come. A lot of money is being spent to defeat this because it forces them to straighten up and get on board. PG and E, Southern California Edison, and san diego gas and electric are paying to oppose this. Both parties oppose the bill because the utilities donated 1.5 billion to their causes. They are in the pocket of big businesses like PG and E. California is the world's 16th largest global warming polluter we need this change.

against:
deeply flawed measure that will not produce the results it promises. forces small wind and solar companies out of the market. increase taxes and energy bills without results. Could take us to a new energy crisis. opposed by many organizations big and small. won't limit increases in our electric bills.

my take:
Why would something like this limit our bills? We are making a huge change and that COSTS MONEY!!! It is a neccessary cost though and if we don't pay for it our children and their children will with their quality of life. We take and take from this planet and we are irresponsible, this is a step in the right direction, the passing of this bill shows Californians are ready to but real force behind this movement. We need to shift to renewable energy in our homes, cars, and work. We need a statewide ban on plastic grocery bags and we need to work on a methane solution. We have a long list and we need to stop procrastinating and put a dent in that fucker.

final word:
Like the button says, "YES on 7: solar and clean energy for californians" This is one of the few yes votes because yes in this case means we are throwing money at a problem, this is worth it.