Each Week, CFRW reviews one of the Propositions on the ballot. Here's the current recap, with the final chart.
PROPOSITION 30: NO!
The California Federation of Republican Women is recommending a NO vote on Prop 30.
Proposition 30 is Governor Brown’s bully budgeting tactics. Governor Brown wants to raise our state’s sales tax to 7.5%, a 3.45% increase. Governor Brown also wants to raise income taxes on the highest earners, creating three new tax brackets for those making over $250,000, $300,000 and $500,000.
The Governor claims that the revenues from Prop 30 will exceed $9 billion while the non-partisan Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) believes that only $6.8 billion will be collected. What Governor Brown asserts is that the revenue collected from these tax increases will be used to balance the budget for education funding. Again, the LAO thinks otherwise. The revenue will go to the budget, but not necessarily to education or even to other programs that received cuts. The Legislature will be able to allocate this revenue however they see fit. And as we’ve seen with the passage of High Speed Rail funding, the Parks Department hiding reserve cash and the mismanagement of funds, the Legislature does not have the best track record for responsible budgeting.
Governor Brown has threatened to make more cuts to education if Prop 30 does not pass, yet does not clearly explain how the revenue from Prop 30 will benefit students or schools in any way.
Instead, the Governor signs over $5 billion for High Speed Rail!
The California School Boards Association said in May that Prop 30 does nothing for schools, yet Prop 30 is strongly supported by the California Teacher’s Union, California Federation of Teachers, American Federation of Teachers among others. That the Teacher’s Unions are supporting this proposition is very telling.
Of the two “taxes for education” measures on the ballot, Prop 38 is a much more beneficial measure for California schools.
Prop 30 does nothing to secure funding for education while Prop 38 ensures it.
Governor Brown and the unions are in bed together, and their illegitimate relationship is costing California! Remember to VOTE NO on Prop 30!
__________________
Prop 31 Reconsideration: NO!
The CFRW Voting Body has reconsidered our official CFRW position on Proposition 31. After reevaluating, our Voting Body decided to
change our official position from “No position” to “OPPOSE.” The reality with Prop 31 is that there are good aspects to the prop, but there are really terrible aspects as well.
And we believe that the bad aspects outweigh the good. While Prop 31 has merits- It establishes a two year budget cycle. It requires the legislature to have ALL bills in print for 72 hours before a vote. There is a “pay-go” of $25 million, meaning that the legislature cannot create expenditures of $25 million or more unless an offsetting revenue source or spending cut is identified. But even the merits of Prop 31 would create a problem with the current California Legislature. A “pay-go” system only works with a responsible legislature. In California this could create programs costing $24.9 million, or fudging numbers on spending cuts, or projected revenue for the pay-go falling short. Prop 31 also calls for performance reviews for all state agencies. While this may be very necessary for California, this will create a large bureaucracy in order to over-see this large undertaking. Prop 31 would allow the Governor to cut unilaterally in a declared fiscal emergency if the legislature fails to act. This may seem like a good idea, but it gives the governor far too much power. The proposition also allows local governments to create “Community Strategic Action Plans”, allowing them to override state law or regulations and tailor them to their local needs. It would also allow localities to “tax share” and pool their tax receipts from local governments. This will create litigation galore and won’t actually help local government govern successfully.
Worst of all, this is a constitutional amendment, and in California, ballot box budgeting written into our constitution has historically done more harm than good. Prop 98 (K-12 education funding) is a perfect example. California does not need another bad constitutional amendment. Prop 31 is over 8,000 words of convoluting constitutional changes and unnecessary regional governance.
The CFRW OPPOSES PROP 31.
__________________
Prop 32: YES!
This proposition is perhaps the most important on the November ballot. If this passes, it will change the political game here in California. But first, some background information on Prop 32. Last October in a sneaky legislative move, Governor Brown signed SB 202 (Hancock, D). SB 202 mandates propositions will only appear on the general election ballot, no longer on both the primary and general ballots. This changed a 50-year tradition in the state that began in 1960. We speculate that Brown and the Democrats who sponsored SB 202 were prompted to act because of the Paycheck Protection Initiative, which is now this proposition. The Democrats feared that it would earn a spot on the June 5, 2012 primary ballot. They know that more Republicans vote in primary elections than Democrats. The Democrat union machine can get out the vote in general elections. But even with their trickery, this bill still has an excellent chance of passing. Prop 32 will ban both corporate and union contributions to state and local candidates, ban contributions by government contractors to the politicians who control contracts awarded to them and ban automatic deductions by corporations, unions and government employees’ wages to be used for politics. Union members will still be able to give to political candidates and campaigns, but they will have to do so voluntarily, yearly, in writing. Simply put, unions will no longer be able to use their members’ money for political purposes unless the individual member allows it. As we saw in Wisconsin, once union members had this choice, many of them opted out of contributing. Large unions in California, such as the California Teacher’s Association (CTA), will not have the political power they do now if Prop 32 passes.
Please spread the word! We must work to pass Prop 32! We can defeat the powerful unions here in California! ◼
Click HERE to read an article by CRP Chair Tom Del Beccaro featured in National Review Online.
__________________
Prop 33: YES!
The CFRW supports Prop 33. It corrects a flaw in a previous auto insurance coverage proposition, where if there was a lapse in coverage, for any reason, the insurance company could increase their prices. With this prop, a Californian would still be eligible for the “continuous coverage” discount if a lapse in coverage was for military service, for a loss of employment, or if the lapse was less than 90 days. This proposition would allow for more Californians to qualify for the “continuous coverage” discount for costly auto insurance. Prop 33 is short and to the point. For these reasons, the CFRW SUPPORTS Prop 33. Be sure to read the Capitol Update each week for in-depth analysis of each of the propositions.
__________________
Prop 34: NO!The CFRW OPPOSES Prop 34which would eliminate the death penalty. There have been 13 people executed in California since 1978. There are currently 725 inmates on death row. The voters have approved the death penalty, so why aren’t we using it? There are costs associated with repealing the death penalty that the supporters of Prop 34 did not consider, and those costs are dangerous. If Prop 34 passes, the status of 725 death row inmates would become prisoners with life without parole (or LWOP) and integrated into the general LWOP prison community. This would create a very dangerous environment in our prisons, for our prison guards, wardens, and other prisoners. The people on death row are not your common criminal. Gangs form in prisons and their crimes do not stop just because they are off the streets. Californians will be paying for these prisoner’s lifetime housing and health benefits while they continue their crime sprees. There are also many studies that find the death penalty actually deters murders, such as a study done at the University of Colorado by Professor Mocan. Also, the threat of the death penalty is a very powerful tool for our state’s District Attorneys, especially in solving murders and finding victims’ bodies. The system needs fixing, but this is not the solution. NO on PROP 34
__________________
Prop 35: YES!
The California Federation of Republican Women SUPPORTS Prop 35 which would increase penalties for human trafficking. Prop 35 would increase prison terms for those convicted for human trafficking, would require those convicted of human trafficking crimes to be put on the registered sex offenders list as well as require that all registered sex offenders disclose their internet accounts and activity. Why hasn’t California been requiring this all along? California has three cities that the FBI cites as “high intensity” for child sex trafficking- San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego. Other California cities are just as dangerous such as Fresno and Stockton. Prop 35 would help train law enforcement officers specifically on handling human trafficking cases and protect women and children from this most heinous exploitation. We SUPPORT Prop 35!
__________________
Prop 36: NO!
The California Federation of Republican Women OPPOSE Prop 36! Proposition 36 would revise the current Three Strikes law and would allow current convicted felons serving 25-life under Three Strikes to petition for a reduced sentence. The Three Strikes law was passed in 1994 and shortly after its passage crime in California dropped and has remained at those lower levels. Violent crimes have decreased by 18% and homicide decreased by 31% since Three Strikes' inception. Prop 36 would modify the three strikes law to impose life sentence only when the new felony conviction is "serious or violent". It authorize re-sentencing for offenders currently serving life sentences if their third strike conviction was not "serious" or "violent" and if the judge determines that the re-sentence does not pose "unreasonable" risk to public safety. It would continue to impose a life sentence penalty if the third strike conviction was for "certain non-serious, non-violent sex or drug offenses or involved firearm possession" and maintain the life sentence penalty for felons with "non-serious, non-violent third strike if prior convictions were for rape, murder, or child molestation." Proponents of Prop 36 say that this would “make room for dangerous felons,” but the truth is only 6.6% of all prisoners in California are these “third strikers.” If Prop 36 passes, it would allow 4,388 “third strikers” petition the courts for a resentencing and some of these criminals could be released “without any parole or supervision.” These are criminals so dangerous they are serving 25 to life sentences as charged by a District Attorney, as convicted by a jury, as imposed by a judge, and whose legal appeals have been denied. Prop 36 would allow these same criminals ask a new judge for a reduced sentence or to be set free, some without any parole or supervision! Prop 36 is opposed by every major law enforcement organization and the California District Attorneys Association. Prop 36 is dangerous and needs to be defeated!
__________________
Prop 37: NO!
Prop 37 is another misleading initiative, written to intentionally confuse the voters. Prop 37 is billed as “the right to know”, but with all the exemptions written into the proposition, the consumer will still have no idea if the food they are purchasing is free of genetically engineered foods or not. Oddly, 2/3rds of the food consumed in California will be exempt under Prop 37. It requires labels for soy and tofu products, but milk, cheese and other dairy products are exempt. Fruit juice would require a label but alcohol that contains genetically engineered material would not. Why does pet food containing GE meat require a label but any meat for human consumption is exempt? Food sold in grocery stores requires GE labels but the same food sold in restaurants is exempt. The innumerable and complicated exceptions to the law severely undermine its credibility.
If this were truly a health or medical issue, Prop 37 would have been written by doctors or scientists. But Prop 37 was written by infamous trial lawyer James Wheaton, who stands to make massive amounts of money from lawsuits over theoretically “mislabeled” food. According to the non-partisan California Legislative Analyst Office, “in order to bring such an action (lawsuit) forward, the consumer would not be required to demonstrate any specific damage from the alleged violation.” This means that farmers, grocers, and food companies can be sued without any proof of harm to the “victims”! Yet that lack of provable damages would do nothing to slow the money flowing into the pockets of trial lawyers, away from already strained businesses and farmers.
On the other hand, foods with demonstrably fewer safety regulations from foreign counties would have no burden of proof that they are GE free; they simply have to slap a label on their products that announce as such. Why would we make ourselves additionally susceptible to inferior food, when reputable, leading health organizations across the nation have said that the use of this biotechnology is perfectly safe? Only food grown and sold in California would be held to this standard of labeling, which will drive up our food costs and be harmful for our hard working farmers and grocers. We already have many consumer safeguards in place. All “certified organic” food must already be produced without genetic altering. There are also some companies already labeling- without government mandates- that their food is GE free. Prop 37 is entirely unnecessary in the current marketplace.
Prop 37 is deceptive, but don’t take our word for it. The American Medical Association, the US Food and Drug Administration, and even the World Health Organization have all come to the conclusion that at this point in time, there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered food. Other reliable news sources and organizations say so as well: the San Francisco Chronicle, The Los Angeles Times, the Sacramento Bee, The Woodland Democrat, the San Jose Mercury News, as well as the American Council of Science and Health, and the California Chamber of Commerce all agree: Vote NO on Prop 37!
__________________
Prop 38: NO!
Prop 38 is the tax increase initiative that is in direct competition with Governor Brown’s Prop 30. Prop 38 increases personal income tax rates on annual earnings over $7,316 using sliding scale from .4% for lowest individual earners to 2.2% for individuals earning over $2.5 million, for twelve years. During first four years, it allocates 60% of revenues to K–12 schools, 30% to repaying state debt, and 10% to early childhood programs. Thereafter, it allocates 85% of revenues to K–12 schools, 15% to early childhood programs. Prop 38 provides K–12 funds on school-specific, per-pupil basis, subject to local control, audits, and public input and prohibits state from directing new funds. If the CTA and other teachers unions truly cared about their students and schools, then Prop 38 would be the tax increase to support. But their motives are very transparent by supporting Prop 30; it is clear they are “in bed” with Governor Brown. The good news for taxpayers is that the more tax increases there are on a ballot, the less likely it is that any of them pass.
Here is what happens in the unlikely case that both Props 30 and 38 pass. Our state constitution says that if two or more ballot measures conflict, as these two do, the measure that has the most “yes” votes is the one that will go into effect. Prop 30’s language states that if it receives more “yes” votes, then Prop 38 will not go into effect. Prop 38’s language states that if it receives more “yes” votes, then Prop 30 will not go into effect and Governor Brown’s $6 billion trigger cuts to education will take place. Let’s make sure both of these unnecessary tax increases fail!
__________________
CFRW Official Ballot Positions and Talking Points!
◼
Prop 30 - NO
◼
Prop 31 - NO
◼
Prop 32 - YES
◼
Prop 33 - YES
◼
Prop 34 - NO
◼
Prop 35 - YES
◼
Prop 36 - NO
◼
Prop 37 - NO
◼
Prop 38 - NO
◼
Prop 39 - NO
◼
Prop 40 YES
For all the props and their talking points on one PDF document, ◼
CLICK HERE.
