Taxable Talk

Proposition 12 would issue $900 million in bonds to provide loans to California veterans to purchase homes and farms. It would cost $59 million a year to repay the debt (for thirty years).

Supporters say that the Cal-Vet Home Loan program has been a huge success; the measure was placed on the ballot by a unanimous vote in both the State Assembly and State Senate. Opponents say that the bond measure would cost the state money and the screening in the program needs to be tightened.

That’s the end of the propositions on the state ballot. Next week I’ll look at Orange County Measure J and Irvine Measures R and S.

If you’re a California resident you know that we have a dysfunctional legislature. One of the main reasons for this is that back in 2001 the Democrats and Republicans in the legislature drew up new districts. They made a deal, and made all but a couple of seats “safe.” That’s called gerrymandering, and almost every legislative district in the state is gerrymandered.

For example, my Assembly, State Senate, and Congressional seats are extremely safe Republican districts. While there’s a Democratic candidate for each office, it’s not going to matter–all the Republican candidates will win in a cakewalk. Similarly, almost every Democratic candidate will win easily. When the districts aren’t competitive you tend to get legislators who are highly partisan and don’t compromise.

Proposition 11 would change how redistricting is done in California. There would be a commission to handle redistricting for the state legislature. While this measure has almost no direct fiscal impact, eliminating the dysfunctional legislature can only be a boon to California.

Remember to vote on November 4th.

Proposition 10 would issue $5 billion in bonds. These bonds would then be used to provide $3.425 billion to aid consumers purchase high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles. Another $1.25 billion would be used for research and development of renewable, solar, and win energy. There would also be grants to cities.

Like any measure with bonds there is a cost. For this measure it’s $335 million a year. Given the current credit market it’s likely that’s an understatement of the expense.

Proponents argue that Proposition 10 would help lead California to energy independence. Proposition 10 is supported by the AQMD. Opponents, including some consumer groups and the California Federation of Teachers, argue that this measure would remove money from other programs.

No matter where you stand on this remember to vote on November 4th.

Proposition 7 has done something this election cycle that I would have thought was impossible: It is opposed by almost everyone. The opponents include the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the United Farm Workers Union, the California Chamber of Commerce, and the California Taxpayers’ Association.

What would Proposition 7 do? It would require utilities to generate 20% of their power from renewable sources by 2010 (with that percentage increasing to 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025).

Proponents argue that Proposition 7 would help solve global warming, increase renewable energy use, and wouldn’t cost much to California. Opponents argue that it would cut small wind and solar companies out of the market, would dramatically increase rates for everyone, and would dramatically hurt the economy.

Remember to vote on November 4th.

Proposition 6 requires specific funding for police and law enforcement, and adds several new crimes (mainly gang-related) to the penal code. It also changes sentencing, generally tightening (lengthening) sentences, especially for gang-related offenses. It is also estimated to cost at least $500 million annually, and potentially could have a one-time cost of $1 billion.

Proponents argue that it fights gangs, and helps crime victims. Opponents argue that it spends money needlessly.

No matter how you feel make sure you vote on November 4th.

Proposition 5 is one of the few non-bond initiatives that could impact taxes on this year’s California ballot. Proposition 5 changes sentencing for drug offenses, which may be good or bad depending on your views.

It definitely impacts taxes, though. The initiative allocates $460 million to expand treatment programs for drug offenders; it increases costs by over $1 billion for expanding drug treatment and rehabilitation programs. It may also save over $1 billion by decreasing prison and/or parole operating costs.

Proponents argue that it will increase treatment programs, decrease prison overcrowding, and save money. Opponents argue that it shortens parole for some violent drug offenders, would cause damage to schools, sets up two new bureaucracies, and increases social costs.

This is a very complex proposition that deserves perusal before you vote.

These three propositions do not directly impact taxes. Proposition 4 would mandate a waiting period for 48 hours before a minor could have an abortion. Proposition 8 would ban same-sex marriage. Proposition 9 adds victims rights to matters relating to parole.

None of these three initiatives directly impact taxes. They are, though, important matters that you should review (if you’re a Californian). Remember to vote on November 4th.

Yet another bond proposal. This one would raise $980 million in bonds to help children’s hospitals. The downside is that it would cost taxpayers $2 billion per year over $30 years to repay the bonds.

The bonds would be used at msot of the children’s hospitals in the state. Proponents argue that children’s hospitals could use the money to expand and help more children. Opponents argue that the state is in debt, and that hundreds of millions from an earlier version of this proposition (Proposition 61) remain unspent.

Remember to vote on November 4th.