San Diego Voter Guide - Vote NO!

My TrumpNation Guide To San Diego Ballot Propositions.

In a previous post on California ballot measures, I mostly recommended voting NO.  I am repeating this same recommendation for local ballot initiatives in San Diego.  There is all sorts of disguised skullduggery afoot, as I explain below; so if you don't know, Vote No!



Measure A. 1/2 Cent Sales Tax for SANDAG. NO
They say they will fix potholes with the money; maybe they will maybe they won't.  They can spend the extra money however they want within the listed priorities.

Measure B. Lilac Hill Development near Escondido. YES
The developers are having troubles with the seemingly endless regulation needed to build a project of this size.  So I say yes, as part of my bid to poke the eye of all regulators.

Measure C. Hotel Tax for Downtown Charger Stadium. NO
Raises the hotel tax to build a stadium downtown for the Chargers.  Just say no to professional sports owners getting sweetheart deals from cities.

Measure D. Competing Hotel Tax Measure for Charger Stadium. NO
Supposedly a better deal for taxpayers than Measure C; but my same objection to funding billionaires businesses applies.

Measure E. Removal of City Officials. NO
Provides for removal of "mayor, city attorney and City Council members to forfeit their job outright if they are convicted of a felony, found civilly liable for fraud or declared incapacitated by a court."  Source: VOSD.  Only voters should remove elected officials.  Further, this opens up the door for judicial shenanigans.  A friendly judge could declare the mayor "insane" and voila, the City Council President is Mayor.

Measure F. Probation Period for City Attorneys. NO
This measure would decrease the probationary period for city attorneys from 2 years to 1 year.  The elected City Attorney needs the right to shape the staff, so no. Plus, if this is a problem it can be a campaign issue.  It was one reason I voted for Jan Goldsmith in 2008, because he promised to clean up the managerial practices of the then City Attorney  We need to fix issues by electing the right people, which is why I am voting for Trump.

Measure G. More Teeth for Police Oversight. NO
This would give the Citizens Review Board a new name, more power to investigate and issue subpoenas.  This might be good if the San Diego police were doing a bad job.  But I fear that the police will get hamstrung and crime will rise as a result, like we are seeing in Baltimore, New York, and Chicago.

Measure H. Change to City Contracting Legal Language. NO
Supposedly uncontroversial measure removes requirement to publish advertisement of contracts in local paper, so too bad, NO! Much good work in uncovering corruption has been performed by perusing public documents.  Dave Maass is an example of someone who has done such work.

Measure I. Keep San Diego High School in it Current Location. NO
Directs the city to lease a portion of Balboa Park to the school district which would keep San Diego High in its current location.  I can't help but think this will also save taxpayer dollars and save the flagship high school.

Measure J.  Take More Money out of Mission Bay Rentals. NO
Increases from 25% to 35% the amount of money that the city can shift out of Mission Bay Park to other parks from the rents it produces.  Seems unfair to me.

Measure K.  November Elections No Matter What Happens in June. NO
Requires a run off for Mayor and other offices even if the winner of the June primary got over 50% of the vote.  Since Republicans turn out better during primaries, this favors Democrats.  If Democrats want their lazy voters to make a difference, turn them out in June. 

Measure L.  November Elections for Ballot Measures. NO
Allows certain type of ballot measures to only be voted on in November.  Why bother having a June election if it is meaningless?

Measure M. Raise Limits on Affordable Housing City Manages. NO
This would increase the number of units of "affordable housing" the city is allowed to manage.  Stop all the regulations that prevent new homes from being built instead.

Measure N.  Taxes on Marijuana if Legalized. NO
The only good that would come of legalized weed would be a reduction of violence due to no more black market.  This would re-establish the black market and the violence by raising the price of marijuana above street prices. As we have seen in New York City with the death of Eric Garner, cigarette taxes kill.

Liberty Movement California Ballot Recommendations

This year's ballot measure don't excite me one way or another, so I was late to analyze them.  But they still will have their impact on the state where I reside, so here are my recommendations.  I don't always agree with the larger Tea Party groups; these recommendations are my own small contribution to increase liberty.

Proposition 1 - Water Bond - NO

In this drought stricken year, who could vote against water bonds?  Well, I can, because the taxpayers get stuck with the long term bill for Big Government projects that won't deliver much more water.  The Libertarian Party argument is:

Water projects are best managed and financed by local water boards, rather than writing grants to state bureaucrats trying to secure expensive bond monies.

Proposition 2 - Budget Stabilization - NO

Proposition 2 would require 3% of state General Fund revenue be deposited in a “rainy day”
fund, and allows up to 10% of revenue be deposited in this account. The measure would
allow the rainy day funds to be spent only in the event of a drop in annual revenue below
the preceding year, adjusted for population and inflation, or in a declared emergency.  This seems like a reasonable idea; but I don't like the way that the measure controls how local districts manage their funds.  Under this law local school districts are limited in how much they can put away in a rainy day fund themselves.  In general, more local control is better for liberty.

Proposition 45 - Healthcare Insurance - NO

This measure is designed to continue to make California an unfriendly business climate, in this case for insurers.  I didn't have to research arguments from liberty friendly groups to know this is a loser.

 • Requires changes to health insurance rates, or anything else affecting the charges associated with health insurance, to be approved by Insurance Commissioner before taking effect.
• Provides for public notice, disclosure, and hearing on health insurance rate changes, and subsequent judicial review.
• Requires sworn statement by health insurer as to accuracy of information submitted to Insurance Commissioner to justify rate changes.
• Does not apply to employer large group health plans.
• Prohibits health, auto, and homeowners insurers from determining policy eligibility or rates based  on lack of prior coverage or credit history.

So vote no to prevent even more bureaucracy and those same bureaucrats from mucking with your healthcare insurance, even more than they do so already.

Proposition 46 - Drug and Alcohol Testing of Doctors - NO

Even more intrusive than Proposition 45; how is it the right of the state to commit law-abiding citizens performing their jobs to submit to intrusive monitoring?  It is not.  Further, it requires doctors to check state databases before prescribing you certain types of medication.  There would never be any identity confusion or stealing of information from government run databases that track your prescriptions, would there? Vote no against this madness.

Proposition 47 - Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. - YES

Here is where I am breaking with some in the Tea Party movement.  I think it worthwhile to post the summary of the initiative as it is little known:

• Requires misdemeanor sentence instead of felony for certain drug possession offenses.
• Requires misdemeanor sentence instead of felony for the following crimes when amount involved is $950 or less: petty theft, receiving stolen property, and forging/writing bad checks.
• Allows felony sentence for these offenses if person has previous conviction for crimes such as rape, murder, or child molestation or is registered sex offender.
• Requires resentencing for persons serving felony sentences for these offenses unless court finds unreasonable public safety risk.
• Applies savings to mental health and drug treatment programs, K–12 schools, and crime victims.

I am against three-strike laws and mandatory minimums, because too many travesties of justice have resulted.  This proposition is a good start in reversing a stupid judicial trend.  It also eliminates some felony categories for mere possession of drugs for personal use.  Restoring some reason to sentencing is worthy goal.

Proposition 48 - Indian Gaming Compacts. - Don't Care

Some Indian tribe would be helped, another hurt by this lawsuit over gaming in the Central Valley near Madera.  There will be federal court cases no matter how this turns out.  It seems unreasonable that some tribes get casinos through this process but others don't, but a vote either way on this measure won't solve the process problems.  UPDATE: My oldest, who works in the hospitality industry says that we should always vote for more casinos.  I am still not convinced.


That's all on the propositions.  I am voting for Republicans across the board for all other offices on my ballot, because the Democrats in this state have allied themselves with evil interests.

UPDATE

I am voting for Marshall Tuck for State Superintendent of Public Instruction based on the California Teacher's Association endorsement of his opponent.  From a HuffPo article on the race:

School reform groups have argued that strict work rules and powerful job protections for teachers have made it hard to fire incompetent educators or enact creative local initiatives - at students' expense.
Tuck, a former president of Green Dot Public Schools, a charter school organization, is allied with the reformers. He has the backing of former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and funding from billionaire philanthropist Eli Broad.
Torlakson, a former teacher who has been the state's superintendent of public instruction since 2010, has strong backing from California teachers unions.

Purity vs Practicality Issue on Ballot Measures

What if a ballot measure accomplishes something that you believe, but in the process reaffirms an existing regulation that you find odious, but at least doesn't make it worse? Do you support it? This is my quandary with the proposed ballot initiative I regretted signing in yesterday's post regarding Prohibits Political Contributions by Payroll Deductions initiative. Here is what Richard Rider, taxfighter extraordinaire, had to say on my cross-post in the sdrostra comments:

In particular I disagree on the “payroll deduction” prop’s analysis. B-Daddy is concerned about 1st Amendment issues hobbling corporations and unions funding favored candidates. But in reality — if the measure passes – both unions and corporations are still free to give money to IE (Independent Expenditure) campaigns to support or oppose candidates — as long as these funds are not run or influenced by the candidates.

I’m no expert in this area, but I believe unions are CURRENTLY denied the ability to DIRECTLY give money to candidates. I think that currently corporations can directly fund state candidates, but are often prohibited from funding local candidates for office.

Richard makes some great points. At least I have fewer regrets signing the petition. The purist in me wants to say, tough, I don't support any of these limits and believe that sunshine is the best anticeptic. Unions and corporations should be allowed to contribute but it should be made public. But the realist looks for advancing our goals, without betraying core principles. The question is does support for such an initiative betray core principles. I look forward to reading your opinion in the comments.

Current Ballot Initiative Petitions - My Tea Party Perspective - UPDATE

It's that time in the election cycle where we are seeing a big push to get petitions signed to qualify ballot measures. I signed four petitions over the weekend, and thought I would share what I consider the tea party perspective. (Following Dean's lead, I am going to start using small case for tea party to emphasize that it is a social movement, not a political party.)


"Fair and Open Competition in Construction" initiative
This measure would enjoin the city of San Diego from entering into Project Labor Agreements (PLAs). PLAs generally require agreed upon rules about union participation, prevailing wage rates and other working conditions for each city construction project. There purported (look it up, great word to describe most leftist schemes) rationale is to ensure "fair" working conditions and labor peace on construction projects. Apologists claim that it prevents a "race to the bottom" in construction bidding leading to employment of illegal aliens and other dubious practices. However, as someone with experience in contracting for services to be supplied to the government, I can tell you that lowest bid is only one part of the bidding process. Generally, government can make a judgement on the "best value." That means contractor past performance, variance to independent government estimates, low or high, can be considered and one can even ask for the bona fides of the key employees who will work the project. The real purpose of the PLA is to ensure that union shops, with their higher wage base, can compete with non-union shops. That's a bad deal for the taxpayer. Why would we want to guarantee higher costs on city contracts, when we can still apply a best value criteria?

San Diego Pension Reform
This measure, co-sponsored by Mayor Sanders and Councilmen DeMaio and Faulconer, would put new employees, except police, into a 401(k) style pension, rather than a defined benefits package, bringing the city in line with the private sector, and indeed even the federal government has partially gone this route. The U-T, continuing their drift left, has an article about all of the dangers of 401(k) plans. I agree that there are pitfalls, and we are seeing them in the private sector, but the article misses the point of the measure. The taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook for the risk of pension funding, that risk should go to the employees. People just have to get more informed about managing their own money, starting with the view that their 401(k) contribution should be maximized, and their lifestyle reduced to live on the rest of their income. If that doesn't leave enough spending money, then find more lucrative work, get a promotion, cut back on spending, or something, but don't expect taxpayers to foot the bill and the future risk. This is a huge culture change in America, but twenty years from now, people will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.

Internet Sales Tax aka Referendum to Overturn Law Requiring Internet Retailers to Collect Same Sales or Use Taxes as Other Retailers
This is the so called Amazon sales tax repeal. I am against this because I believe that the state unlawfully is applying the case law and what the term "nexus" means. The Economist has a nice summary of the issues. California is claiming that because Amazon contracts with local retailers who use the Amazon platform to sell their wares, they have a "nexus" in California. This is just a tax grab of course, smoke and mirrors to try and balance the California budget with new taxes. Why have the courts ruled against such taxes in the past? From the Economist:

. . .Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that states cannot force retailers without an in-state presence, or “nexus”, to collect sales tax; it would lead to chaos in interstate commerce, since America has some 8,000 different sales-tax jurisdictions that are constantly changing their rules and are not even aligned with zip codes. But there was ambiguity in that awkward word, nexus.

It is up to the Congress to normalize sales tax collection on cross border sales among the states, because that actually is a proper regulation of interstate commerce envisioned by the founders, unlike say, forcing individuals to buy a product just because they are alive. That said, I'm not sure how this circle can be squared, because too many states have no sales tax. Regardless, California's new law will actually decrease tax revenue as retailers associated with Amazon flee the state or shut down. Certainly, they won't be able to use Amazon as their platform any longer, as Amazon has given them the boot. Mrs. Daddy can't even earn a paltry few bucks by recommending products on her blog any more, this is a crappy law.

Prohibits Political Contributions by Payroll Deductions
I might have made a mistake on this one. What caught my eye was that it would prohibit unions from collecting dues through payroll deductions that could be used for political purposes and required an in writing requirement, to be certified annually. Here is the language from the Secretary of State web site:

Restricts union political fundraising by prohibiting use of payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. Same use restriction would apply to payroll deductions, if any,by corporations or government contractors. Permits voluntary employee contributions to employer or union committees if authorized yearly, in writing. Prohibits unions and corporations from contributing directly or indirectly to candidates and candidate-controlled committees.

Stop the presses, that last sentence bothers me. As much as I dislike unions, I dislike the thought of trampling First Amendment rights even more. I don't think the last sentence would withstand court scrutiny, but I am now sorry I signed this petition.

Here is one I passed on.

Americans Elect petition to be a political party.
This one is a little odd. This organization is trying to set up a political party for the purpose of having a single nationwide primary to determine who would be the Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees, outside of the existing political parties. To make their plan work, they have to qualify as a political party themselves. I haven't given this enough thought, nor do I know anything about the organization, but it looks suspicious. Irregular Times blog has more.

That's a wrap on the weekend's political activity. When you go shopping, you're likely to be accosted by a petition gatherer, so let's be careful out there.

UPDATE

I changed the title of this article slightly adding the word "My" to respond to criticism that I was somehow representing the full tea party position. I am not, because there is no such thing, but I like to avoid confusion.

Second there were some questions about Fair and Open Competition, so here is the language from the petition.

Except as required by state or federal law as a contracting or procurement obligation, or as a condition of the receipt of state or federal funds, the City shall not require a Contractor on a Construction Project to execute or otherwise become a party to a Project Labor Agreement as a condition of bidding, negotiating, awarding or the performing of a contract.

Finally, my post on July 26 re-examines the payroll deduction issue.

Opposing Tax Increases on the California Ballot - UPDATE 2

Governor Jerry Brown's plan to combine tax increases with some spending reductions appears to be popular:

A Field Poll released this week showed that 61 percent of voters, including 56 percent of Republicans, want the state to have a special election on the budget. Fifty-eight percent of voters say they would favor extending the temporary taxes.

This poses a difficult question of principle for me. Normally, I am in favor of forcing tax increases to have a public vote. However, I don't think that the public understands that public pensions are not part of the package that the governor is offering. In a little reported upon survey, Californians overwhelmingly support pension reform. From Bloomberg:

California voters support limits on public-employee pensions by a 3-to-1 margin, according to the Field Poll.

Seventy-three percent of those surveyed favor a cap on the amount of salary used to calculate pension benefits, compared with 20 percent opposed, according to the statewide survey by Field and the University of California, Berkeley, released today. Forty-two percent said the pensions are “too generous,” up from 32 percent two years ago.

Right now, the Democrats need a few Republican votes to extend for five more years the one-cent increase in the state sales tax, the ½ percent increase in vehicle license fees and the ¼ percent increase in personal income taxes that the state enacted in 2009. That's quite a few extra taxes, that cost the average family $1000 per year.

I believe the Republicans should demand concessions on pensions before this goes to a vote of the public. But I would like to know what you think? What is the principled position here? Should Republicans use their limited power to push for pension reform as the price to be paid for putting tax increases on the ballot? Please take my poll.

UPDATE

I forgot to mention that I had cross posted this article sdrostra.com. In the rostra comments, the ever reliable tax-fighter, Richard Rider, provides some additional facts:

Previously, a family with two children received a state income tax credit of $638. Under the “temporary tax increase” package, that credit is slashed to $196 — an effective annual tax increase of $442. For a middle class family suffering in today’s economy, that $442 is a MAJOR tax increase.

Moreover, this 2009 increase, along with the income tax rate increase, EXPIRED on 1/1/2011. Brown’s proposal is not an EXTENSION of the old income tax increase — it is a NEW “temporary” tax. Hence if voters REIMPOSE this expired tax, all the withholding will have to be done in the last half of the year, which will hammer modest income families the worst.

UDPATE 2

Also, W.C. Varones let me know that the Income tax hike expired Jan 1, so that is a pure tax increase. The media and the governor continue to portray the measure as a tax extension, but that is obviously not true for the income tax.