Voter Guide 2004

Posted on by

A guide to how I will be voting and why. Enjoy. The California Voter Guide is available online at http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov

  • Prop 1A – Yes – keeps local tax dollars local. Does not allow the state to rob Peter to pay Paul
  • Prop 59 – Yes – give more access to governmental information. I think that’s a good thing
  • Prop 60 – No – I am content with the vote system we currently have
  • Prop 60A – No – bond repayment is important, but I do not like the way this is worded, it’s a little vague
  • Prop 61 – No – I don’t want to spend $750 million in tax money on childrens hospital repair. I feel the money could be spent on improving healthcare for all people
  • Prop 62 – No – I think this would limit our choice in general elections
  • Prop 63 – No – I think everybody should share the tax burden, at least when it comes to mental care
  • Prop 64 – No – people/parties should have the right to file lawsuits even if physical or monetary damages do not exist. Think environmental and fraud situations.
  • Prop 65 – No – this prop is no longer supported by the people who put it on the ballot. Support has moved to prop 1A
  • Prop 66 – Yes – it’s like rewriting the three strikes law after seeing what was right and what was wrong. Makes a good law better.
  • Prop 67 – No – this one is poorly written. It’s way too broad and could add many more taxes to your cellular and land line phones.
  • Prop 68 – No – this one has nothing to do with tribal gaming and everything to do with adding slot machines to card clubs. I don’t want slots at Hollywood Park.
  • Prop 69 – No – requires DNA collection for criminals, no thanks. Too loose in its wording. I don’t want my DNA collected, criminal or not.
  • Prop 70 – No – California currently has a very good tax-sharing program with the Indian Casinos. This prop would ruin that relationship and not improve the states income.
  • Prop 71 – Yes – California should lead the way in stem cell research. This prop would provide incentive for that.
  • Prop 72 – Yes – large business and corporations should make an effort to provided healthcare for all employees. Currently they have a practice of hiring people and giving them just enough hours so they do not have to provide health care. That is wrong. This prop requires that health care be accessible to all employees of large corporations in California. I think it is a step in the right direction.
  • Vote Kerry � a change is needed, even if that change closely resembles the current regime.

0 thoughts on “Voter Guide 2004”

  1. Well, at least we agree on a couple of them, especially John Kerry.

    I am strongly opposed to 66. While I agree some drug charges should not count as a 3rd strike, passing this amendment will but thousands of criminals back on the streets. This amendment was funded by a wealthy man whose son is in prison for killing 2 people and seriously injuring another. Passing this will reduce his son’s sentence and put an estimated 26,000 criminals back on the street. Judges and DA’s already have discretion not to prosecute petty crimes as 3rd strike offenses. While it says it will save millions, each one of these non-violent crimes will need to be re-sentenced.

    A quote from the Argument against 66 on http://www.smartvoter.org

    “If Proposition 66 passes, arson, residential burglary, attempted burglary, criminal threats, felony gang crimes, and felonies like drunk driving in which innocent people are seriously hurt or killed will no longer be considered “strikes.” Likewise, juvenile sex offenders will no longer receive a strike for seriously injuring an elderly or disabled person during an assault with intent to commit rape.”

    Crime has dropped twice the national average since 3 strikes was introduced.

  2. When you vote no on Prop 70 and then have to continue to drive all the way to Vegas to play craps, you have no one to blame but yourself. You could have had a casino right next door to 81st Street. They want to make losing your rent money easier. How can you argue with that?

  3. Who the hell is that dude in the middle of your graphical header? Maybe you should make the chick on the right bigger.

  4. Yay! Political commentary. This is fun. Here’s my take on 66 (taken from the SF chronicle):

    “BOTTOM LINE: California is the only state with a three-strikes law that applies extended sentences for people convicted of any felony.”

    That seems ridiculous to me. I really don’t have a problem with the fact that this is funded by a guy whose son could be freed if this is passed. 66 doesn’t destroy three strikes, it only puts CA on the same level as the rest of the country.

  6. I think the law (three strikes) is currently too broad, Prop 66 is going to fine tune the law. We are spending way too much money to jail all the criminals who have been emprisioned under three strikes for lesser crimes.

  7. I see you totally ignored my comment about making the hot chick more prominent in favor of an intellectual discussion of proposed measures that affect our economic well-being. Mike, you used to have your priorities straight…