Spinny Says™ (YES or NO) on the CA Propositions

Most Californians would rather cover themselves in honey and lie down next to a fire ant hill than read through all the propositions. This post is for you, my fellow CA brothers and sisters. This is my breakdown of the propositions, and my suggestions on how to vote (Spinny Says™). Suggestions is the key word. Even though it’s tedious and you would rather do the honey/ants thing, I encourage everyone to read the propositions and decide for yourselves.

There are 11 Propositions on the ballot this year. What fun! Yeah, right.

  • Choice #1 for tax increases. This one is Governor Brown’s baby. It increases the sales tax to 7.50% (from 7.25%). It also creates 4 high income tax brackets:

    1. 10.3% (from 9.3%) for incomes over $250K but less than $300K
    2. 11.3% (from 9.3%) for incomes over $300K but less than $500K
    3. 12.3% (from 9.3%) for incomes over $500K but less than $1M
    4. 13.3% (from 10.3%) for incomes over $1M

    Both taxes are temporary. The sales tax will be in effect for 4 years and the high income taxes will be in effect for 7 years.

    Spinny Says™ YES on Proposition 30.

  • Instead of a yearly budget, whose deadline CA legislators usually ignore, this would be a budget for 2 years. Legislators can’t spend more than $25M without showing where they will cut spending to offset it. It permits the governor the power to cut the budget as needed if the Legislature fails to act during declared fiscal emergencies. It will also change the Constitution by amending sections and adding a new article and new section.

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. On the surface, it looks really cool. You can’t spend over $25M without showing how you’re going to make up for it. And if there are emergencies and the legislature is deadlocked (happens often), the governor can slice and dice the budget. And changing the CA constitution just by approving this proposition? The proposition gives too much power to the Governor and changes the constitution the minute it’s approved.

    Spinny Says™ NO on Proposition 31.

  • This bans both corporate and union contributions to state and local candidates. It bans contributions by government contractors to the politicians who control contracts awarded to them. It also bans deductions of employees’ wages to go to political causes.

    This one is another that looks good on the surface. However, you don’t have to dig deep to find out that this proposition is bad news. The ones that wrote the proposition exempted themselves. So they can contribute all they want. A state legislator can get money from them to promote their agenda because they wrote it for everyone but themselves. Tricky tricky. Spinny no likey.

    Spinny Says™ NO on Proposition 32.

  • This allows insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver carried auto insurance with any other company. It also allows insurance companies to increase the cost of insurance if they haven’t maintained continuous coverage. If you lost your job or were engaged in military service (for less than 90 days), you’re still considered continuously covered.

    I could say sponsored by a billionaire insurance baron and “enough said,” but I’ll delve into it. Say you have an uninsured driver. They see the light and say, “I should be responsible and have insurance too!” If this proposition passes, they’ll see that the price of their premium is super high because they weren’t “continuously covered.” Would this make them want to buy insurance? And what about the people who lost their jobs and have been out of work longer than 90 days (the norm)? Or military service men and women who were deployed (usually a lot longer than 90 days). What do they get when they finally find a job or for their service to this country? Higher insurance premiums!

    Spinny Says™ NO on Proposition 33.

  • Ends the death penalty. Future sentences are “life in prison without the possibility of parole.” People already on death row will have their sentences commuted to “life in prison without the possibility of parole.” Those found guilty of murder will be required to work in prison. Their wages will be applied to victim restitution fines.

    I am a Liberal who supports the death penalty. I believe that some crimes require you to pay with your life. The sentence should not be meted out lightly – having DNA evidence and a confession is best. I think those sentenced to death should have one appeal within a two-year period. If they lose that appeal, they will be put to death. Harsh? Yes. Sorry, but I don’t want to be paying for a criminal’s room, board, and endless appeals.

    This one boils down to your beliefs. For me:

    Spinny Says™ NO on Proposition 34.

  • Increases criminal penalties for human trafficking – like 15 years to Life prison sentences, up to $1.5M in fines. Requires those convicted of trafficking register as sex offenders. Requires sex offenders to provide information on their internet activities.

    Another at first glance it looks good proposition. Study further, and you’ll see that it isn’t. The main thing that disturbs me about this is the retroactive classification of “sex offender.” If you were a sex worker, even as a victim of a trafficker, you would be required to register as a sex offender. That’s punishing the victim!!

    Spinny Says™ NO on Proposition 35.

  • Revises three strikes law to impose life sentence only when new felony conviction is serious or violent. Authorizes re-sentencing for offenders currently serving life sentences if third strike conviction was not serious or violent and judge determines sentence does not pose unreasonable risk to public safety.

    The “three strikes law” was passed in 1994. This is how it works. Strike 1: Serious, violent felony. Strike 2: Another serious and violent felony. Because you have the first strike, whatever the sentence for the crime you committed will be doubled. Strike 3: Any felony. Doesn’t have to be serious. You get life, with the possibility of parole after 25 years.

    The Three Strikes Law was great in theory. What we have now as a result is prison overcrowding. Proposition 36 deals with this problem. It’s important to note that if the serious or violent felonies are murder, rape, or child molestation, the three strikes law still applies to them. They’re not getting out. Save life in prison sentences for these violent offenders (murderers, rapists, and child molesters). Not the ones whose third strike was for a dime bag of meth.

    Spinny Says™ YES on Proposition 36.

  • Requires labeling on food if it is made from plants or animals with their genetic material changed. It also prohibits products with these altered plants and animals in them to be labeled “natural.”

    I want to know what’s in my food. Especially if that food can cause health problems. Genetically engineered soy was fed to mice, and the results found changes in the livers of those mice. I know almost anything we eat now can kill us, but I’d like the package to tell me that it has ingredients that can kill me. Don’t be shady and hide it.

    Do you know who is funding “Vote NO on Proposition 37?” Monsanto. The company that genetically modifies crops. Why don’t they want labels to say they have their genetically modified products? Because you might actually read up on them and not want it in your food? Monsanto was the company that manufactured Agent Orange (herbicidal warfare) for the Vietnam War. That not only killed and maimed Vietnamese people, but veterans who were exposed to it. They also manufactured DDT (pesticide) and said it was perfectly safe in the 1940’s. DDT was banned in the 1970’s for…causing cancer.

    Spinny Says™ YES on Proposition 37.

  • Choice #2 for tax increases. Increases personal income tax rates on annual earnings over $7,316 using sliding scale 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. After, it allocates 85% of revenues to K–12 schools, 15% to early childhood programs. It also prohibits the states from directing new funds.

    This choice looks really cool because schools are actually getting the lion’s share. The thing that gets me is twelve years. No changes can be made to it even if fraud is involved. Sorry, Jerry’s sales tax is only for 4 years and that high earner tax is only for 7. I always want the option to break up with my propositions sooner if they’ve been cheating on me.

    Interestingly, you can vote YES on both Proposition 30 and Proposition 38. The one with the most YES votes will win. Of course, you can also vote NO on both.

    Spinny Says™ NO on Proposition 38.

  • Requires multistate businesses to calculate their California income tax liability based on the percentage of their sales in California. Repeals existing law giving multistate businesses an option to choose a tax liability formula that favors themselves. Dedicates $550 million annually for five years from anticipated revenue for energy efficiency and clean energy jobs.

    Right now, there is a loophole that says these multistate businesses can choose which tax formula to choose. Formula #1: Three Factor Method – location of the company’s sales, property, and employees. If you have more of these in CA, you pay higher taxes. Formula #2: Single Sales Factor – only uses the location of the company’s sales. If 1/4 of a company’s sales were in CA and 3/4 were everywhere else, the 1/4 of the company’s total profits would be subject to CA tax.

    For example, you have a business in New Mexico that sells turquoise jewelry. You sell a lot of turquoise jewelry all over the country, but you’re based in NM. Your staff is there and so is your building. Most of your sales, though, are in CA. When it comes to paying what you owe to CA, would you rather choose Formula #1 (you have no employees or buildings in CA) or Formula #2 (sales). Of course you’d choose #1 because you’d pay less since you have no employees or buildings in CA. Proposition 39 closes this loophole (that wasn’t there before 2009 when it was snuck in). Basically, you have to use Formula #2.

    Spinny Says™ YES on Proposition 39.

  • A “Yes” vote approves, and a “No” vote rejects, new State Senate districts drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission. If the new districts are rejected, the State Senate district boundary lines will be adjusted by officials supervised by the California Supreme Court.

    The new districts were drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission. They are independent. It keeps legislators from drawing the districts to guarantee re-election. Someone neutral does the drawing.

    Spinny Says™ YES on Proposition 40.

12 responses to “Spinny Says™ (YES or NO) on the CA Propositions

  • TerranceH


    Thanks to you, I’m now obligated to do the same thing regarding Michigan Propositions. Fortunately, we only have six of them!!!

  • Michigan’s Propositions: My Recommendations « Sibboleth Nation

    […] of issuing an opinion on the six propositions Michigan has on the ballot this year. But the Spinster issuing opinions regarding California’s propositions obligates me. Besides that, many of […]

  • lbwoodgate

    Nicely done Cheryl. The brief explanations often seem to make it it look like a no-brainer but your breakdown of each proposition does give one pause to think and vote against the obvious conclusion one might draw without researching it a bit further.

    On the death penalty I have mixed feelings on this. I agree that there are people who commit heinous crimes and deserve to be pout to death but this is vindictiveness, not necessarily justice.

    I’m not sure how I would vote on this proposition either but I would consider the facts that the death penalty has not proven to be a deterrent and that in cases where the criminal act was committed by a mentally handicapped individual the evil motive is likely not to exist.

    You would think judges and juries would be able to delineate the differences of a mentally handicapped individual and say a ruthless drug lord type but there was this incident in Arizona where Robert Moorman, who had been sexually abused by his mother most of his life, wound up killing her then cutting her up.

    • Sedate Me

      You don’t do the Death Penalty for the deterrent effect. Just like with torture, it’s not about effectiveness. You do it for the sheer enjoyment of doing it. You don’t really even care that much if the subject is actually guilty. It just makes it easier.

      About the last thing murderers do is sit down, rationally asses the odds of getting caught and do a “risk vs reward” calculation. Most murders are emotionally motivated and most of those that aren’t have less than 10 minutes of thought behind the crime.

      We’ve all watched too many movies and TV shows that portray the “criminal mastermind”. The truth is that most criminals are stone cold morons who can barely tie their shoes. Forget a well orchestrated plan that takes getting caught into consideration. Most criminals are either too stupid or high to even realize that they could get caught. Nor do most care.

      Funny thing about deterrent, you have to have a reasonably functioning brain to be deterred. But if you had a functioning brain, you wouldn’t be running around committing crimes in the first place.

      That’s why handing out harsher punishments just doesn’t work with street crimes and crimes of passion. However, studies have shown harsher punishments may deter white collar crimes.

      So, forget putting murderers to death. Put those financial fraudsters on Wall Street to death. They deserve it as much as anybody else does and it might actually straighten out those left behind.

    • Spinny Liberal

      I don’t think it is a deterrent either. I believe it being used as a punishment for the crime. As far as vindictiveness is concerned, actually, I have no problem with that. Especially for the victim’s families. And I would tend to disagree that it isn’t justice. Justice is when someone is punished for the crime they committed…even if that punishment is their life.

      OK, now that incident in AZ is completely different. Since he was mentally disabled and abused, those are some serious extenuating circumstances. Hell, if it were me, I wouldn’t charge him with a crime. Maybe it’s that vindictiveness thing again.

      • Sedate Me

        Careful with defending the Death Penalty there, Spinny. Sounds like a liberal defending Death Panels. And in the case of the Death Penalty, that’s no hallucinatory conspiracy theory from the freezer-burned mind of some crazy Alaskan bitch.

        I’m against the Death Penalty for numerous reasons, aside from the lack of deterrent effect. The first is the Death Panel argument. Killing citizens is one thing the government shouldn’t be allowed to do. That’s the kind of shit they do in pinnacles of democracy like China & Saudi Arabia. Because no other civilized nation does the Death Penalty.

        1) Courts fuck up a lot, even today. It’s better to point to 100 crazed killers rotting in prison 30 years later with swastikas on their foreheads than it is to point to just one innocent person murdered by the state. (Granted the overwhelming majority of them have never come to light, lest it turn people against the Death Penalty.) Logically speaking, I consider it an extension of the founding attitude of the legal system “better to let many guilty go (live in prison) than jail (murder) one innocent”.

        2) Why some killers and not others? Bias. All the stats show that the darker the suspect and/or lighter the victim, the more likely the Death Penalty will be applied. In practice, it declares that some lives matter more than others. And in the era of “Missing White Girl TV”, this is getting worse, not better. I just don’t like the idea of different levels of “justice” being handed out according to public sympathy or how much ratings potential your case has. Kill all killers, or don’t kill any.

        3) It doesn’t provide the kind of relief to the victim’s family that most people think. Sometimes it does. But even if the best case, it never repairs the loss. However, it DOES make the looky-loos who obsess about high profile crimes from a safe distance something to cheer about, as if the real suffering of people was there for their entertainment like it was an episode of Law & Order. Fucking vultures. It also gives them a false sense of progress against crime.

        4) I think being put to death is the easy way out. If it were me, I’d be eagerly counting down the days until I get the needle, the chair, the firing squad, or whatever. I think spending the rest of your life rotting in the slammer in constant fear of getting shived in the shower and getting ass-raped every night is a much more deserving fate for a murderer.

      • Spinny Liberal

        Courts fuck up a lot, even today.
        Of course they do. That’s why I said it should not be a sentence handed lightly. Strong evidence should be there, preferably DNA and a confessions is always good.

        It’s better to point to 100 crazed killers rotting in prison 30 years later with swastikas on their foreheads than it is to point to just one innocent person murdered by the state.
        How can I not agree? If someone innocent is put to death, it’s a travesty.

        Why some killers and not others? Bias.
        There is a huge difference between some sociopath gunning down someone and a mentally challenged individual killing his abuser.

        Kill all killers, or don’t kill any.
        Sorry but no frickin’ way. Things aren’t always black and white. That’s why there are judges and juries. There may be extenuating circumstances and/or diminished capacity. You have to look at everything.

        It doesn’t provide the kind of relief to the victim’s family that most people think. Sometimes it does. But even if the best case, it never repairs the loss
        If you can give a victim’s family member relief (in the case of “sometimes”), I say definitely. Of course it never repairs the loss. They are going to mourn their loved one forever. Executing someone is about punishment and justice.

        I think being put to death is the easy way out. If it were me, I’d be eagerly counting down the days until I get the needle, the chair, the firing squad, or whatever.
        The operative phrase there is “if it were for me.” There are ones who straight up do not want to die and will exhaust every last appeal. As a taxpayer, I don’t want to pay for any of it. Especially if his murdering ass is guilty as hell. Off him and be done with it.

  • aFrankAngle

    This Oh Crap moment just hit me … although your state doesn’t see a lot of presidential ads, you must get beaten up by these things! OUCH!

    • Spinny Liberal

      OMG. I voluntarily do not have a cell phone, but one of my friends said, “Reach me via text or e-mails.” He didn’t answer his phone because of all the robocalls. Ads for them flooded the radio. TV was more local stuff.

  • Sedate Me

    Vote “Yes” on Prop 427; a proposal to make Sedate Me absolute ruler for life.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: