california prop discussion

[sailingaway]

I don't know the assumptions they used but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have ignored that part in their calculation.

On my experience with that, they will have done so, but in this case I lean the same way despite the numbers, so it doesn't impact my vote. They are very squirrely with cost assumptions on the ballot measures, historically, imho.

 

[sailingaway]

Sure they can, but just not in our current "captured regulator" environment.

Bear in mind that I actually introduced a GMO labeling bill in NC, but if we actually had a free market we wouldn't need it. Problem is that Monsanto owns the regulators, and sues the pants off of anybody who dares label their products "GMO-Free." Monsanto loses those suits, but not before they bankrupt the company doing it, so nobody has the guts to offer GMO free to their customers because they know that's a fast track to bankruptcy. Until we figure out how to deal with THAT, then I am willing to do GMO labeling.

Problem is that mandatory GMO labeling is a very anti-libertarian and anti-free market idea. My support for the idea is only an emergency band-aid until we can restore a real free market and not need it anymore. It will probably take another 15 years to bring about the conditions that allow GMO to be regulated by the free market, given the stranglehold of companies like Monsanto, so until that issue is solved, there are people out there who consifer GMO to be full-on poison, and they have a right to their conscience to decide that they do and do not want to eat.

So GMO labeling is just an emergency stop-gap. It kinda feels like I'm pulling a Paul Ryan "I'm voting against the free market to save the free market" in that particular arena, but I'm still of the same opinion.

The free market COULD handle the GMO question perfectly, but in our current environment it's strictly impossible. I support GMO labeling because I believe that consumers should have the ability to avoid GMO until we can restore the free market and allow the self-regulation of GMO's by allowing GMO-free products to self-label as such.

The logical solution would be to offer blanket lawsuit immunity for products that voluntarily self-label "GMO-Free" (so long as they are being truthful) but you can't do that on the state level because all Monsanto has to do is find one product that crosses the border and sue in that state to the same effect.

I agree here, but I don't agree it is pulling a Paul Ryan because he DOESN'T take the next step and say 'get rid of the corporate-crony regulators warping the free market', whereas with us, we jump at every chance to limit them.

 

[WhistlinDave]

Definitely yes on 36. People should not be locked up for life for three felonies if they are non-violent crimes. Prop 36 is a vast improvement to the current three strikes law and will allow potentially 3,000 inmates currently serving life sentences (but for crimes that were non-violent including simple possession charges) to petition the court for a reduction in their sentences and an early release. Releasing those inmates could save the state $150 million to $200 million per year according to ballotpedia.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_36,_Changes_in_the_%22Three_Strikes%22_Law_%282012%29

If you read the full text of the proposition, it will absolutely not let inmates get reduced sentences if they were child molesters, murderers, attempted murderers, or rapists.

http://www.kcet.org/news/ballotbrief/elections2012/propositions/prop-36-read-the-text.html

Edit: Posted the wrong link initially. Just fixed it.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Got it. The proponents of repealing the death penalty say that it would save the state about $100 million annually. So we have repeal death penalty, possibly save $100M annually, and transfer $100M over 4 years from the General Fund to a specific fund. Is this worth voting to for or not? I am planning to vote Yes but I would like to hear other people's opinions.

Yeah, it's probably worth the vote, but my gut would be churning HARD over it. You can't balance a budget if your appropriations are not balanced against finances. And the wishful thinking of "well, this thing over here will probably generate the finance" doesn't cut it. Wishful thinking is not revenue.

 

[sailingaway]

Can you explain your reasoning?

Unions would still be able to spend money for political purposes even if Prop 32 passes. They just need to gather donations from voluntary individuals.

Things like this would still continue if Prop 32 passes or fails:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog...5/auto-union-gives-1-million-obama-super-pac/

I keep coming back to it not being right for government to limit people getting automatic deductions if the WANT to. All the ads say 'stops involuntary contributions' but it stops voluntary ones in the way workers can easiest budget them, by automatic deduction, as well. Weighed against that is that the unions themselves CAN be but aren't always, involuntary. THEM I agree with, or when it is involuntary. But I have a problem with stopping people from voluntarily deducting political contributions from their pay, I don't even know if it is Constitutional.

So on this one I am still going back and forth. I think they could easily have avoided this problem by drafting it better.

 

[WhistlinDave]

Sure they can, but just not in our current "captured regulator" environment.

Bear in mind that I actually introduced a GMO labeling bill in NC, but if we actually had a free market we wouldn't need it. Problem is that Monsanto owns the regulators, and sues the pants off of anybody who dares label their products "GMO-Free." Monsanto loses those suits, but not before they bankrupt the company doing it, so nobody has the guts to offer GMO free to their customers because they know that's a fast track to bankruptcy. Until we figure out how to deal with THAT, then I am willing to do GMO labeling.

Problem is that mandatory GMO labeling is a very anti-libertarian and anti-free market idea. My support for the idea is only an emergency band-aid until we can restore a real free market and not need it anymore. It will probably take another 15 years to bring about the conditions that allow GMO to be regulated by the free market, given the stranglehold of companies like Monsanto, so until that issue is solved, there are people out there who consifer GMO to be full-on poison, and they have a right to their conscience to decide that they do and do not want to eat.

So GMO labeling is just an emergency stop-gap. It kinda feels like I'm pulling a Paul Ryan "I'm voting against the free market to save the free market" in that particular arena, but I'm still of the same opinion.

The free market COULD handle the GMO question perfectly, but in our current environment it's strictly impossible. I support GMO labeling because I believe that consumers should have the ability to avoid GMO until we can restore the free market and allow the self-regulation of GMO's by allowing GMO-free products to self-label as such.

The logical solution would be to offer blanket lawsuit immunity for products that voluntarily self-label "GMO-Free" (so long as they are being truthful) but you can't do that on the state level because all Monsanto has to do is find one product that crosses the border and sue in that state to the same effect.

This is really interesting. I didn't know this. And you're right, voluntary non-GMO labeling does solve the problem via the free market. Thank you for posting this.

So... Here's what I want to know. What the hell cause of action does Monsanto have to sue somebody for labeling their product non-GMO? If all their suits ultimately fail (even if they achieved their objective by bankrupting the non-GMO food producer), then couldn't someone successfully counter-sue them for bringing a frivolous suit, and get huge punitive damages awarded, and thereby prevent Monsanto from ever doing it again? (Or at least make them think really hard before trying it again?)

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't know the assumptions they used but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have ignored that part in their calculation.

You'd be surprised. Never never never assume things have been accounted for unless they are stipulated in the bill or in a legislatively produced fiscal note.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

This is really interesting. I didn't know this. And you're right, voluntary non-GMO labeling does solve the problem via the free market. Thank you for posting this.

So... Here's what I want to know. What the hell cause of action does Monsanto have to sue somebody for labeling their product non-GMO? If all their suits ultimately fail (even if they achieved their objective by bankrupting the non-GMO food producer), then couldn't someone successfully counter-sue them for bringing a frivolous suit, and get huge punitive damages awarded, and thereby prevent Monsanto from ever doing it again? (Or at least make them think really hard before trying it again?)

LOL you would think right? It just somehow never seems to work out that way in the real world though.

One of my biggest awakenings in the GA was that you have to deal with reality as it presents itself, and apply principles to that as best you can, and sometimes you can't make a very good match. When you have to deal with the way things DO work as opposed to the way things SHOUD work, it throws a wrench in the gears and you gave to come up with....creative...solutions to unwrench the gears.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I keep coming back to it not being right for government to limit people getting automatic deductions if the WANT to. All the ads say 'stops involuntary contributions' but it stops voluntary ones in the way workers can easiest budget them, by automatic deduction, as well. Weighed against that is that the unions themselves CAN be but aren't always, involuntary. THEM I agree with, or when it is involuntary. But I have a problem with stopping people from voluntarily deducting political contributions from their pay, I don't even know if it is Constitutional.

So on this one I am still going back and forth. I think they could easily have avoided this problem by drafting it better.

That's like every bill ever written, ever.


ETA: MOST automatic deductions are voluntary, they are called "dues check-off payments" where you (the employee) check off a box for deductions to a given org and write in the amount. Even then people get pressured to do it as 'voluntary' can be a wink wink nod nod thing. And I have seen the damage it does to public sector employees, so I would be 100% all-in to remove ALL check-off dues from public sector employee checks (voluntary or otherwise), as it is a blatant conflict of interest for the government to be paying checks to groups that lobby the government. However, I vehemently oppose making such a restriction against private sector organisations, as no government should have a right to regulate private right to contract like that.

 

[Jumbo Shrimp]

That's like every bill ever written, ever.

Except those written by a certain freshman state representative from North Carolina

 

[WhistlinDave]

Can you explain your reasoning?

Unions would still be able to spend money for political purposes even if Prop 32 passes. They just need to gather donations from voluntary individuals.

Things like this would still continue if Prop 32 passes or fails:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog...5/auto-union-gives-1-million-obama-super-pac/

People have the right to freely associate. That includes Unions. If people don't like paying union dues via payroll deduction, and/or if they don't like the political contributions the union makes with a portion of their dues, then they don't have to belong to the union and can go find work elsewhere.

Why is it a good idea to use government force to tell a group of people who have freely chosen to associate with one another what they can and can't do? Can you explain your reasoning?

 

[dannno]

I have never voted for a bill that made an appropriation without an equivalent finance. ALL appropriations come from the General Fund unless it is specialized like a highway bill from a specialized highway fund. So whether it comes from the General Fund or not is irrelevant. Taking money from the general fund without financing the appropriation is a recipe for deficits and debt.

Wouldn't it also depend on whether the state actually saved $100million+ as proponents of the anti-death penalty measure claim?

 

[tsai3904]

People have the right to freely associate. That includes Unions. If people don't like paying union dues via payroll deduction, and/or if they don't like the political contributions the union makes with a portion of their dues, then they don't have to belong to the union and can go find work elsewhere.

Why is it a good idea to use government force to tell a group of people who have freely chosen to associate with one another what they can and can't do? Can you explain your reasoning?

I have no problem with private unions. I do have problems with govt unions given the huge conflict of interest and the fact that there are MANY govt jobs where you are forced to join the union just to get the job. Govt jobs should not have those kinds of restrictions.

 

[sailingaway]

People have the right to freely associate. That includes Unions. If people don't like paying union dues via payroll deduction, and/or if they don't like the political contributions the union makes with a portion of their dues, then they don't have to belong to the union and can go find work elsewhere.

Why is it a good idea to use government force to tell a group of people who have freely chosen to associate with one another what they can and can't do? Can you explain your reasoning?

In California there are entire professions, including particularly in government, where you can't get work, realistically speaking, without joining a union. I am definitely against FORCED unions.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Wouldn't it also depend on whether the state actually saved $100million+ as proponents of the anti-death penalty measure claim?

Only if they could detail HOW that money was saved and HOW those savings were going to increase the General Fund and THEN appropriate the increase. Otherwise deficit and debt. In this particular case, with the funds appropriated to specific crimes, I don't have much of an issue with the appropriation itself (except for the general idea that police are already overfunded now), because it's not like they are budgeting the money for APC's and sound cannons...other than the fungible aspect of money which could lead to that. But this is just a feel-good 'get murders and rapists off the streets' thing which all-in-all is not a BAD goal, I think it's just irrelevant. I don't think the increased spending will have any impact at all. It would be better without the $100M altogether, it looks like a plum specifically designed to encourage people who don't know any better to vote for the thing.

Because I don't think in the end that the $100M will have any impact whatsoever on ANY aspect of police work, it comes down to whether the appropriation is funded properly or whether it will lead to debt. $100M added to the police budget in California is like adding a penny to a $10k account. It won't even be noticed. It's not enough to do good, it's not enough to do ill. It's meaningless.

 

[WhistlinDave]

I have no problem with private unions. I do have problems with govt unions given the huge conflict of interest and the fact that there are MANY govt jobs where you are forced to join the union just to get the job. Govt jobs should not have those kinds of restrictions.

I agree with you on government jobs; I have a few brothers who are teachers and they don't have a choice if they want to be teachers in the public school system. Fair point.

Still though, the only intention and function of this proposition is to cripple the political power of unions, while leaving big corporations untouched. It seems like a bad idea to me. Unions are, after all, groups of individuals, and at least their political maneuverings usually are intended to benefit those individuals in some way, whereas corporations' political contributions rarely have the best interest of individual citizens in mind. So I am not going to vote to limit one while the other is still free to run rampant.

Also I think it's worth noting that unions are not what's bankrupting our state. There is too much big government across the board. Some of the worst additions to our debt are huge multi-billion dollar bond measures (like the high speed rail project, just one example) that were enacted by the voters.

 

[WhistlinDave]

In California there are entire professions, including particularly in government, where you can't get work, realistically speaking, without joining a union. I am definitely against FORCED unions.

I agree. I just don't think prop 32 does anything substantially constructive, and it is misleading because it only targets one specific type of special interest.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Except those written by a certain freshman state representative from North Carolina

LOL thanks, I wish - I only STARTED thinking about politics in 2007. There are still a lot of things I don't know and don't know how to account for. I may be better than most at looking for unintended consequences of a given piece of legislation, but I don't have enough experience to REALLY foresee the potentials.

Take for example my HB587 NC Job Growth through Regulatory Reform. WAY better than the Joint Committee's establishmentarian Reg Reform bill, but still ridiculously complicated, so there would have to be some unforeseen unintended consequences coming from it that would need to be addressed a few years down the road when those consequences surfaced.

 

[dannno]

$100M added to the police budget in California is like adding a penny to a $10k account. It won't even be noticed. It's not enough to do good, it's not enough to do ill. It's meaningless.

So can this be an argument to vote for it since it is abolishing the death penalty?

I would certainly prefer a bill that abolished the death penalty and didn't include the $100 million in police funding, this is just starting to remind me of the game 'would you rather _do this really gross thing_ or __this other really gross thing__'

 

[GunnyFreedom]

So can this be an argument to vote for it since it is abolishing the death penalty?

I would certainly prefer a bill that abolished the death penalty and didn't include the $100 million in police funding, this is just starting to remind me of the game 'would you rather _do this really gross thing_ or __this other really gross thing__'

LOL I know right?

More accurately, the $100M is a sop to the police lobby to make them less likely to openly oppose the measure.

Removing the beam of the death penalty is far more of a priority than the mote of a drop in the bucked in the policing budget, so I'd probably vote for it, I just wouldn't like it and would have to control the urge to retch while doing so.

It would be nice if we could trust our police and district attorneys, because for certain cases the death penalty really is appropriate. Here again is one of those "I support this only because our current environment is terribly screwed up."