Propositions for Nov. 2020 – Californian Conservative

Proposition 17 – Voting Rights Restoration for Persons on Parole Amendment

This coming November, Californians have several Propositions to vote for. Often times these are quite confusing so I thought I would explain this in laymen’s terms. For what it is worth I will also give my own reasoning on why I support or oppose these Propositions. To see the Propositions in their entirety you can go to www.ballotpedia.org

Proposition 17 is a constitutional amendment that would allow people who are still on parole from felony convictions to vote in California.

Currently, the California Constitution disqualifies people with felonies from voting until their imprisonment and parole are completed. The ballot measure would change the state constitution to allow felons who are on parole to vote. The ballot measure would keep current imprisonment as a disqualification for voting but allow them to vote once they are released from prison and serving their parole.

A “yes” vote supports this constitutional amendment to allow people on parole with felony convictions to vote.

A “no” vote opposes this constitutional amendment, thereby continuing to prohibit people who are on parole for felony convictions from voting.

My Opinion: A No Vote – Why? Voting is a privilege. It needs to be earned back, just like felons need to earn their way back into society by showing they can be a law-abiding citizen. Citizens who obey the law should be the ones who are allowed to vote. If an ex-felon completes their parole, then I believe they have earned that right back. Think about it, do you want felons to be able to vote for “soft on crime” measures? Democrats know they have a tough challenge to beat President Trump and they realize that they need every vote they can get. Like the Mail-In- Ballots they are pushing for, this is just another way for Democrats to widen their voter base yet again. No surprise that the politicians who support this Amendment to the California Constitution are ALL Democrats.

Proposition 16 – Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment

This coming November, Californians have several Propositions to vote for. Often times these are quite confusing so I thought I would explain this in layman’s terms. For what it is worth I will also give my own reasoning on why I support or oppose these Propositions. To see the Propositions in their entirety you can go to www.ballotpedia.org

Proposition 16 will repeal Proposition 209 which voters passed as a Constitutional Amendment that ended Affirmative Action in California.

Affirmative Action is defined as a policy or program providing advantages for people of a minority group who are seen to have traditionally been discriminated against. It’s goal is to create a more egalitarian society through preferential access to education, employment, health care, social welfare, etc. as a policy or a program that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment. The use of such racial quotas and minority set-asides led to court challenges of affirmative action as a form of “reverse discrimination.” In 1978 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that quotas may not be used to reserve places for minority applicants if white applicants are denied a chance to compete for those places. Although the court outlawed quota programs, it allowed colleges to use race as a factor in making admissions decisions as they argued that Asian Students were “over-represented” and had an unfair advantage.

A “yes” vote supports this constitutional amendment to repeal Proposition 209 and, in doing so, would restore Affirmative Action, which says that the state cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.

A “no” vote opposes this constitutional amendment, thereby keeping Proposition 209 and blocking the reinstatement of Affirmative Action, which says that the state cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.

My Opinion: An Emphatic No Vote – Why? This is a form reverse discrimination, especially against the Asian community. What happened to putting your nose to the grindstone and working hard to achieve your own goals? Who wants to have a government policy stating who deserves something more based on their race? Affirmative Action allows less qualified people to receive scholarships, gain contracts or find employment. To quote legendary and Hall of Fame Basketball player, Rick Barry, “The only thing you are entitled to is what you earn.”

If lawmakers were truly concerned with higher education for minorities than they need start earlier, not at the college level but in our public schools. School Choice has been rejected by Democrats and Democratic run Teacher Unions for decades. That is where we need to start because School Choice allows equality for all ethnicities, both male and female.

Proposition 15 – Split-Roll Tax

Proposition 15 Increase funding for Public Schools, Community Colleges, and Local Government Services by Changing Tax Assessment of Commercial and Industrial Property

The ballot initiative would amend the California State Constitution to require commercial and industrial properties, except those zoned as commercial agriculture to be taxed based on their current market value. This would “Split” it into two ways that Property Taxes are collected. This would raise taxes on most commercial properties while leaving residential property taxes alone. Hence the term “Split-Roll” The new way Commercial Properties would be taxed would be based on current market value. This would overturn what was established in 1978 with Proposition 13 which locked in all property taxes to the sell price with annual increases equal to the rate of inflation or 2 percent, whichever is lower.

A Yes Vote supports overturning this State Constitutional Amendment to require commercial and industrial properties, except those zoned as commercial agriculture, to be taxed based on their market value, rather than their purchase price.

A No Vote opposes this constitutional amendment, thus continuing what Proposition 13 established and continue to tax commercial and industrial properties based on a property’s purchase price, with annual increases equal to the rate of inflation or 2 percent, whichever is lower.

My Opinion: A No Vote – Why? This is sneakiness at its best and in multiple ways. First, they claim it is for local School Districts and Community Colleges, but the truth is only 40% will go to that. Also, this is cracking the door open to abolish Proposition 13 altogether. They will start with Commercial Property Taxes and next up will be the Residential Property Taxes. Once we give them an inch, they will try to take a mile. Some may say “So what? Tax big businesses.” But who will ultimately pay the price? The Consumer of course. Businesses will raise prices to offset their higher property taxes. This is a bad Proposition any way you look at it. It would be catastrophic for California’s economy and for consumers if property taxes were raised on every business in California at the same time, over and over again as real estate values rise year after year without limitations.

Proposition 14 – Stem Cell Research Funding

Proposition 14 Authorizes Bonds to Continue Funding Stem Cell and Other Medical Research.

The ballot initiative would issue $5.5 billion in general obligation bonds for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), which was created to fund stem cell research. In 2004, voters approved Proposition 71. As of October 2019, CIRM had $132 million in funds remaining. On July 1, 2019, CIRM suspended applications for new projects due to depleted funds and is now trying to obtain more State funded Bonds Some of the bond funds would be dedicated, including $1.5 billion for research on therapies and treatments for brain and nervous system diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and dementia.

A Yes Vote will support issuing $5.5 billion general obligation bonds for the state’s stem cell research institute.

A No Vote opposes issuing $5.5 billion general obligation bonds for the state’s stem cell research institute.

My Opinion: A No Vote – Why? This is passing the buck to our kids to pay off even more debt in California. Although, I do agree with the good intentions and the studies that they are performing, but this is the country of Capitalism. Big Pharma has the ability to perform their own studies and there are plenty of Philanthropists to contribute to this cause. Also, I believe that the program would be run much more efficiently in the private sector instead of having an open check at the taxpayer’s expense. California already pays too much in taxes and the people who run our State Government have a knack for wasting it.