Well,
I have read through the Information Guide for Props 1 through 3 so far.
Proposition 1: High Speed Rail
$9.95B for a network of high speed electric trains.
First -- can I say it is highly annoying to read the arguments FOR any bond measure that is paid back through the General Fund that shout "WITHOUT RAISING TAXES". While it is true that a specific amount is not listed to be taxed on any particular group, to pay the P&I installments on the bond either something else must be cut OR additional revenue needs to be raised. And the only way of raising revenue for the General Fund is really to raise taxes.
I like the idea of the bond overall -- and I think this will need to be done at some point within 10 to 15 years. The additional money spent would mostly go to construction and engineering firms, which would provide jobs.
But -- we need local INTRACITY options for commuters before we need INTERCITY options. The amounts raised are not enough to actually fully do what they want to do. And we simply can't afford more expensive projects like this in a bad economy and in a time of spiraling state deficits.
I say NO.
Prop 2: Farm Animal Cruelty
Lukewarm -- not much analysis here. I am not in general a tree-hugger or worry too much about animals I intend on eating. This pretty much will fall under where you stand on animals.
Yet -- I see potential for healthier animals with this in the Code. The price of eggs may rise by about $.01 per egg, and I'm okoay with that. I find it disingenuous for the AGAINST crowd to argue that there would be a higher risk of disease.
I say YES.
Prop 3: Children's Hospital Bond
$980M for construction, expansion, and equipping of children's hospitals.
Again, as with Prop 1, my overall argument against this is that we simply cannot spend more at the moment. Most bond issues have good intentions, yet if we really want a balanced budget and cut spending, we have to say NO sometimes.
There are some great points to make for this issue -- and adding capacity for hospitals is definitely needed. But again, it is a question of what we can afford right now.
I say NO.
I'll cover more Propositions in the next few days...
Regards,
Trond
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
So far I'm in agreement with your rational for the first 3 props. I'm voting NO on 2. While I don't agree with animals being treated cruelly, I would thing if enough people believed in it, they would simply stop eating meat, or purchase meat that was marked organic or kosher (sp?). If enough people did so, then animals would have to be treated better. I see no reason to enact a law.
I would agree that it's a matter of choice on how you vote on prop 2.
Post a Comment