You know what I thought would be a super funsy post here in the first week of November of a quadrennial year? Hey, how about a political post!

Wait, where are you going? 

Don’t worry, I’m not going to disparage your favored candidate. Besides, living in California, my vote in that particular election doesn’t mean shit.

But for those of you who just suffered through two months of presidential ads, I figured I’d give you a bit of schadenfreude delving into the crap we actually DO have to vote for in this dystopia: Ballot Measures.

Sometimes we get fun propositions, like if we can eat horse meat or if porn should have condoms. Unfortunately, this year there isn’t anything exciting. At least two of them seem to do absolutely nothing. Then there’s Prop. 34, which I’ve read about ten times and still can’t make heads or tails of. So if I need to suffer through this crap, how’s about we have a little fun?

We’ve got ten propositions this year, numbered, are you ready for this? 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36.

How the fuck did we come up with this numbering system? There are two ways a proposition can get on the ballot: regular people (meaning special interests) can collect signatures on initiatives or the legislature can put it there.

For most of our history, all of those various initiatives and legislative proposals were mixed together and numbered based on when they made it to the Secretary of State’s office. The numbers used to keep going up for 20 or 30 years, then reset, but they changed it to starting over once per decade because having propositions in the triple digits might “confuse voters.”

But ten non-sequential numbers are perfectly fine and not in any way intended to be confusing.

A couple decades ago, the legislature decided to designate some of its “most important” measures as Prop 1, or sometimes Prop 1A, to signal to us rubes “Hey, I’m super serial! This is important. Don’t bother reading it, just vote yes.”

The first “special” proposition I remember was Prop 1A that allowed Indian casinos. If it was just plopped in the middle of other propositions, the stupid voters might… forget they like gambling?

Later, in 2008, we had another Prop 1A that funded the high-speed rail. It was going to connect San Francisco and Los Angeles by 2020 at a price of less than $10 billion. As of this writing, the plan is to connect Merced and Bakersfield by 2035 at a price of more than $30 billion. 

Of course, once they’d established this idea of the legislature’s favorite projects getting special ballot designation, it was bound to get out of hand. How can a bunch of politicians determine which of their brilliant ideas is the MOST brilliant? Especially in the home of virtue signaling.

So we have finally reached maximum skullduggery and clustfuckery. The five single-digit propositions were all put on by the legislature. The double-digit propositions are all the voter-signature ones. In a state that allegedly believes in the power of the people, we’re gonna segregate the chosen propositions from those of the riffraff. 

It’s like every English teacher I’ve ever met, who can simultaneously believe that a) the masses have more validity than the elite and b) Wikipedia is the devil’s tool. 

So anyway, here’s my convoluted attempt to figure out our convoluted ballot.

Propositions 2 and 4. Bonds for schools (2) and a whole bunch of other shit (4). 

Ah, good ol’ bonds. The legislature’s always adding bonds. If you don’t know what a bond is, it’s debt. California loves them, because they pretend it’s free money. Unlike the federal government, the state government allegedly has a balanced budget. Passing bonds is like getting a mortgage. Get the fun stuff now, pay it off over the next thirty years, and your current budget is balanced! No drawbacks!

Unless you’re getting three new mortgages every November. That might not be sound financial advice.

They claim that bonds don’t raise taxes. In the short run, technically, that’s true. But the money needs to be paid back, which, follow me here, will require taxes. Or cuts to other areas of the budget. If you get a loan, it might not increase your costs this month or next month, but you eventually have to pay it back. 

My favorite bond debate of all time was in 1998, when the California government had a surplus of over $4 billion, but also “needed to” pass a $9 billion bond. When you figured the cost of interest and inflation, that $4 billion surplus could’ve bought pretty much everything that was in the bond. But why spend a one-time surplus on one-time expenditures?

I mean, if you’ve got a $5 bill in your hand and want to buy a candy bar, you’re not going to actually spend that $5 bill, are you? It’s MUCH smarter to charge that candy bar, prefereably on a credit card that’ll charges 20% interest or so. Then make the minimum payments for twenty years.

That 1998 bond was scheduled to be paid off over 25 years which, if my math is correct, means it just finished being paid off last year. So that would mean it’s a perfect time to pass a new bond. Except we also passed school bonds in 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2014. Which means my math probably isn’t correct, because obviously our schools are terrible. 

We’ve also passed over twenty other statewide bonds in the same timeframe. I thought schools were #1, but a little research shows that “Clean Water” is the clear winner, with SEVEN bonds being passed in the last twenty-five years. And if Proposition 4 passes, that’ll grow to eight, because one of the “whole bunch of other shit” I referenced above is water.

Holy crap, how bad is our water? And why is it that, after those seven bonds, I still am advised to use a filter?

Proposition 5. Lowering the bond vote for affordable housing and public infrastructure to 55. 

Woo-Hoo, more bonds! This is for local bonds, not statewide bonds. Historically, those required a 2/3 vote because, unlike the statewide bonds which magically have no affect on taxes or budgeting, local bonds are specifically paid for by property taxes. In theory, property taxes are predominantly paid by homeowners. Technically, many landlords will pass some of those tax increases on to renters, but probably not all of it. So to prevent the majority of voters from imposing a tax on a minority of voters, they required a supermajority threshold.

Ah, the good old days.

Nowadays we LOVE taxing small subsets of the population. Any time there’s a tax on smokers or small business owners or solar panel users, we pass it. But not boozers or porn watchers, because they’re probably in the majority. Taxes for thee, not for me.

I think we need a “Tax Someone Else” poo-bah who would ensure that nothing you get “free” from the government comes out of your own taxes. Gas tax collected in S.F. fixes roads in L.A. and vice versa. Because we love, love, love raising other people’s taxes.

That Grand Poo-Bah, of course, would get a million-dollar salary. And if I write the proposition, I should get the job.

I thought we had already lowered the vote threshold on local bonds down to 55, but I guess that was only for school bonds. I remember when that proposition was being debated, it was hilarious because both sides used the same argument. 

PRO: If this passes, eighty percent of ALL BONDS would pass.

CON: If this passes, EIGHTY PERCENT of all bonds would pass!!!

Proposition 3 (Right to Marriage) and Proposition 6 (Involuntary Solitude).

I’m putting these two together because they both seem to be virtue signals that won’t actually accomplish anything.

Proposition 3 would allow for gay marriage. Last time I checked, that was already legal across the country. And yes, I know Roe v Wade shows us that the Supreme Court might occasionally reverse itself, but most of the Supreme Court watchers I follow claim that Obergefell v. Hodges, which established gay marriage, is on much more solid ground than Roe was. Roe was always argued as a privacy issue, not an equal protection or unenumerated rights issue. I kinda feel it always should’ve been argued using the ninth amendment, not the fourteenth. 

Plus, guess what? Abortion is still legal in California. Just like, I assume, gay marriage will be if the Supreme Court reverses Obergefell. Yes, technically we have an old proposition on the books that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, but that was already being ignored long before the Supreme Court got involved. Herr Kommandant Newsom first made a name for himself when, as mayor of San Francisco, he proctored the wedding of some gay couples. Neither he nor they were arrested. Quite the opposite, he used it as a springboard to run for state office. 

Proposition 6 seems even more pointless by ending slavery in California.

Finally!

I can’t tell you how sad it is to see all the slaves wandering around downtown unaware that manumission was won after their state lost the War between the States a scant century and a half ag… wait a second, wasn’t California on the Union side? We never had any slaves here.

Shh… don’t tell the people who are working on California’s slavery reparations…

Oh, wait, our state constitution says that prisoners can work without pay. Back in the 1950s, they cleaned up highways and made license plates. Now the latter is done by machine and the former pretty much never happens. 

Are prisons still using slave labor? No. 

But because the constitution lists this as “involuntary solitude,” someone decided we ought to have a whole fucking proposition. Oh, it also says they can’t be punished for refusing to work. Can I get that to apply to my work, too?

The “For” argument claims they’ll still be able to work for “time credit,” but we’ll see. A similar “For” argument said we’d have a high-speed rail by now.

The voter’s guide says that no “No” argument was submitted. Of course not. Who’s going to make the argument for slavery? 

I will. Here: It’s an utterly pointless proposition. Prisoners aren’t being organized into slave crews. The only things you are voting for is to a) maybe make some “good time” work have to pass through more loopholes, and b) allowing some politician to pat themself on the back. 

Scratch that. Reverse them. The politician is the primary purpose here. The prisoners are merely props. 

Proposition 32. Minimum Wage

Okay, now we’re into the voter-originated measures. Starting with minimum wage.

In California, we raised minimum wage from $10 an hour to $15 an hour over the course of the late 2010s. Every January 1, it went up a dollar, finishing in 2022 when it finally hit the mandated $15.

Then it went up to $15.50, then $16.00. Because it’s now tied to inflation. 

This proposition would raise it to $17 this coming January, then $18 by the following January. Considering 18 is only a little more than 5% higher than 17, I kinda feel like there’s a really good chance the minimum wage would be up to $18 by 2026 anyway? 2027 at the latest?

Not to mention that we now pay fast food employees a minimum wage of $20. They probably wanted to “punish” the fast food companies, but they actually ended up making those job more desirable. I know our school has had trouble hiring cafeteria workers because it’s more or less the same job as fast food, but makes four dollars less per hour. 

Come to think of it, the fast food minimum wage was passed by the legislature, not the voters. They could raise the regular minimum wage, too.. Maybe this bill is attempting to return a level of parity to fast food/non-fast-food jobs.

Nah, ballot measures rarely go beyond the knee-jerk reaction.

Proposition 33. Rent Control

Great. Another proposition to make an amateur economist’s head explode.

This proposition won’t implement rent control, but it will make it easier for local governments to enact rent control.

They tried to pass this two years ago and we voted no. In fact, this might be the third time they’ve tried it. Those of us that remember the 1970s and 1980s will keep voting no, so they’re pretty much going to keep trying until enough of us die off. Then there’ll be a whole new generation that learns about how bad of an idea rent control is.

When San Francisco had rent control, there was a waiting list to rent. Which meant landlords had no incentive to make their rental unit livable. They also didn’t make enough in rent to cover the exorbitant price of pretty much everything in SF. 

It’s called supply and demand. Maybe you’ve heard of it.

So it would be a long string of “Toilet’s broken? Call a plumber. Heater broke? Fix it or freeze, what do I care? If you move out, I’ve got a three-year list of tenants ready to move in.”

I know free markets aren’t always the solution, but they do serve a purpose. Rent in San Francisco can’t cost the same as rent in Oakland, because people would rather live in San Francisco. 

Proposition 34 Prescription Drugs/What the Hell?

This one’s a beaut. I used to work at the state Capitol. I’ve followed California politics my whole life. If you write up a proposition that confuses even me, you’ve earned your pay. Good job!

Okay, so this measure will force certain companies who receive prescription drug funding from the federal government to spend 98% of that funding on the actual prescription drugs. 

I understand the sentiment. Most entities that deal with what are supposed to be “pass-through” funds end up taking a sizable chunk as “administrative costs.” (SEE: Bob, Proposition 35)

But this isn’t requiring every entity to pass on 98% of their funds. It only affects entities that:
a) Spent over $100,000,000 in a ten-year span on anything other than patient care, and
b) operated multifamily housing with over 500 health and safety violations.

What the fuck??? How many pharmaceutical companies run apartment complexes?

Only one. But we can’t make laws that target one company. Way to hide your true intentions, Prop 34!

A measure to limit the capacity of ALL operating systems*.
*Only affects OS’s that rhyme with Bandroid.
*Measure sponsored by Apple.

So you might be wondering what this entity is that gets over $100 million in prescription money from the federal government, but that also are slum lords?

Turns out it’s the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Maybe their apartments are for terminally ill patients? Is that why they’re spending less than 98% of their money on prescriptions? Are the health violations because people with AIDS sometimes die?

I don’t know the answers to any of those questions. All I know is the AIDS foundation seriously pissed off some people with deep enough pockets to fund a multi-million dollar proposition against them.

Reading through the entities on both sides will make you rethink all your priors about political bedfellows.

On the pro-side (so against the AIDS foundation) is the LGBT Legislative Chair, the Firefighters union, seniors and Latinos. On the anti-side are the National Organization of Women and some consumer watchdog groups. I did not have Women vs Seniors on this year’s Ballot Bingo.

Well, nature abhors a vacuum, and when you live in a one-party state, you’re going to run into some internecine battles. It’s no longer about electing a certain party, but about controlling that party once it’s in power. 

Unfortunately, I don’t know which of these is the in group or the out group right now. I assume the National Organization of Women is on the outs, because they’re working with consumer groups, which used to lean Republican back when there were Republicans in California. 

Plus I don’t think a measure like this gets on the ballot unless it has unofficial support from those in power. 

I can’t imagine Herr Kommandant wants people focusing on whether pass-through funds actually get passed through.

Proposition 35. Medi-Cal funding.

Medi-Cal is a bit like Medicare except that it doesn’t go to old people. It only goes to poor people. Plus a whole bunch of people who can totally afford their own insurance but fudge the numbers so they can get it for free.

This proposition makes a temporary tax that we previously imposed upon ourselves permanent. That tax was placed on insurance plans of all those evil rich people. Rich being defined as having insurance.

This is pretty much how every California tax and program works. They tell us it’s only temporary, then they say, “See, that tax wasn’t so bad.” 

I mean, we’re already paying the tax. So nothing would change from our financial perspective. Just keep the status quo. Because everything’s working great! Except for slavery and gay marriage and our disgusting water.

Does Prop. 35 actually do jack shit to improve Medi-Cal? Who knows. That’s not the point.

Some bureaucrat has a job funded by this tax. You don’t want Bob to lose his job, do you? Think of all those fun water cooler talks. Remember that Halloween he dressed up as a sexy chipmunk? 

Tell you what, if you agree to just keep paying the same amount you’ve already been paying, Bob promises to bring that seven-layer dip to work next Friday. Deal?

Oh, and maybe some poor people will get some aspirin. But again, that’s beside the point.

Proposition 36. Felony charges.

Many moons ago, we passed a proposition decriminalizing a bunch of minor “victimless” crimes, like drug possession and shoplifting. We were on the “Defund the Police” and “Laws are Mean” bandwagon way before the rest of the country.

The criminals responded by doing more drugs and shoplifting. Sorry, I guess they’re not criminals anymore.

Now we’re not quite so sure that stealing $950 from every Walgreens in the state is really “victimless.” Nor minor, really.

You’ve seen the videos of all the smash and grabs. Of everything from booze and makeup to toothpaste and deodorant being locked behind Plexiglass. Sure, it’s fun having a personal shopping assistant follow you around the store unlocking cases to get you your Snickers bar. But most of those workers can make more money working at McDonalds because of our bifurcated minimum wage. 

Of course, those smash and grab videos appear to be taking a hell of a lot more than $950 worth of merchandise, and have more to do with our inability, or lack of desire, to arrest and prosecute the perpetrators. I don’t know that either of those are going away, regardless of the definitions of misdemeanors and felonies.

But let’s vote on it anyway!

Do people want their toothpaste back? What about their booze?

We’ll have to see.

I know I, for one, am going to be needing some of that booze on election night. You with me?