Once again I present a handy guild to California ballot measures. We have 13 of these suckers to deal with, let’s get cracking.
1A through 1E: The bond measure. Lets put on some debt and build some stuff. All that stuff you need. Roads and Levees and Schools. People keep coming to California (it’s our celebrity trials and the complete absence of winter) and they are going to need all this stuff. The Chant recommends Yes.
83: More restrictions on sex offenders. Cause if theirs one thing I know, it’s that sex offenders get it easy. Please. Whenever a politico is feeling unpopular they kick sex offenders. Sex offenders are indefensible so no one ever says boo. And they keep having to come up with more and more restrictions and more and more penalties. Well, sooner or later we will have a ballot measure that mandates we torture to death everyone convicted of a crime with the word “sex” in it. The Chant recommends No.
84: More bonds. Yeah. Water. Water good. Get thirsty without it. Of course too much water means we drowned. But this measure deals with that problem too. There is no problem with the word “water” in it that this Proposition doesn’t fix. The Chant recommends Yes.
85: Parental notification for minors seeking abortions. California just voted this down last year. And yet they keep trying. The Chant recommends No.
86: Tax on cigarettes. Sure, why not? Tax those suckers right out of existence. The Chant recommends Yes.
87: Tax on California oil producers. This is the big one. It dings the oil companies to fund new alternative energy programs. If we are serious about global warming, this is how we deal with it. The Chant recommends Yes.
88: Parcel tax for kindergarten. Think of the children. The Chant recommends Yes.
89: Public finance of campaigns. You want big money out of politics? This is a start. The Chant recommends Yes.
90: Eminent Domain “reform.” This comes out of the Kelo decision, which allowed local jurisdictions to buy property for private economic use. I was pretty uncomfortable with Kelo and would be happy to support a limited restriction on eminent domain. But this law contains hidden measures to make any kind of government regulation a “taking” that property owners would have to be compensated for. Environmental regulations, zoning, just about everything local government does would suddenly become too expensive to do. I hate it when they play games with propositions. This one needs to go down hard. The Chant recommends No.