How I plan to vote (in CA) [Prop 55–58]
I’ll focus on ballot props here, because I still don’t think there’s a good way to evaluate candidates. Polinav, once it’s mature, can help, but there’s still a long way to go to make our democracy work for the people. Ballot propositions, though, are direct ways for CA residents to enact real change, so here are my thoughts on them in 4 parts.
For help picking your President, ProCon.org has a quiz with 70+ yes/no questions to help match you with the different candidates.
For info on other candidates, the League of Women Voters does the best job (not necessarily great) getting information on candidates.
For ballot props, I’ve done most of my research on Ballot.FYI & Ballotpedia.org
Prop 55: Maintain additional tax on those making more than $263k
My stance: YES
There were two main questions I had to answer to come to my stance. The 1st is, “Should the rich pay more taxes than those less fortunate?” My answer to that is yes. Not so much because “the rich should pay their fair share”, though that’s part of it. My answer is yes because the rich make their money off of everyone else. Some rich men like to say that they are self-made men, and yes it may have been through their efforts and intelligence, but the truth is that no one lives in a vacuum. We live together, in a society, who’s very structure allows for the abundance & wealth of a few. So, yes, we can tax the rich more (within reason).
The 2nd question I had to ask myself has to do with the argument that this tax was supposed to be a temporary measure in response to difficult economic times. So, my 2nd question is, “Has our economy become strong?” My answer to that is no. From a qualitative standpoint, the Federal Reserve is still wary of raising interest rates, believing that raising them could stunt our progress. Further, the rich have largely recovered their losses from the Great Recession, but the poor haven’t.
Let me add two caveats here, though.
- CA needs to use the money it has more efficiently.
- By using our money more efficiently & evaluating the efficacy of our current programs, we should eventually lower taxes for everyone.
Prop 56: Increase tax on e-/cigarettes $2.00
My stance: YES
For me, this is less ‘increasing taxes will decrease usage’, but more ‘as a society, we need to take a stand against smoking’. Statistics show that increasing taxes doesn’t significantly reduce the # of people using. Statistics also show that the poor are impacted even greater by “sin taxes”. With that said, it allows us to say, as a society, that we disapprove of this action. It may not be as significant of an impact as we’d like, but it does give people a greater incentive to quit or use less.
For me, this is much more about the values that we hold as a society than the efficacy of the policy. One public health argument helps illustrate this point. One argument that’s made is that those who smoke cost less to the public health system essentially because they die quicker. It’s cheaper to have someone die at a younger age due to lung cancer than it is to pay someone’s pension and other chronic care due to old age. From the purely monetary, rational, point of view, this works, but from a human perspective, it doesn’t. Even if it costs more to have someone live longer, I’d rather that person live longer.
Prop 57: Easier parole for non-violent criminals + Judicial review for juveniles sent to adult court
My stance: YES
These people have committed crimes, but it’s unnerving to know that we incarcerate 3–5x times more than most of the world. Why do we need to do that? So yes, in the near-term, Prop 57 may increase crime, but should we have incarcerated so many people to start with?
Our prison system has much reform to be done and as imperfect as this particular effort may be, it’s a step in the right direction. It again goes to the question of what kind of society we want to create: one where we try to see the good in people or one where we keep the majority’s utmost absolute safety in mind.
I also wish the 2nd part of this proposition was separate. I have some qualms about the wording/execution of the 1st part, but I am completely support an extra step for any juvenile to be tried in adult court.
Prop 58: Give locals control on how to teach non-English speakers
My stance: YES
I’m generally for a ‘market-based’ solution. Let the people try different ways and see what works best. Though I personally think immersion works pretty well (worked for me!), I still think choice in how to teach should be left up to the locals. The problem does become the potential added cost, but it’s one I’d be willing to take on for the sake of continued innovation.
