Posts Tagged ‘California Propositions’

…is a waste of time, money and will do nothing to improve the health, or safety of foods.
Voting NO on this POS proposition is a no brainer. I’ll bet the morons in Kalifornia screw this up anyway.

In fact it will create problems through out the country for food producers.
It’s a proposition written by a trial lawyer for trial lawyers.
This proposition needs to be shit canned.
Here’s a great article about it.

“Genetically Engineered” In California: A Food Label We Don’t Need
By Gregory Conko, Henry I. Miller

October 08, 2012
Originally published in Forbes

From “food miles” to farmers’ markets, it seems that consumers have never been more interested in the ways their food is grown. That’s one motivation for Proposition 37, an initiative on California ballots in the coming election that would require labeling of “genetically engineered” (GE) foods.

It is a bad idea, and also an unlawful one. We discussed its legal problems in a previous Forbes.com column.

Labeling advocates claim that GE foods are somehow “unnatural” and might be unsafe. At the very least, they say, consumers have a right to know what’s in their food, so, why not tell people if their corn flakes have been engineered and let them decide what to buy?

That might sound reasonable and seem to reflect how our choice-driven marketplace works, but there are several problems with it. For starters, GE foods are not in any way a meaningful “category,” which makes any choice of what to include wholly arbitrary. Nor are they unsafe or any less “natural” than thousands of other common foods. If anything, they are likely to be safer, because the techniques used to make them are far more precise and predictable than older, conventional methods of genetic improvement. But as federal regulators have said, a mandatory label implies erroneously a meaningful difference where none exists.

More

…not really an update, I’m just getting this back up to the top for the next couple days.

..a voter guide happily stolen from KFI. Pass this on.

Proposition 30: VOTE NO

Increases personal income tax on annual earnings over $250,000 for seven years.  Increases sales and use tax by 1Ž4 cent for four years. Allocates temporary tax revenues 89 percent to K-12 schools and 11 percent to community colleges.

John and Ken say:  NO, NO, a thousand times NO.  With the highest tax rates in many key categories, raising the sales tax and income taxes in a weak economy is exactly the WRONG thing to do.  And it’s been proven that relying on income taxes from the “rich” is a budget recipe for disaster.  Plus, holding the “kid’s education” hostage must not be rewarded.  If you only vote on one proposition this year, make sure it’s “NO” on Proposition 30.

———————————————————————

Proposition 31: VOTE NO

Establishes two-year state budget cycle. Prohibits Legislature from creating expenditures of more than $25 million unless offsetting revenues or spending cuts are identified. Permits Governor to cut budget unilaterally during declared fiscal emergencies if Legislature fails to act.

John and Ken say:  This oddity is packed with dense language, probably meant to disguise its true intent.  It’s a battle between state and local governments over a pile of tax money and the budgeting process.  When in doubt, throw it out.

———————————————————————

Proposition 32: VOTE YES

Restricts union political fundraising by prohibiting use of payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. Same use restriction would apply to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations or government contractors. Permits voluntary employee contributions to employer or union committees if authorized yearly, in writing. Prohibits unions and corporations from contributing directly or indirectly to candidates and candidate-controlled committees.

John and Ken say:  If you are going to vote on only two propositions this year, this should be the other one you vote on and it’s a resounding “YES.”  It could very well destroy the stranglehold public employee unions have on Sacramento politicians, and everywhere else in the state for that matter.  Union members should have a say on how their money is spent, especially if it’s for oils and lotions for political hacks’ messages.

———————————————————————

Proposition 33: VOTE YES

Changes current law to permit insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company. Allows insurance companies to give proportional discounts to drivers with some prior insurance coverage. Will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who have not maintained continuous coverage.

John and Ken say:  You should be able to be eligible for continuous coverage discounts even if you switch companies.

——————————————————————-

Proposition 34: VOTE NO

Repeals death penalty as maximum punishment for persons found guilty of murder and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Applies retroactively to persons already sentenced to death. Requires persons found guilty of murder to work while in prison, with their wages to be applied to any victim restitution fines or orders against them.

John and Ken say:  We need to shorten the appeals process which leads to all the money spent on the whole death penalty system.  Don’t be fooled by the argument that sentencing someone to death causes big taxpayer bills.

——————————————————————–

Proposition 35: VOTE YES

Increases criminal penalties for human trafficking, including prison sentences up to 15-years-to-life and fines up to $1,500,000. Fines collected to be used for victim services and law enforcement. Requires person convicted of trafficking to register as sex offender.

John and Ken say:  This might be a solution in search of a bigger problem, but we are not usually against more penalties for crimes.

———————————————————————

Proposition 36: VOTE NO

Revises three strikes law to impose life sentence only when new felony conviction is serious or violent. Authorizes re-sentencing for offenders currently serving life sentences if third strike conviction was not serious or violent and judge determines sentence does not pose unreasonable risk to public safety.

John and Ken say:  The 3 Strikes Law works fine.  It has to be a factor in lowered crime rates.  This idea that the third strike has to be a serious or violent one will cost lives, or at the least, serious injury. Period.

——————————————————————–

Proposition 37: VOTE NO

Requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits labeling or advertising such food as “natural.”

John and Ken say:  Another silly labeling law.  Genetically engineered food is not scary, it’s advanced technology.  This one could result in more lawsuits and higher food prices.

———————————————————————–

Proposition 38: VOTE NO

Increases personal income tax rates for annual earnings over $7,316 using sliding scale from 0.4% for lowest individual earners to 2.2% for individuals earning over $2.5 million, ending after twelve years. During first four years, 60% of revenues go to K-12 schools, 30% to repaying state debt, and 10% to early childhood programs. Thereafter, allocates 85% of revenues to K-12 schools, 15% to early childhood programs.

John and Ken say:  It’s the other individual tax grab, the one by Molly Munger.  The money might actually go to the schools, but everyone will see their income tax bills go up.

———————————————————————-

Proposition 39: VOTE NO

Requires multistate businesses to calculate their California income tax liability based on the percentage of their sales in California. Repeals existing law giving multistate businesses an option to choose a tax liability formula that provides favorable tax treatment for businesses with property and payroll outside California.

John and Ken say:  Now it’s a tax grab from business.  With one of the worst business climates in the nation, why give California businesses another reason to leave?

———————————————————————–

Proposition 40: VOTE YES

State Senate districts are revised every ten years following the federal census. This year, the voter-approved California Citizens Redistricting Commission revised the boundaries of the 40 Senate districts. This referendum petition, if signed by the required number of registered voters and filed with the Secretary of State, will: (1) Place the revised State Senate boundaries on the ballot and prevent them from taking effect unless approved by the voters at the next statewide election; and (2) Require court-appointed officials to set interim boundaries for use in the next statewide election.

John and Ken say:  This is about the new voting districts for the CaliforniaState Senate.  It remains to be seen whether the “Citizen Redistricting Commission” really worked or was just another scam.  A “YES” vote is to keep the Senate districts as the commission drew them up.  The proponents of this initiative (the “NO” side) actually gave up already.

Read more: http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/Election.html?feed=452967&article=10448674#ixzz27yvWorgl