California Propositions Analysis and Recommendations November 2024

by Tony Medley

Proposition 2: AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACILITIES, LEGISLATIVE STATUTE

NO. This is the biennial scam to get more money in California’s failed education system. It will increase the state’s debt by $500 million annually for the next 35 years and accomplish exactly nothing. Voters rejected what was virtually the same proposal in 2020. If the state thinks this money is needed it should have included it in the budget. But that would have made the budget even more negative, so they try this scheme to borrow the money from Wall Street and make Californians pay it off over the next 35 years. California already has over $109 billion of outstanding and unissued bonds which, when combined with almost $200 billion of unfunded pension liabilities and retiree medical benefits amounts to over a quarter of a trillion dollars. And these feckless politicians want to increase the burden on California taxpayers with higher taxes to pay off the interest. Tell them to go to hell and vote no.

Proposition 3: CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE, LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

NO. Same sex marriage and mixed-race marriage are already legal in California, so what’s this all about? These imbeciles want to remove all obstacles to incest, bigamy, child marriage, and pedophilia and put it in the Constitution! It is utter nonsense. Only a sick fool would vote for this.

Proposition 4: AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER, WILDFIRE PREVENTION, AND PROTECTING COMMUNITIES AND NATURAL LANDS FROM CLIMATE. DESKS, LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.

NO. As the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association says, “Clean drinking water and preventing destructive wildfires are necessities, not luxuries. These should be addressed within our state budget, not by demanding $10 billion more from the taxpayers in the form of a bond that will cost nearly double to repay Dash $19.3 billion.” The spineless politicians in the state legislature don’t have the intelligence or guts to finance things for which they are responsible, so they just increase the state’s huge debt by borrowing more money for things they should pay for through the budget. They keep playing us taxpayers for fools and we have to keep voting no.

Proposition 5: ALLOWS LOCAL BONDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITH 55% VOTER APPROVAL. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

NO. This is the biennial attack on Proposition 13 that protects homeowners from gargantuan taxes that could force them out of their long-held homes. This one will reduce the size of the vote required to increase taxes on property owners. Since 1879 the California Constitution has required a 2/3 majority to approve most bonds. Since the majority of people are waking up and voting bonds down, these jackasses in the state legislature want to reduce that to 55%. 

Further, these creeps added in a provision that makes it RETROACTIVE! Usually measures on a ballot don’t go into effect until after the election. Not only will homeowners be hit with higher taxes, but it will affect renters, and shoppers too because landlords will have to increase rents to pay for the higher taxes as will merchants. Don’t let them do it. These callous politicians' only goal is to get as much of your money as they can.

Proposition 6: ELIMINATES CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ALLOWING INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE FOR INCARCERATED PERSONS. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

NO. There is no formal opposition to this, which apparently forbids requiring convicted felons to perform work while they are incarcerated and I don't know why. I don’t see any problem with convicted criminals having to work to pay off the cost of housing and feeding them. They should work to pay off the cost of their incarceration. Why should taxpayers have to bear the burden of housing and food and medical care for killers and thieves? They should work it off. Calling that slavery ("involuntary servitude") is nonsense. I don’t know why there is no formal opposition to this. Do you want to pay for the food and housing of brutal murderers like Charlie Manson and his clan of killers for the rest of their lives?

Proposition 32: raises minimum wage. Initiative Statute.

NO. Minimum wage laws are advocated by socialists who don’t understand a free market economy. They hurt those that these nutjobs say they are trying to help because most small business employers can’t afford to pay the higher wages, so they lay people off and/or raise the prices of their goods and services to cover the increased costs, which makes everyone’s cost of living go up, resulting in these nitwits wanting to increase the minimum wage even more. It’s a vicious circle that harms everyone. Rather than constantly increasing the minimum wage,  I say eliminate the minimum wage.

Proposition 33: EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

NO. Here is the sum total of this proposition, “the state may not limit the right of any city, county, or city and county to maintain, enact or expand residential rent control.”

Rent control is, and always has been, ridiculous and harmful to everyone. It’s just a method for politicians to control everyone and everything. Rents should be controlled by the free market. Landlords will only charge what people are able to pay. Rent control results in bad landlords who cut every corner by failing to adequately maintain their buildings because they can’t afford it. These politicians don’t realize what how landlords think. I have some rental properties. I have good tenants. But I don’t gouge them. If you overcharge a tenant, they will move. If a property is vacant for just two months, it takes many years for a landlord to make up that lost rent. So, the smart thing is to keep them by keeping rents as low as you can, so you retain full occupancy. But with rent control, that incentivizes a landlord to charge as much as the rent control law will allow, so they raise the rents the maximum. It also disincentivizes new construction, reducing available housing.

Proposition 34: RESTRICTS SPENDING OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG REVENUES BY CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Proposition 35: PROVIDES PERMANENT FUNDING FOR MEDICAL CARE HEALTH SERVICES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

NO ON BOTH: I don’t understand these two initiatives so can’t explain them, but I assume they both have some dastardly motive which will benefit some small esoteric groups at the expense of California citizens. Apparently, they have something to do with LGBTQXYZ or whatever that is called, and AIDs. When I don’t understand something I either don’t vote or I vote against it. My inclination right now is to vote against both of them. We already have far too many laws; the fewer, the better. If I learn more about these, I will let you know.

Proposition 36: ALLOWS FELONY CHARGES AND INCREASES SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN DRUG AND THEFT CRIMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE

YES.  This brings crimes for thefts under $950 back to being felonies (Prop 47 changed them to misdemeanors) and increases sentences for other drug and theft crimes. Without going into detail, I will let former 3 term Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley speak:

"Strongly support. This proposition aims to fix the serious public safety problems created by Proposition 47. Prop 47 was a creation of George Soros minions, authored by George Gascón, and misleadingly titled by then-Attorney General Kamala Harris. Prop 47 drastically and negatively altered theft laws and reduced possession of all hard drugs from felony to misdemeanor classification."

'Nuf said. Finally a proposition which we can enthusiastically support!