You know what's cool about having all these statewide elections in California? I feel like I'm really aware of everything that's happening in terms of our state government and its regulations, and actually have a say in it.

You know what sucks about having all these statewide elections in California? I feel like I'm really aware of everything that's happening in terms of our state government and its regulations, and actually have a say in it. Regarding that last part, sure, I know I'm smart and have informed opinions on things. While you were confusedly putting G.I. Joe on top of Barbie, I was reading "The Red and the Black" in its original French and masturbating to the really hot scenes in which Sorel considers seducing Mathilde de la Mole. But that doesn't mean I'm an expert on everything. Like, remember the last election, oh, three months back, when there was a proposition on the ballot that the L.A. Times figured out would have affected exactly one living person in the last ten years? Did I really need to educate myself on that subject enough to vote on it? Isn't there, like, a committee of people, elected officials, maybe, who are experts on this sort of thing and can make a decision on it without my input?

The answer, of course, is: THAT'S COMMIE TALK! Now get ready, 'cause it's votin' time again in California!!!

California Statewide Special and Consolidated Elections - May 19, 2009

State Measures

Okay, so this election starts off with six state measures that I guess are the raison d'etre of the whole thing, all about trying to balance our state budget and its infamous $42 billion deficit. By all available accounts, these measures are terrible, everyone hates them, and we all have to vote for them because they're better than the alternative, which involves California spiraling further into bankruptcy and decay until we're all wearing leather masks and murdering each other for gasoline like in a dystopian Bruno Mattei movie.

I've never seen such a wide range of endorsements from ideologically similar publications, with newspapers like the Los Angeles Daily News and the San Francisco Chronicle urging a "Yes" vote on all six measures and the San Francisco Bay Guardian and San Diego Urban Tribune urging a "No" vote on all six measures, with all the others mingling in between. Having read a lot of these conflicting endorsements, I am left without a strong opinion on most of these measures. They all seem like they have both good and bad aspects to them. I'm only posting my endorsements here because I continue to think doing so is funny, but if you disagree with my endorsements below and you have a good reason to do so, let me know and you'll probably change my mind. Unless you're JT Kleiser. In which case, fuck off.

1A - "Rainy Day" Budget Stabilization Fund. - Yes

This, the first one, is apparently the biggest deal, judging by the amount of junk mail and posted signs I've seen about it. The idea here is to extend some temporary tax increases and channel three percent of state revenues into the titular emergency provisions account each year, which would give the government some flexibility in dealing with crises such as state bankruptcy or an earthquake turning Santa Monica into an island. I understand this isn't normally something that state governments need to do, but it seems like an okay idea to me under the present circumstances.

1B - Education Funding. Payment Plan. - No

This would require $1.5 billion in additional education spending each year until $9.3 billion has been spent, an amount that was supposed to have been spent on education under Proposition 98 but wasn't due to the financial crisis. The problem here isn't the education spending, which I'm all for, but the budget mandates, which aren't necessarily a good idea at the best of times. In other words, if we'd had this money to spend on education, we would have spent it, and if we create budget mandates saying we have to spend it that's only going to make things worse overall. There's furthermore little flexibility in terms of where this money would go in the school system, and money should be able to be moved to where it's most needed in times of crisis, right? Supposedly this is only on the ballot to get the school unions to support all of the measures.

1C - Lottery Modernization Act. - No

Okay, let me see if I can explain this. This would slightly expand the California State Lottery system while allowing the government to borrow $5 billion against future lottery profits to balance our current budget. We'd then have to take that money from education spending to repay that loan, but we'd then repay the education money from the General Fund, which is where we put the loan money in the first place. And the increases to the lottery system would theoretically guarantee the future profits we'd borrowed against. I can truthfully see both sides of this; why not increase the lottery system to get the money we need right now? But, on the other hand, that just kind of seems like the sort of financially irresponsible shenanigans that got us into this mess in the first place. So I'm voting no on it, but you should feel free to vote yes if you like lottery tickets and stuff.

1D - Children's Services Funding. - Yes

Isn't kind of weird that measures have names like "Children's Services Funding" when what the measure is proposing is taking funding away from children's services? I mean, I get why it's called that, it's just weird. Anyway, back in 1998 California voters approved Proposition 10, which created a tobacco tax to raise money for children's services, particularly First 5 commissions, which support programs for at-risk children under the age of five, in each county. Apparently much of that money has been badly spent on ads backing Rob Reiner, due to a lack of specifics in the proposition, but a lot of the non-Rob Reiner spending has undoubtedly done some good. This measure would temporarily reallocate about half of that money - $268 million - each year for five years to help out the general fund and balance the budget. The First 5 organization currently has $2.5 billion in spending reserves, but not every country has spending reserves, while others, such as L.A. County, have a lot, meaning that these counties would be least affected. I'm tentatively for this, at least until that spending reserve goes away.

1E - Mental Health Funding. Temporary Reallocation. - Yes

Similar to 1D. In 2004, votes approved Proposition 63, which was a 1% income tax on persons making $1 million or more per year in order to fund services for the mentally ill. I think I voted for that. This measure would take $230 million of this money away each year for two years and spend it instead on Medi-Cal, particularly on screening young Medi-Cal recipients. Again, the state has $2.5 billion in money from Prop 63 that has yet to be spent, which will offset the loss of $460 million over the next two years, which Medi-Cal also needs. Again, I'm all for public services for the mentally ill, which are certainly underfunded, but this doesn't seem like it would have much of a negative effect on anything.

1F - Elected Officials' Salaries. Prevents Pay Increases During Budget Deficit Years. - Yes

Finally, an easy one. 1F essentially affects nothing; it's just on there to make voters feel better, an implied slap on the wrist for the legislators we blame for running our state into the ground. But there does seem to be some logic to it; in times of economic hardship, when we're stealing money from children's services and treatment for the mentally ill to balance the budget, should any of our elected officials be getting pay increases? Probably not. I can vote yes for this with little debate, I think.

City/School Elections - Los Angeles City Attorney and Community College District Member of the Board of Trustees

What we have here are run-off elections from the previous election, for positions in which none of the candidates managed to secure the majority vote to win. So now they've narrowed these down to the two top candidates and you get to vote again.

City Attorney - Carmen "Nuch" Trutanich

Let's see, in the last election I voted for Michael Richard Amerian instead of Carmen Trutanich or Jack Weiss. Apparently I was in the minority. Of the two, Ol' "Nuch" seems the best candidate, as his opponent, Jack Weiss, has been running misleading attack ads about how "Nuch" successfully defended criminals as a private attorney. I get how there's some moral ambiguity there, but it sounds like the guy is good at his job. Why not elect him to where he can do all of us some good?

Member of the Board of Trustees, Seat No. 2 - Angela J. Reddock

I voted for Angela J. Reddock in the last election and now I get to vote for her again. I'm not sure what my reasons were last time, but undoubtedly they were fair and informed. Brilliant, even.

Member of the Board of Trustees, Seat No. 6 - Robert Nakahiro

Damn, in the last round of these elections I endorsed a pity vote for Jane Ardigo Scott for Seat No. 6, and apparently not enough of you listened to me because now she's out of the running. So, okay, of the two we have left, I guess I'll pick Robert Nakahiro. Nancy Pearlman, his opponent, is the incumbent and has supposedly done an okay job, nothing great, with a focus on environmental building construction. That seems to me to be beside the point in our community college system. I looked over Robert Nakahiro's website and there's nothing particularly good or bad on it, but he seems enthusiastic and nice enough. So let's shake things up on old Seat No. 6.



Yay, voting. Yee-haw.