All posts by Inoljt

Uncategorized

Vote Yes on Proposition 40: State Senate Redistricting Referendum

This is the last part of a series of posts analyzing California’s propositions:

The Basics of the Proposition

This proposition is a referendum on the State Senate districts drawn by California’s citizens redistricting commission. A “Yes” vote on Proposition 40 would indicate approval of the districts as drawn. A “No” vote on Proposition 40 would reject the districts drawn by the commission. The new districts would then be drawn by officials supervised by the California Supreme Court.

It sounds pretty simple, and on the surface there is. But there’s a long, long story behind this proposition. It’s an ugly story, and after reading the story it’ll be very obvious why to vote yes on this proposition.

More below.

The Deeper Story

Back in the days (or more specifically, back before 2008) the state legislature drew California’s legislative and congressional districts. Since these legislators drew the same districts that they would run in, there was obviously a conflict of interest. Legislators would gerrymander the lines of the districts so that they would always get re-elected.

Here’s a typical example of a politician-drawn district:

Photobucket

Here rich Bay Area suburbs are combined with Central Valley farmland to create a convoluted shape that looks somewhat like a strange animal.

Now, in 2008 California voters approved Proposition 11. Instead of having politicians draw the districts that would elect them, they decided to have a California Citizens Redistricting Commission composed of fourteen citizens with no prior political involvement.

Even before the commission was put into place, there was political manipulation involving it. In 2010 two propositions attempted to change the commission. Proposition 20, which voters approved, extended the commission’s power to congressional districts. Proposition 27, which voters rejected, attempted to get rid of the commission.

Eventually, the commission got in place and drew the districts. They can be viewed at this website. It did a generally good job. California, of course, is a complex state. There are cities in it bigger than many states, and it’s the most ethnically complex state in the nation. This means that the Voting Rights Act plays a heavy role in the drawing of districts (a lot of the messiest-looking districts in the website are a consequence of the VRA). So it’s not easy to draw districts in California; you can’t do what Iowa does and just split the state in four squares. But the commission generally did a good job of things – certainly better than the politicians.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) and predictably, some of the politicians weren’t happy with the maps they received. Specifically, they didn’t like the State Senate map. So they pushed for Proposition 40, a referendum on the commission’s efforts. Note that none of the other maps (the California State Assembly map, the California congressional delegation map, the State Board of Equalization map) are being considered in this proposition, because the opponents of the commission liked those maps better. They just didn’t like the State Senate map.

A Bit More Complexity

Now, the story is a tiny bit more complex than this. What the opponents of the commission really wanted had nothing to do with voters accepting or rejecting the State Senate map. The result of Proposition 40 didn’t really matter to them. What they wanted was for the California Supreme Court to make the state use a different set of State Senate maps for this election.

Photobucket

(California’s Supreme Court)

You see, only the odd or even-numbered State Senate districts go up for election each year. What happened is that the commission renumbered the State Senate districts in a way that hurt the opponents of the State Senate map. They then pushed this referendum to ask the California Supreme Court to use a different set of maps for this election. They argued to the court that since Californians were voting on whether or not to approve the State Senate map, it couldn’t be used for this year. Rather, they wanted the California Supreme Court to draw a temporary and different State Senate map for just this year.

So the real purpose of Proposition 40 actually had nothing to do with whether voters approve or reject the State Senate map. Rather, it was a ploy to use a different State Senate map this year, since there was a referendum being held on the map drawn by the commission. If the Supreme Court accepted their request, then the opponents of the commission wouldn’t get screwed by the numbering of the State Senate districts for this year.

The Supreme Court refused their request. The State Senate map drawn by the commission is being used for this election.

The opponents of the commission promptly dropped their push for a rejection of the commission’s map. Since they’d failed in their ploy to get a different State Senate map to be used for this election, there was no point in opposing Proposition 40. They now recommend a yes vote.

The Conclusion: Vote Yes

As the story above shows, those opposing Proposition 40 engaged in disgusting behavior. Fortunately, their ploy failed. Vote yes (in approval of the citizens commission) to send them a message that Californians disapprove of such shenanigans.

–inoljt

California

Vote No on Proposition 39: Multistate Business Taxes

1 Comment

This is the tenth part of a series of posts analyzing California’s propositions:

More Ballot-Box Budgeting

Proposition 39 is a typical example of ballot-box budgeting. Tax X, spend on Y. In this case, X equals multistate businesses and Y equals clean energy.

More below.

The proposition raises taxes on multistate businesses in California through a subtle method. Right now those businesses can choose between two ways of calculating their taxes. They can be taxed based on the number of sales, property, or employees the business has in California (the “three-factor method”). Or they can be taxed based only on the number of sales (the “single sales factor method.”)

Proposition 39 changes it so that multistate businesses can only be taxed through the latter method. This would raise their taxes.

Of the money raised, $550 million is given to green energy for five years. In the post on Proposition 34, this blog argued:

This is the type of terrible policy which the proposition system is famous for. One hundred million in spending by Proposition 34, ten billion in spending by a proposition here, five billion in tax cuts by a proposition there – it’s no wonder California has trouble balancing its budget. Ballot-box budgeting like this is disgraceful.

The same logic holds here. This blog would be more inclined to support the proposition if the revenue raised was left for the legislature to direct as it willed. As it is, the proposition’s micromanagement of its funding is just another reason to vote against the proposition.

An Easy No

Fundamentally, California voters don’t have enough information to know whether or not this proposition is a good idea. Is it a good idea to make it so that multistate businesses pay taxes based on the “single sales factor method” rather than being able to choose between the “single sales factor method” and the “three-factor method”? Beats me.

The logic against Proposition 39 is similar to that against Proposition 31, and it’s worth repeating that logic here. If this policy change were proposed in the legislature lawmakers and their staff would probably have access to studies, surveys, and analyses on whether or not it would be better for the general welfare if multistate businesses paid taxes only based on the “single sales factor method” or if they paid taxes based on a choice between the “single sales factor method” and the “three-factor method”. Those studies and analyses would probably run up into the dozens of pages.

But voters just have two pages of all-caps arguments for or against this change (the legislative analysis makes no judgement on which policy is wiser). For such a major change, it’s not enough.

The legislature should be setting tax policy, not the proposition system.

–inoljt

California, education

Vote No on Proposition 38 – Molly Munger’s Tax Initiative

This is the nineth part of a series of posts analyzing California’s propositions:

An Unfortunate Proposition…

There are two revenue-increasing propositions before the public. There is Proposition 30, the good one backed by Jerry Brown, and Proposition 38, the bad one. You should vote yes on Proposition 30 and no on Proposition 38. Unfortunately, that’s probably going to confuse a lot of people.

More below.

Proposition 38 is pushed by Molly Munger, a well-meaning attorney (funny how so many of the propositions have such well-meaning intentions yet bad consequences).

Basically, it’s an income tax increase. The tax increase is pretty huge; it catches even lower-income residents. Individuals with income over $7,316 and families or joint filers with income over $14,632 will have their taxes raised. The chart below, taken from the legislative analyst, explains in more detail:

Current and Proposed Personal Income Tax Rates Under Proposition 38
Single Filer’s

Taxable Incomea		 Joint Filers’

Taxable Incomea		 Head-of-Household

Filer’s

Taxable Incomea		 Current

Marginal

Tax Rateb		 Proposed

Additional

Marginal Tax Rateb

$0-$7,316
$0-$14,632
$0-$14,642
1.0%
–

7,316-17,346
14,632-34,692
14,642-34,692
2.0
0.4%

17,346-27,377
34,692-54,754
34,692-44,721
4.0
0.7

27,377-38,004
54,754-76,008
44,721-55,348
6.0
1.1

38,004-48,029
76,008-96,058
55,348-65,376
8.0
1.4

48,029-100,000
96,058-200,000
65,376-136,118
9.3
1.6

100,000-250,000
200,000-500,000
136,118-340,294
9.3
1.8

250,000-500,000
500,000-1,000,000
340,294-680,589
9.3
1.9

500,000-1,000,000
1,000,000-2,000,000
680,589-1,361,178
9.3
2.0

1,000,000-2,500,000
2,000,000-5,000,000
1,361,178-3,402,944
9.3
2.1

Over 2,500,000
Over 5,000,000
Over 3,402,944
9.3
2.2

a  Income brackets shown were in effect for 2011 and will be adjusted for inflation in future years. Single filers also include married individuals and registered domestic partners (RDPs) who file taxes separately. Joint filers include married and RDP couples who file jointly, as well as qualified widows or widowers with a dependent child.

b  Marginal tax rates apply to taxable income in each tax bracket listed. For example, a single tax filer with taxable income of $15,000 could have had a 2011 tax liability under current tax rates of $227: the sum of $73 (which equals 1 percent of the filer’s first $7,316 of income) and $154 (2 percent of the filer’s income over $7,316). This tax liability would be reduced-and potentially eliminated-by personal, dependent, senior, and other tax credits, among other factors. The proposed additional tax rates would take effect beginning in 2013 and end in 2024. Current tax rates listed exclude the mental health tax rate of 1 percent for taxable income in excess of $1 million.

In contrast, Proposition 30’s income tax only affects individuals with income over $250,000, joint filers with income over $500,000, and head-of-household’s with over $340,000.

The revenue raised goes mostly to education, with the rest to repay state debt. Proposition 38’s revenues go to a new fund called the California Education Trust Fund. There are three ways the revenue is distributed: to schools, to ECE (Early Care and Education) programs, and to state debt. The amount given to each each differs per year, although schools get the majority and ECE gets the least. Of the money given to schools 70% goes to education program grants; 18% goes to low-income student grants; and 12% goes to training, technology, and teaching materials grants. Of the amount given to ECE programs, a minority goes to restoring cuts in current ECE programs and the rest goes to expanding the programs (e.g. 51% goes to subsidized preschool for children aged three to five form low-income families). The rest pays state debt. From the legislative analyst:

Allocation of Revenues Raised by Proposition 38
2013-14

and

2014-15		 2015-16

and

2016-17		 2017-18

Through

2023-24
Schools 60% 60% 85%
Early Care and Education (ECE) 10 10 15
State debt payments 30 30a –a
Totals 100% 100% 100%
Growth limit on allocations to schools and ECE programsa No Yes Yes
a  Reflects minimum share dedicated to state debt payments. Revenues beyond growth limit also would be used to make debt payments.

It’s all very long and complicated. In the California official voter information guide, the legislative analysis of Proposition 38 is the longest. Reading Proposition 38’s legislative analysis made my head spin (even more than Proposition 31’s legislative analysis). I don’t like voting for propositions that make my head spin.

…Which Might Actually End Up Cutting Education!

Somewhat amazingly, Proposition 38 might not prevent huge education cuts next year. This is because the legislature passed a series of spending reduction called “trigger cuts” that would take effect if Proposition 30 was not approved. These include $5.354 billion from schools and community colleges, as well as $250 million each from the University of California and California State University systems. Tuition would certainly be raised at California state universities under these trigger cuts.

If Proposition 38 is approved and gets more votes than Proposition 30, then those education trigger cuts will still take place.

That means that under Proposition 38, college students at California state universities will still have their tuition raised (as well as their taxes). There will be both huge tax increases and huge spending cuts for education this year. Then next year there will be huge spending increases for education. That’s a terribly unstable situation.

Remember: Proposition 30 is the good proposition, Proposition 38 the bad one. Vote yes on Proposition 30 and no on Proposition 38.

–inoljt

Uncategorized

Vote No on Proposition 37: Genetically Engineered Food

This is the eighth part of a series of posts analyzing California’s propositions:

A Badly Written Proposition…

On its most basic level, Proposition 37 has a fairly simple concept. It requires labels on genetically engineered food and prevents genetically engineered food or processed food from being advertised as “natural.”

Unfortunately, in the real world things are rarely that simple.

More below.

The Sacramento Bee gives a number of examples. Should we include pet food? What about alcohol? What about an animal which ate genetically engineered food but isn’t genetically modified itself? Olive oil is processed; you press olives to make olive oil. Does that mean that olive oil can’t be labeled as “natural?”

Proposition 37′s backers did not attempt to pass the law through the legislature before writing their proposition. In the legislature these complex issues might have been dealt with adequately; after all, that is the legislature’s job. Instead, Proposition 37 attempts to address the complexity of labeling genetically engineered food by adding a number of exemptions.

These exemptions make matters worse. Pet food, under Proposition 37, could be labeled as genetically engineered. Alcohol would not. But fruit juice could. Cow’s milk would probably not be labeled as genetically engineered, even if the cow ate genetically engineered grain, under Proposition 37′s exemptions. But soy milk would probably be labeled as genetically engineered, since almost all soy in the United States is genetically engineered. Genetically engineered broccoli in a restaurant would not need to be labeled, but in a grocery store it would need to be labeled.

And yes, it’s quite possible that olive oil could not be labeled “natural” under Proposition 37. After all, olive oil is obviously processed.

On a Subject For Which There’s A Better Solution

There’s a better way to do things. Producers can, on their own initiative, label their foods as non-genetically engineered.

Photobucket

The same purpose that Proposition 37 attempts to accomplish would then be served. Consumers worried about eating genetically engineered food could decide to only buy food labeled as non-genetically engineered. No need for all of Proposition 37′s messy exemptions. As the Los Angeles Times writes:

…the marketplace already provides ways to inform consumers about their food. Just as some meats are labeled antibiotic-free or hormone-free, and some eggs are labeled cage-free, food producers are welcome to label their foods as GE-free.

That sounds a lot easier and simpler than Proposition 37′s craziness.

–inoljt

California

Vote No on Proposition 36: Three Strikes Law

This is the seventh part of a series of posts analyzing California’s propositions:

A Tough Proposition

Proposition 36 is a tough proposition. There’s a strong case for voting yes on this proposition. Out of all the proposition recommendations made in this blog, this one is made with the most hesitancy.

More below.

Proposition 36 substantially weakens the Three Strikes Law. This is a famous tough-on-crime California law derived from another proposition (on a side note: there are way too many propositions out there). A serious or violent felon, if convicted of a new felony, gets twice the sentence. A two-time serious or violent felon, if convicted of a new felony, gets life. The Three Strikes Law is one of the toughest (if not the toughest) in the nation.

Under normal circumstances, this blog would unstintingly argue against voting yes on Proposition 36. Voters should never approve propositions that make big changes in subtle, complex things such as the length of prison sentences. Even if a change would be for the better, that is a job best left to the normal process. There is a reason why a legislature exists, after all: to draft laws. Legislators spend their entire lives on these issues. Voters spend a couple of hours or seconds reading a crazily complicated proposition that makes huge changes in the state. Generally, propositions on complex issues should only be approved if they fix a crisis.

Unfortunately, the normal way doesn’t work in this case. The legislature does not have the power to change the Three Strikes Law. This is because the proposition which approved the law explicitly prohibited this. So California voters are left in the unattractive position of deciding felony prison sentence lengths themselves.

There is also something quite wrong with California’s prison system, for which the description “crisis” would not be ill-fitted. They are famously overcrowded and a recent Supreme Court decision ordered California to reduce the population. The Three Strikes Law has certainly contributed to this negative situation. Finally, the proposition would save California several tens of millions of dollars per year – not something to laugh about during a budget crisis.

Nevertheless, there is also something good to say about the Three Strikes Law. California’s crime level over the past decade and a half has substantially decreased over the past two decades after the enactment of the law. Other states in the country have also followed California’s Three Strikes Law, and overall crime in the nation has been steadily declining for the past two decades. Of course, a number of other factors were behind this as well. But the Three Strikes Law’s aim was to reduce crime – and crime has indeed decreased.

More fundamentally, this proposition still would change the very complicated issue of felony prison sentences. That’s an issue that the vast majority of people are not qualified to deal with. The last clause definitely includes this blogger as well. That’s why this blog recommends a qualified “No” on Proposition 36.

–inoljt

California

Vote No on Proposition 35: Human Trafficking

This is the sixth part of a series of posts analyzing California’s propositions:

What Proposition 35 Really Does

Proposition 35 is almost certain to be approved by California voters. It bans human trafficking. Who isn’t against human trafficking?

But there are actually a number of reasons to vote against Proposition 35.

More below.

Human trafficking is already banned by California law, of course. This is actually kind of obvious; it would have been a really incredible oversight if human trafficking was not previously illegal in California.

What Proposition 35 actually does is that it changes the current law. It increases criminal penalties for human trafficking.

What’s wrong with that, you might ask? The vast majority of Californians would support an increase in penalties for human trafficking.

The thing is that the federal government deals with human trafficking, not the state government. The legislative analyst states that:

Currently, human trafficking cases are often prosecuted under federal law, rather than California state law, even when California law enforcement agencies are involved in the investigation of the case. This is partly because these types of crimes often involve multiple jurisdictions and also because of the federal government’s historical lead role in such cases.

That is, because human trafficking often crosses state lines, usually the federal government deals with it. This is why there are only 18 individuals convicted of human trafficking in state prison, as of March 2012.

So this proposition handles something that’s not the state’s responsibility.

In addition, this proposition mostly deals with something that the typical voter has little knowledge about: proper penalties for criminal activities. Most voters have no idea whether the sentence enhancement of great bodily injury should be six or ten additional years in jail, which is one change this proposition proposes. I certainly don’t.

There are people who are qualified to set prison sentences. These are the experts and the lawmakers, who spend their whole lives studying these issues. People like you and me, who just spend a couple of hours (or even worse, seconds) reading about this proposition, are not. Prison sentences for criminal activities are – yet another – activity that would be best left to the legislature to deal with, rather than the broken proposition system.

Why to Vote Against Proposition 35

Proposition 35 sounds great. Punish human trafficking! Let’s do it!

But human trafficking is not handled by the state of California – it’s handled by the federal government. So Proposition 35 is mostly irrelevant.

Proposition 35 changes prison sentences for human traffickers. But sentences for criminals should be set by the experts and the legislature. They shouldn’t be set by voters who have only thirty minutes in the ballot box to vote for ten propositions, half of which they don’t understand.

Proposition 35 sounds too good to be true. It is.

–inoljt

California

Vote Yes on Proposition 34: Death Penalty

This is the fifth part of a series of posts analyzing California’s propositions:

The Death Penalty

Proposition 34 is fairly simple: it repeals the death penalty.

More below.

This is one of those simple propositions. It’s easily understandable, and (unlike some propositions out there) nobody is trying to trick Californians. The average voter can easily understand what this proposition does.

It’s also why this blog is not going to spend a lot of time on this proposition. The death penalty is something that most people have already made their minds about. It’s either morally right or morally wrong. Nobody reading this is going to change their mind about the death penalty.

The Financial Implications

It’s with respect to the fiscal impact that there is something to be said about Proposition 34.

Let’s start with the bad news. Proposition 34 adds a total of one hundred million in grants to local law enforcement agencies. It does this mainly to attract votes.

This is the type of terrible policy which the proposition system is famous for. One hundred million in spending by Proposition 34, ten billion in spending by a proposition here, five billion in tax cuts by a proposition there – it’s no wonder California has trouble balancing its budget. Ballot-box budgeting like this is disgraceful.

But the good news is that Proposition 34 does save the state a lot of money, if approved. California requires decades of appeals before a person convicted of the death penalty is actually killed. The purpose of this is to make it so that the state actually never executes anybody. Unfortunately, this is expensive; all the appeals cost more than a hundred million per year. Proposition 34 will save that money. And with California’s current financial difficulties, that’s quite helpful.

Conclusions

So this blog endorses Proposition 34 because it saves the state money, despite the proposition’s thick-headed spending grant.

A side note: In making this recommendation, there is no ulterior motive here. With respect to whether the death penalty is morally correct or not, I really have no opinion and don’t know the answer. It’s not an issue that arouses my passion, although it’s understandable that many people are very passionate about this issue. This recommendation is made purely on the fiscal implications of Proposition 34.

–inoljt

California

Vote No on Proposition 32: Union-busting

This is the third part of a series of posts analyzing California’s propositions:

What Does Proposition 32 Do?

It kills unions.

Photobucket

More below.

It’s pretty simple. Proposition 32 is mainly aimed at weakening unions. It’s billed as a campaign-finance reform proposition, but it’s pretty clear that the main target is labor unions.

One facet of Proposition 32 aims to permit “voluntary employee contributions to employer-sponsored committee or union if authorized yearly, in writing.” California unions mainly depend on automatic union dues. By making those automatic union dues voluntary, this clause would greatly weaken unions. That is, of course, the point of the proposition.

Another part of the proposition prohibits funds deducted from payrolls to be used for political purposes. As it turns out, about the only organizations that use payroll-deducted funds in politics are unions. The legislative analysis states that, “Other than unions, relatively few organizations currently use payroll deductions to finance political spending in California.” Corporations don’t use them. So while Proposition 32 supporters state that both union and corporate political spending will be limited by the proposition, in reality only unions are affected.

There are reasonable-sounding parts of Proposition 32. It limits, for instance, political donations by government contractors, which seems to make sense. Although the legislative analyst notes that those government contractors could be “public sector labor unions with collective bargaining contracts.” So perhaps that clause is just another way to gut unions.

Even If You Don’t Like Unions, You Should Still Vote No on Proposition 32

Most people reading this post, I suspect, are highly in favor of unions. Still, even a person who isn’t a big fan of unions ought to vote no on this proposition.

It is true that there’s a lot to complain about with respect to unions. Unions are very powerful in California, and it’s understandable when conservatives dislike that fact. State pensions seem to have some hard-to-defend practices, for instance (which this proposition doesn’t address). In researching for this proposition, I was shocked to discover that some workers (such as teachers) have to pay union dues even if they hate their union.

But there’s a time and place to address these grievances, and that’s not the proposition system. Propositions are meant for egregious wrongs and things which can’t be fixed by the normal system. This purpose unfortunately has been subverted in recent years by the explosion of senseless propositions. Unions may be bad, or they may be good. But even if they do more harm than good, the proposition system isn’t the place to kill unions.

So even if you’re not the biggest fan of unions, like me, you should still vote against Proposition 32.

–inoljt

California

Vote No on Proposition 31: Changes to State Budgeting

This is the second part of a series of posts analyzing California’s propositions:

Good Intentions…

Proposition 31 is a well-intentioned proposition. Unlike several of the propositions out there today, it’s not funded by special interests or companies looking to make a profit.

More below.

It’s a proposition funded by California Forward, a group legitimately dedicated to reforming California’s budget. The folks at California Forward put a lot of time and thought into drafting this proposition; it’s basically a collection of reforms in the budgeting process that they think would best help the state.

Moreover, there are good things in Proposition 31. For instance, the two-year budget cycle contained in the proposition sounds like a good idea.

But I Don’t Understand It!

California has lots of propositions, and they generally do more bad than good. Indeed, a wise voter ought to reject the good majority of propositions that are put forward each year. That’s the philosophy that informs the approach this blog takes towards propositions.

A wise voter ought to be especially cautious with a proposition he or she doesn’t understand. If you don’t understand what a proposition does, or if you’re extremely confused by its wording, you should almost always vote no.

This proposition is both extremely complicated and quite confusing. There are a lot of big changes which have big, unknown effects on the state budget. The legislative analyst writes that the fiscal effects “cannot be predicted” quite a bit in its analysis. That’s worrying.

Take one part of the proposal. The proposition shifts quite a lot of authority to local governments. For instance:

Under this measure, counties and other local governments (such as cities, school districts, community college districts, and special districts) could create plans for coordinating how they provide services to the public. The plans could address how local governments deliver services in many areas, including economic development, education, social services, public safety, and public health. Each plan would have to be approved by the governing boards of the (1) county, (2) school districts serving a majority of the county’s students, and (3) other local governments representing a majority of the county’s population. Local agencies would receive some funding from the state to implement the plans (as described below).

There’s a ton of information packed into this short paragraph.

This change is made under the assumption that local goverments are more efficient. If it were proposed in the legislature lawmakers and their staff would probably have access to studies, surveys, and analyses on whether or not local governments actually are more efficient than the state government. Those studies and analyses would probably run up into the dozens of pages.

But voters just have this short little paragraph on one facet of the many facets of Proposition 31. For such a major change, it’s not enough.

Perhaps all the changes in Proposition 31 would be of great benefit. Perhaps they would be of great damage. I don’t know, especially since I have such a hard time understanding Proposition 31.

That’s why Californians should vote no on Proposition 31, come November 2012.

–inoljt

Uncategorized

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 33: CAR INSURANCE

This is the fourth part of a series of posts analyzing California’s propositions:

Proposition 33: A Fine Example of What’s Wrong With The Proposition System

California’s proposition system is generally broken. There are good propositions out there, such as Proposition 25 (which made it so that budgets no longer need super-majorities to pass).

Then there are things like Proposition 33.

Proposition 33 is the worst type of proposition out there.

More below.

 It’s the type of proposition in which a big corporation asks voters to change the law so that the corporation can increase profits. In this case the corporation is Mercury Insurance, founded by billionaire George Joseph:

Photobucket

What is even more crazy about this proposition is that Mercury Insurance placed the exact same thing on the ballot just two years ago. It failed. Now Mercury is trying again.

What Does Proposition 33 Do?

Proposition 33 allows car insurance companies to give discounts to individuals with five continuous years of car insurance.

Conversely, this means that individuals without five continuous years of car insurance will have their car insurance become more expensive. Insurance companies, after all, don’t just hand out discounts because they’re nice. If Proposition 33 passes car insurance companies will give the discount to those who qualify and then raise their prices for everybody else. For those without five continuous years of car insurance, you’ll be paying more if this proposition passes.

Who are people without five continuous years of car insurance?

Well, they’re generally the young and the poor.

‘Photobucket

Say you’re a working-class immigrant who’s just saved enough money to buy a car for the first time in your life. If Proposition 33 passes, your car insurance will become more expensive. Or say you’re a young person (like me) who just got your license for the first time. If Proposition 33 passes, your car insurance will also become more expensive. Or say you’re a proud mother of a blooming high school student. If Proposition 33 passes, you’ll be paying more for your son’s car insurance once he gets his license.

Yup, This Affects Me Too!

This proposition directly affects me and every single young and poor Californian out there. It also affects every single mother or father of a high school or college student. If Proposition 33 passes, car insurance will be more expensive for every Californian driving a car for the first time in his or her life.

Photobucket

(Under Proposition 33 these smiling Californians will be paying a whole lot more in car insurance.)

This is why voting is so important. The young, the poor, and parents can’t let companies like Mercury Insurance sneak Proposition 33 past us.

Every single young person in California, and every single one of their parents, should vote against Proposition 33.