California Propositions 16 and 17.

[Lunner]

It may be a left minded argument that I espouse (for sheer sake of being so), but truly I just wanted to see if any Californians here really cared about these issues, hence the thread title, and not something like "corporations attacking California's poor". In a simpler context, I was curious if anyone was even going to vote next week.

I'd welcome any take on these propositions, regardless of political affiliations. Prop 17 bothers me as a DIY'er and e30 owner first, as a liberal second. And ditto with 16, but replace DIY'er with energy consumer. And this is also the reason why I didn't start off with a long winded tirade about what I feel politically, and instead asked simply if anyone cared that Mercury and PG&E just bought the election, and further perhaps if anyone cared about the proposals themselves.

And to that extent I thank Farbin for his first post, which in addition to posting sources I neglected (assuming, probably inappropriately, those who cared to comment would already have a general idea of what's going on), also commented directly on the issue.

[Lunner]

You just came to eat but they don't want you here. Instead, you just run in circles around them.

And this is probably something I'll take to heart, pending the outcome of this (not too optimistic) I might just stick to the e30 info.

[joshh]

(not that i'm seeing a problem with being the leader in social benefits, seeing as how we have a larger economy than every other state) .

proof!

And we wonder why Cali is not able to pay it's bills.

[Lunner]

And we wonder why Cali is not able to pay it's bills.

You might. I don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califor...ition_13_(1978)

Edit: Although, before I get too ahead of myself, while I'm all in favor of our social services, they could certainly do with more oversight and restructuring. It's not a perfect system, and it should be continually look towards for improvement, but (when properly funded and regulated) it addresses serious needs that a state as wealthy and prosperous as ours should rightly be able to address.

[structured]

Yeah! Lower taxes will solve my problems!

Wait..uh...nevermind.

[Lunner]

Yeah! Lower taxes will solve my problems!

Wait..uh...nevermind.

Frankly, that side of the argument I don't even take too much offense with (though I always treat it as a case by case basis, rather than this sweeping Libertarian idea of "Lower Taxes + ??? = Profit" that so many espouse, or on the other hand vehemently attack).

Property tax on individual residences by single property owners being capped at 1%? Fine, why not, even if you have a 14 million dollar home that's 140k a year in property tax, and that seems fair (in a system with income, sales and other taxes).

But extensive landowners, who do nothing but collect checks every month from their many rentals or large apartment complexes (people who get truly zero respect from me), and businesses making hefty profits (i.e. PG&E in this thread), there I find an issue with a 1% ceiling.

But even if that argument had to be given in for compromise, the real disgusting part of that proposition, and the root cause of our budget issues (quite transparently I might add), is the requirement of a supermajority to get anything done. This allows 33% of our elected representatives the ability to hold out and stomp their feet and yell until they get their way, and that strikes me as Oligarchic at best, and from a more practical stand point is entirely the reason why shit doesn't get paid for or accomplished every fiscal year.

[nrubenstein]

What's wrong with 17? All I'm seeing is that it allows you to switch and keep the persistency discount with your new insurer. You don't lose anything anything, and you gain some flexibility in switching if you should ever choose to continually insure your car.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Lunner, I must ask your age. I feel it could be an important factor for some of the members here to place more judgment on ya.

[Lunner]

What's wrong with 17? All I'm seeing is that it allows you to switch and keep the persistency discount with your new insurer. You don't lose anything anything, and you gain some flexibility in switching if you should ever choose to continually insure your car.

The wording is such though that the inverse isn't so readily obvious. Yes, you become able to get a 'persistency discount' if you switch insurers, but it also allows for a surcharge should you ever lapse coverage for more than 90 days (currently illegal). Think about who this targets directly (if not someone like me for a moment :) , as I can go without a car for stretches of time when I feel the need to swap subframe bushings or pull an engine, and therefore don't feel like paying for insurance), this directly affects the uninsured (poor).

This means that if you already have lapsed in coverage because you couldn't afford it, getting coverage later will be made far more difficult due to the fact that as a previously 'uninsured driver' your premiums will be made even higher. As California drivers I think we can all agree that the problem of uninsured motorists on our streets is a serious one (well, possibly more so for me, as I live near/in a ghetto), and any legislation that would increase the amount of uninsured motorists on the roads is something I will always vote against.

Back to me (as a more readily available example), I may serve in the Peace Corps at some point, which means I'll be off the grid (so to speak) for 27 months or more. I have a clean driving record, and I still will when I return, but I could get boned in premiums just because I didn't drive a car for such an extended period of time. Or what if one goes on an extended vacation? Or is seriously ill? The discounts some will receive from this legislation will be more than compensated for by the poor and/or unlucky/etc. Would Mercury be spending this kind of money just to save you money on your premiums?

And even if any of that didn't sway ya, I think as voters every one of us should always be suspicious of a proposition that A) is being almost entirely funded by one company and B) has no real funded opposition (i.e., the counter argument isn't lucrative for anyone). Think about the amount of advertising you've seen in favor of these propositions, and then consider the counterarguments you've heard, if any.

Edit: Just realized you're in DC, which doesn't invalidate your point, I just want clarify that lately in CA we've (at least I and those I know personally) have been bombarded by pro 16 and 17 messages through televsion ads, mailers, even Facebook promotions, and whatever other outlet they can throw their campaign down our throats. The opponents, at least in my experience, are nowhere to be heard. I myself didn't really look into the implications of these proposals until I received my voter's guide in the mail, and became suspicious of the inundation of one sided ads (which lead me to do some reading up).

[Farbin Kaiber]

Move out of CA then. I dropped premiums from 357/mo for two full coverage to 127/bi-month for the same coverage by just leaving that damned state.

[Lunner]

Lunner, I must ask your age. I feel it could be an important factor for some of the members here to place more judgment on ya.

Tell you what, you tell me the precise amount of time (in years say) since birth someone's opinions and ideas become immediately valid and worthwhile (at least around these parts), and I'll tell you my age.

[Farbin Kaiber]

^ Ban then. I have 17kay posts, tell me or else.


I'll bet you are 17.


And, I'll even answer your question.


At least 25. Before that Ain't nobody had enough life experience to form a valid opinion.

[thebornotaku]

I'll bet you are 17.

He probably is, considering the fact he's a liberal. Too young to know the real evils of big government...

[Lunner]

Move out of CA then. I dropped premiums from 357/mo for two full coverage to 127/bi-month for the same coverage by just leaving that damned state.

That's one solution, but it's my understanding that this kind of practice is allowed in other states (Like Nevada anyway, I don't know the complete list and particulars of the other states). And further, I've generally got a 'fix-it' attitude to things (hence why I sold a 2003 Ford Taurus and used the money to buy an 87 bmw that needed some work), hopelessly idealistic as it can feel some times.

This is a great state, it's worth saving. And as far as my part, which I'll never forget is miniscule and perhaps inconsequential (though not always so one hopes), if one person who lives in CA reads this thread and (re)considers these issues, then I'll feel like I've contributed (albeit slightly) to some vague notion of civic virtue.

[Lunner]

^ Ban then. I have 17kay posts, tell me or else.


I'll bet you are 17.


And, I'll even answer your question.


At least 25. Before that Ain't nobody had enough life experience to form a valid opinion.

Lawl, alright, you win the post count.

And there's certainly something to be said for life experience, but now I gotta ask, how close are you to this magic age? And when you turned 25, please explain to me how everything all of a sudden 'clicked', the veil disappeared, and light shone through. I'm eager to hear your take on this mystifying experience.

As for me, I'm old enough to write these ideas out, and I'm not gonna play the age game or be goaded out by lowball numbers.

And if you want to discount what I have to say arbitrarily that's your business, but if you wanna talk about why I might be wrong by all means go for it. And again, I'm not interested in a forum debate on Left V Right, I'm curious to see what people (Californians in particular, as they'll ultimately decide) think about these two pieces of impending legislation.