Funyuns and Mountain Dew

A study of alternative fuels.

Help A College Student:




Powered by Blogger

Subscribe with Bloglines Add to My Yahoo!
Get Firefox

Thursday, October 20, 2005

I'm Smarter Than You: Special Election Edition

Props 73-75

PROP. 76

State spending and school funding limits. Initiative constitutional amendment.
My vote: YES. Limits state spending increases to an average of the previous three years' growth. Sounds great, so that's a "yes." The problem is, who's going to actually cut the spending? Certainly not the Assembly. The amendment does give the Governor power and the leeway to lop-off significant appropriations, but with next year's budget due just a few months before Arnold faces re-election, I don't see him making unpopular but necessary cuts. And God forbid he loses next November! What will Governor Beatty do!?

PROP. 77

Redistricting. Initiative constitutional amendment.
My vote: YES. I'm not going to delude myself into believing that you can actually take the politics out of redistricting. You're never going to make a "fair" system when there are political lives on the line. But at the very least we can cast our vote for "more fair."

PROP. 78

Discounts on prescription drugs. Initiative statute.
My vote: YES. A though one. On the one hand, this is a common sense approach to the problem of prescription drug costs (Common sense? California?). It doesn't cost a whole lot (they claim about $10m, mostly for publicizing the program), there's no "penalize the rich tax" involved, and the drug companies aren't exactly getting screwed either (it's voluntary on their part).

On the other hand, government has no business providing such a service in the first place. Fair-weather libertarian that I am, this one gets a begrudging "yes."

PROP. 79

Prescription drugs discount. State-negotiated discounts. Initiative statute.
My vote: NO. Ah, now here's the kind of unadulterated crazy you expect to see in California politics. Puts a gun to the pharmaceutical industry's head and scraps every sensible, effective program that's already working. This initiative makes profit motive illegal for all intents and purposes.

And it goes without saying that such a plan couldn't get far in the Golden State without the approval of the State Employees' Unions (they get a new bureaucracy to play with) and trial lawyers (who will run wild under a broad new "profiteering" law). A horrible, horrible idea. In other words, it's a state Democrat's wet dream.

PROP. 80

Electric service providers. Regulation. Initiative statute.
My vote: NO. Do we learn nothing in this state? Had we not regulated the industry in the first place, the phrase "rolling blackout" would never have entered the lexicon. Please, let's truly open the industry to competition, and then watch as not only does service improve, but prices fall.
2 comments
Home

Comments:

If porp. 79 passes, is it even really enforceable withoyt the rest of the nation following suit? I mean, if I was a pharmaceutical company and couldn't make a profit ever, I would either stop researching drugs or not sell them in that place. Drug companies will move out of California (good bye tax revenues and good scientists) and there would probably be drug shortages within the state, meaning importation from Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon would become common. Idiotic proposition.

posted by Blogger Unknown @ 5:18 PM
Well, I wouldn't be too worried about it coming to all that. Practically the same initiative was passed in Maine a few years back, and the pharmaceutical companies beat it down in the courts fairly easily.

But to be sure, the reasoning is flawed from top to bottom on this one.

posted by Blogger Richard @ 1:04 PM

Post a Comment

My Other Place

Media

Hall of Fame

Behind the Orange Curtain

California

Best of the Rest

Organizations


Bear Flag League:


Archives

Content and template copyright 2005, Richard Ceccarelli. Free to use, but must credit.