As I was filling out my absentee ballot for the June primary, my thoughts wandered to the many absentee legislators who have somehow failed to lead California back to the Promised Land and…. Well don't get me started. Just please vote. The two propositions on the ballot, one could argue, may not affect Carlsbad businesses.
On the other hand, both are significant enough in impact to affect legislative priorities (Prop. 28) and those who profit from the tobacco industry, all of whom are not the devil (Prop. 29). So that makes them our business.
As usual, it is your job to separate the chaff from the wheat, which often requires seeing through somewhat specious for-and-against arguments that usually accompany propositions.
Here's a bit of a cheat sheet for you. Also, read your voter information guide to see if you agree with descriptors like "scam" and "flawed." It's a tough assignment, but you can do it!
Prop. 28, "reduces total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years," and allows 12 years of service in one house.
The only people caught up in this will be those elected after the measure is passed (if it is). Every other assemblyman or state legislator is governed by the term limit rules in force since 1990, which allows them to spend six years in the assembly and eight years in the senate. But if they fill a partial-term vacancy, they can spend as long as 17 years in office.
Supporters point out that no one will be able to serve more than a total of 12 years. But they can spend that time in one house or the other or both and there is no partial-term loophole.
Opponents to this measure say that it will actually increase people's time in office, saying in rebuttal, "members of the State Assembly will actually have their time in office doubled and State Senators their time increased by 50 percent."
Well, call me dumb (others have) but I don't get that. If one chooses to spend his or her full time in one chamber, then he or she can do so, meaning that the time spent in that chamber is greater than allowed before. That's not the same as exceeding the 12-year limit.
More salient to your decision is probably whether or not you like the idea of term limits in the first place as a house-cleaning strategy, or whether you think they result in losing valuable institutional knowledge when legislators are termed out.
Prop. 29 adds a five-cent tax on each cigarette distributed ($1 per pack) to fund cancer research and, "other specified purposes." Have any of you other non-smokers noticed that a pack goes for more than five bucks these days? You could have bought a couple of cartons for that money when I was a kid trying out a Lucky Strike in the alley behind my home.
Opponents are waging a major advertising campaign. Two of the main themes are that this research money may not stay in California (shame on you other 49 states for doing cancer research!) and that the measure establishes a 12-person oversight committee, including a pack (if you will excuse the expression) of political appointees.
Most can probably agree, "Who needs another committee?" This one gets to spend $15 million a year in the "committee account," probably administration. Opponents also say that the measure, "provides no new funds to treat cancer patients." That could be true, since the money is for research.
Supporters counter that, "Every word you just read (in the ballot argument against Prop. 29) was from a campaign bought and paid for by the tobacco companies." (Have we ever heard of that happening before?)
Here again, non-smokers might find this an easy vote. But it is interesting to examine both sides. If in the end you think the opposition's arguments don't pass the sniff test, it might be second-hand smoke.
On the other hand, both are significant enough in impact to affect legislative priorities (Prop. 28) and those who profit from the tobacco industry, all of whom are not the devil (Prop. 29). So that makes them our business.
As usual, it is your job to separate the chaff from the wheat, which often requires seeing through somewhat specious for-and-against arguments that usually accompany propositions.
Here's a bit of a cheat sheet for you. Also, read your voter information guide to see if you agree with descriptors like "scam" and "flawed." It's a tough assignment, but you can do it!
Prop. 28, "reduces total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years," and allows 12 years of service in one house.
The only people caught up in this will be those elected after the measure is passed (if it is). Every other assemblyman or state legislator is governed by the term limit rules in force since 1990, which allows them to spend six years in the assembly and eight years in the senate. But if they fill a partial-term vacancy, they can spend as long as 17 years in office.
Supporters point out that no one will be able to serve more than a total of 12 years. But they can spend that time in one house or the other or both and there is no partial-term loophole.
Opponents to this measure say that it will actually increase people's time in office, saying in rebuttal, "members of the State Assembly will actually have their time in office doubled and State Senators their time increased by 50 percent."
Well, call me dumb (others have) but I don't get that. If one chooses to spend his or her full time in one chamber, then he or she can do so, meaning that the time spent in that chamber is greater than allowed before. That's not the same as exceeding the 12-year limit.
More salient to your decision is probably whether or not you like the idea of term limits in the first place as a house-cleaning strategy, or whether you think they result in losing valuable institutional knowledge when legislators are termed out.
Prop. 29 adds a five-cent tax on each cigarette distributed ($1 per pack) to fund cancer research and, "other specified purposes." Have any of you other non-smokers noticed that a pack goes for more than five bucks these days? You could have bought a couple of cartons for that money when I was a kid trying out a Lucky Strike in the alley behind my home.
Opponents are waging a major advertising campaign. Two of the main themes are that this research money may not stay in California (shame on you other 49 states for doing cancer research!) and that the measure establishes a 12-person oversight committee, including a pack (if you will excuse the expression) of political appointees.
Most can probably agree, "Who needs another committee?" This one gets to spend $15 million a year in the "committee account," probably administration. Opponents also say that the measure, "provides no new funds to treat cancer patients." That could be true, since the money is for research.
Supporters counter that, "Every word you just read (in the ballot argument against Prop. 29) was from a campaign bought and paid for by the tobacco companies." (Have we ever heard of that happening before?)
Here again, non-smokers might find this an easy vote. But it is interesting to examine both sides. If in the end you think the opposition's arguments don't pass the sniff test, it might be second-hand smoke.