Election day (November 6, 2018) is almost upon us. Many of you have asked me to continue doing these election guides. So here are my recommendations. If you live in a different area of California from me, some of your local offices may be different. If so, I would recommend going to Election Forums and checking out their recommendations.
Here are a couple of other conservative voting guides for comparison:
Governor: John Cox (R)
Gavin Newsom (D) is the former mayor of San Francisco and is for more big government and progressive ideology. He would continue Jerry Brown’s policies and amplify them further. John Cox is a businessman with a good head on his shoulders. I have much more confidence that he can restore some fiscal sanity to this state.
Lieutenant Governor: Ed Hernandez (D)
Two really bad choices, but Ed is slightly less bad than Eleni Kounalakis.
Secretary of State: Mark Meuser
Controller: Constantinos Roditis
Treasurer: Greg Conlon
Attorney General: Steven Bailey
Insurance Commissioner: Steve Poizner
Member State Board of Equalization (3rd District): Rick Marshall
U.S. Senator: Dianne Feinstein (D)
Our choices are between Dianne Feinstein (the incumbent) and Kevin De Leon. Elements within the Democratic party are trying to oust Feinstein because she isn’t “liberal” enough for some of them anymore, and so are trying to push De Leon instead. Both are bad choices, but Feinstein is slightly more moderate than De Leon. Better to keep her in office for this election.
U.S. House of Representatives (38th District): Ryan Downing (R)
I’ve had a couple of chances to meet with Linda Sanchez (the Democratic incumbent). She’s a nice person, but toes the Democratic party line on all the important issues. Recently, her office released a statement regarding the recent Supreme Court ruling about Masterpiece Cakeshop. When I asked her about the press release, she basically said that people who do business should have to be open for business to everyone. This basically implies that business owners of faith in the wedding industry should have to perform services for same-sex weddings whether they want to or not. She does not have a good understanding of religious liberty and freedom of conscience. My vote is going to Ryan Downing.
State Senator (32nd District): Rita Topalian
Rita almost won this seat in a runoff election this past August. We need every vote possible in November if she is to win this State Senate seat.
Member of the State Assembly (37th District): Jessica Martinez
Go to this website if your judges differ from mine. I’m simply using their recommendations.
Supreme Court Justice:
Carol A. Corrigan: Yes
Leondra R. Kruger: No
Court of Appeal Justice
Victoria Chaney: Yes
Helen Bendix: Yes
Elwood Lui: No
Victoria Chavez: Yes
Luis Lavin: No
Halim Dhanidina: No
Anne Egerton: No
Nora Manella: Yes
Thomas Willhite: Yes
Dorothy Kim: No
Carl Moor: No
Lamar Baker: No
Arthur Gilbert: No
Martin Tangeman: No
Gail Feuer: No
John Segal: No
Tricia Bigelow: Yes
Judge of the Superior Court
Office No. 4: Alfred Coletta
Office No. 16: Sydne Jane Michel
Office No. 60: Tony Cho
Office No. 113: Michael Ribons
Superintendent of Public Instruction: Marshall Tuck
County Offices (Los Angeles)
Assessor: John “Lower Taxes” Loew
Sheriff: Jim Mcdonnell
State Measures (Propositions)
Unless otherwise stated, any quotations are from the Official Voter Information Guide that arrived in the mail
Prop 1: No
Borrows $4 billion to fund various housing programs, including “$1.5 billion for Multifamily Housing Program for low-income residents, $1 billion for loans to help veterans purchase farms and homes, $450 million for infill and transit-oriented housing projects, $300 million for farmworker housing program, and $300 million for manufactured and mobile homes.”
While this sounds nice, we shouldn’t be borrowing money to pay for it. It will cost us around $6 billion to repay these loans with the interest it would accrue over the 35 years it would be repaid.
Prop 2: Toss-up (I could be convinced either way)
“Allows the state to use up to $140 million per year of county mental health funds to repay up to $2 billion in bonds. These bonds would fund housing for those with mental illness who are homeless.” In essence, this is giving counties permission to use money that was already going to be borrowed and spent from the existing Mental Health Services Fund to fund the No Place Like Home Program.
On one hand, we shouldn’t be borrowing $2 billion to fund these types of programs. On the other hand, if the money was already going to be borrowed and spent anyway, it’s better to put it towards a superior program. Almost everyone (including Republicans and strong fiscal conservatives) voted for this measure, so I’m inclined to vote yes. On the other hand, my small government principles don’t want to encourage government borrowing and spending on these types of issues. I’m not sure where I’m going to come down on this one.
Prop 3: No
“Authorizes $8.877 billion in state general obligation bonds for various infrastructure projects: $3.03 billion for safe drinking water and water quality, $2.895 billion for watershed and fisheries improvements, $940 million for habitat protection, $855 million for improved water conveyance, $685 million for groundwater sustainability/storage, and $472 million for surface water storage/dam repairs.”
While we do need to spend money on infrastructure for our water supply, we don’t need to borrow money to do that (and end up paying $17.2 billion to fund this after we’ve borrowed the money and repaid it with interest after 35 years). Plus, spending nearly $1 billion on “habitat protection” sounds like a boondoggle to me.
Prop 4: No
“Authorizes $1.5 billion in bonds, to be repaid from the state’s General Fund, to fund grants for construction, expansion, renovation, and equipping of qualifying children’s hospitals.”
Again, it’s tempting to say yes because we want to help “children’s hospitals,” but borrowing $1.5 billion is saddling these same children to repay this debt over the course of the next 35 years ($2.9 billion when it is all said and done). Additionally, this plays into the larger role of government and healthcare. I prefer to keep the two seperated.
Prop 5: Yes
Many older residents live in a house that was purchased when the housing market was much lower. But now they can sell their property and move into a nicer home with the equity that they’ve gained. Currently, if they move into a home that has a greater market value than their current home, they would have to pay the property taxes of the new home (a dramatic increase for some). If they moved into a less expensive home, they can keep their original property tax rate.
In essence, this proposition would allow Seniors (55+) and those with severe disabilities to pay lower property taxes than the current system allows if they were to move out of their current home. The voter guide has two helpful charts on what happens under current law and what changes would occur if this passed.
Prop 6: Yes
The is the famous Gas Tax Repeal. Last year, the legislature passed a bill that increased the amount of taxes we pay on gasoline and vehicle registration to pay for infrastructure improvements.
This prop would eliminate these tax increases and makes future increases subject to voter approval. We are already the highest taxed state in the nation. We have enough money as it is for infrastructure. Sacramento needs to get its act together and learn how to spend their $201.4 billion budget. ($139 billion general fund)
Prop 7: Vote your preference
“Proposition 7 allows the Legislature with a two-thirds vote to change DST [Daylight Savings Time] (such as by remaining on DST year-round), as long as the change is allowed under federal law. Until any such change, California would maintain the current DST period.”
Want our current system of springing forward and falling back to remain the same? Vote NO.
Want to give the Legislature the ability to change that? Vote YES
Prop 8: NO!
In short, this proposition seeks to impose price controls on facilities that perform kidney dialysis treatment to make sure they aren’t overcharging patients. Who would be in charge of this? The California Department of Public Health.
On its face this doesn’t sound that bad. Who wants to be overcharged for a medical service when your life depends on it? But who gets to decide how much profit is too much profit? Who gets to decide how much it actually costs to provide a service like this? How much staff do you actually need? Like all socialistic attempts to impose price controls, it puts the government in charge of making these decisions without being able to take into account the actual cost of running a business. In addition, the idea of “too much profit” is completely subjective and is based on a number of false assumptions. Profits don’t just go straight into the pockets of the top executives as is often portrayed. Most profit is reinvested into the company, being used for things like medical research, opening more clinics to provide more treatment to a greater number of people, providing better care to the patients, hiring more staff, etc. Price controls such as this lead to technological stagnation (since you’ve taken away their primary way of funding research) and ends up providing much fewer services to fewer people. Let the free market do its job.
Prop 9 Removed from Ballot
Prop 10: NO
This proposition “repeals state law that currently restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities and other local jurisdictions may impose.” Under current law, rent control cannot be imposed on single family homes, apply to any new homes built after Feb 1, 1995, or dictate to landlords what they can charge a new renter when first moving in. This proposition would remove these limitations in return for guaranteeing that landlords must be able to receive a “fair rate of return.”
Rent control, while well intentioned, falls into the same traps as other price controls. Housing is so expensive because there aren’t enough homes. Supply and demand makes costs go up. Rent controls will ultimately exacerbate the housing crisis and discourage investors from building new housing. Check out these videos here and here to learn more about why this happens.
Prop 11: Yes
“Makes labor law entitling hourly employees to take work breaks for meals and rest, without being on-call, inapplicable to private-sector emergency ambulance employees.” Because of state law requiring most employers to provide an unpaid 30-minute meal break, and a recent court ruling (Augustus v. ABM Security Services) that mandates that such time be uninterrupted by work duties, this will probably lead to EMTs and paramedics being required to have similar guarantees. Without increasing expenditures, this could lead to slower response times during periods when they are on break. This proposition seeks to essentially create an exception for these professions and allow them to stay on-call during breaks. At the same time, it also guarantees certain protections regarding their work breaks as well as employer paid mental health services.
Prop 12: No
This proposition “establishes new minimum space requirements for confining veal calves, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens.” Hens would have to be cage free by 2022. A pig would need 24 square feet of space. A calf would need 43 square feet. Anything less than this is deemed “unfair competition.” It also makes it illegal for California businesses to sell products from other states that do not meet these standards.
While I value the ethical treatment of animals, forcing it through government regulation will have unintended consequences, such as increased prices on eggs, beef and pork, which disproportionately affects the poor. In addition, it is estimated that it will cost $10 million to enforce this new regulation. Is it worth it? I don’t think so. Most of the industry is moving in this direction already, with many major grocery stores, restaurants, and other companies sourcing their eggs, beef, and pork from farms that do this anyway. I don’t think it is necessary for the government to step in here.
Measure W – No
School Board (Norwalk – La Mirada)
There are 6 candidates and you are able to vote for up to 4 of them. My local sources tell me that Jorge A Tirado is the only one really worth voting for. So I will only be voting for him. If you happen to know and like other candidates, feel free to vote for them.
Central Basin Municipal Water District
Max A. Ordonez
Whether you agree or disagree with my assessment, get out and vote! Remember, voting day is Tuesday November 6, 2018. Polls are open from 7am-8pm in California.