Also serving the communities of De Luz, Rainbow, Camp Pendleton, Pala and Pauma

Proposition endorsements follow political lines

Rick Monroe

Special to the Village News

Propositions 26 and 27, followed by Proposition 1, were reviewed in previous weeks in the paper. The Republican Party urges a no vote on each, while the Democratic Party is mixed – yes on Proposition 1, no on proposition 27, and neutral on Proposition 26.

There are seven propositions on the Nov. 8 ballot and the official Republican position is close to unanimous with a no recommendation on all but Proposition 28. That proposition about funding for arts and music garnered a neutral position.

Of course, the Democratic Party was nearly the opposite. It urges a yes vote on Propositions 28, 29, 30 and 31. Proposition 27 on online sports gambling is opposed, and it takes a neutral position on Proposition 26 on in person sports gambling.

Here’s a closer look at the final four propositions, 28-31:

Proposition 28 is about funding for arts and music. The official title is “Provides Additional Funding For Arts And Music Education In Public Schools. Initiative Statute.” The “Plain English Title” according to Reform California, a conservative group based in San Diego, is that it “Earmarks Mandatory Funding from the Existing State Education Budget for Arts and Music Programs.

Reform California explains, “Prop 28 is an earmark – or a requirement – that the state spend at least a certain amount of funds from the state budget for the exclusive benefit of art and music programs. The earmark mandates that 1% of required state and local funding for public schools be set aside for arts and music programs and then allocates a greater proportion of the funds to schools serving more economically disadvantaged students.”

That would include Fallbrook. However, Reform California notes that earmarks are not free money, so any earmark will have to come at the expense of other educational programs for fundamental academic areas like reading, writing, arithmetic, etc. Reform California recommends a no vote.

Proposition 29’s official title: “Requires On-Site Licensed Medical Professional At Kidney Dialysis Clinics And Establishes Other State Requirements. Initiative Statute.”

Reform California’s Plain English Translation: “Imposes Costly Regulations on Kidney Dialysis Clinics to Benefit Organized Labor Unions.”

This may be familiar to voters since it has been rejected twice before, in 2018 and 2020. Why does it keep appearing on the ballot? Reform California says, “Wealthy labor unions force the measure on the ballot in an attempt to impose new costly regulations on kidney dialysis clinics that would benefit the interests of the unions.” The measure also increases mandatory state reporting and prohibits clinics from closing or substantially reducing services without state approval. Reform California recommends a no vote.

Proposition 30’s official title: “Provides Funding for Programs to Reduce Air Pollution and Prevent Wildfires by Increasing Tax on Personal Income Over $2 Million.”

Plain English Translation: “Tax Increase – Increases Income Taxes to Fund a Variety of New Government Programs.”

This is a massive income tax increase, even though California already has the highest income taxes in the country of any state. Proposition 30 imposes a 1.75% tax increase for personal incomes over $2 million. Revenue for the proposition aims to go toward climate change measures, but the definition of programs eligible for these new funds is quite broad as to allow the funds to be used in a wide range of ways. Reform California recommends a no vote.

Proposition 31’s official title: “Referendum on 2020 Law that Would Prohibit the Retail Sale of Certain Flavored Tobacco Products.”

Plain English Translation: “Should California Ban the Sale of Flavored Tobacco?”

Proposition 31 is a “referendum” or question on whether a proposed state law should be implemented or rejected, states Reform California. State Senate Bill 793 prohibits the retail sale of certain flavored tobacco products and tobacco flavor enhancers. A “yes” vote would uphold and pass the law into effect, banning the retail sale of these flavored tobacco products. A “no” vote would overturn the law and tobacco companies would be allowed to sell flavored tobacco products in the state. Reformed California doesn’t take a position.

This concludes the three articles about the state propositions on the Nov. 8 ballot.


Reader Comments(0)

Rendered 07/09/2024 13:26