"Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway"
- John Wayne

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Raquel Rocks Politics: Proposition 37 Edition

I hate to drag on the ideas of the election and the proposition (I celebrated last night to no more annoying campaign ads!), but I was taught to review everything I do.  If this wasn't self-taught, someone must have slammed that idea into my head.
 For those of you non-California residents, Proposition 37 focuses on our food supply being labeled if it has been "Genetically Modified".  If passed, this prop requires that all foods that have been genetically modified in some way or another MUST be labeled that it is a GMO.  If not passed, there will be no labeling and nothing will change.
By the looks of it, Prop 37 will NOT pass in California.  Click here to look at the results.
However, this result shocked me.  California, being known as a "blue" state would have most likely voted "yes" for it causing all our food to be labeled a "GMO".  The public now-a-days is extremely health conscious about what they're putting into their mouths and what they're feeding their children.  These were the people FOR labeling food.  The people who were NOT for labeling food were the farmers and people who grew up around agriculture (some may be health conscious as well).  On the contrary, it was all how this prop was worded.
A huge slogan for the "No on Prop 37" Campaign was it would raise consumer taxes and waste consumer tax dollars.  Speaking for myself, I sincerely abhor taxes.  And I don't even pay them yet (except for state/local tax).  That was my first intuition of voting "no".  But the "Yes on Prop 37" Campaign stated labeling foods would not cost a thing.  My reason for voting "no" is the fact that almost every food we consume is already a GMO.  That's a whole other can of worms, but let's stick to the theory I'm making:

-Is the reason why Prop 37 didn't pass because Californians know this state has no balanced budget to provide for the cost of labeling?

-Or is the reason why Prop 37 didn't pass because Californians truly are okay with GMO's?

These are just some questions to think about.  Had California's budget been balanced (that's a nice fantasy), CA residents might have passed Prop 37.  My intuitive response is that CA residents are fed up with this state having governors who just spend and spend and spend as much as they want claiming "to fix" the state debt.  Furthermore, the whole country is in an economic recession which could have contributed to the way people voted.  People just don't want to spend any more money (aka taxes).

The other propositions that hinted towards taxing and funding were Proposition 30, 31, 33, 34, 38, 39.

Prop 30 "Temporary Taxes To Fund Education" is meant to increase taxes to help fund the state budget (advertisements stated the money would go to schools).  Although, I would immediately have voted against taxes, the ads for this prop hit me emotionally.  They were attacking my education.  If this prop didn't pass, my college bills would increase (because they are just SO affordable now...).  HOWEVER, nowhere in the Voter's Guide did it say the money would be used to help schools.  Prop 30 passed.

Prop 31 "State Budget, State and Local Government" is meant to where local governments could provide their own funding to implement legislation and also to have the authority to develop their own programs for state programs.  It didn't pass.

Prop 33 "Auto Insurance Prices Based on Driver History" is meant for the auto insurance companies to set a price for the customer based on their driving record.  It didn't pass.

Prop 34 "Death Penalty" is meant to no longer initiate the death penalty.  Instead, the state of CA would provide 100 million dollars in grants to local law enforcement agencies over the next 4 years.  It didn't pass.

Prop 38 "Tax For Education.  Early Childhood Programs" is meant to increase taxes for the next 12 years where this tax money would go directly to schools, childcare, preschool, and state debt payments.  It didn't pass.

Prop 39 "Tax Treatment For Multistate Businesses.  Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding.  Initiative Statute" is meant for multistate businesses to pay more corporate income tax.  About a half of this increased tax would be put forth for clean energy and efficiency projects.  It passed.

Continuing with my prediction, Californians just don't want to pay taxes.  Who would have thought?  Additionally, the props listed above spoke of "funding" and "grants" but they didn't specify where this money would be coming from.  Because CALIFORNIA HAS NO MONEY.  

In conclusion, most Californians voted based on money issues (Go figure).  This state has no money, I wish to move out of this state, my college is too expensive for having a professor who keeps flip-flopping his answers to midterms (sounds like a politician!), and I have no money.

I hope you enjoyed my post election ranting and theories.  I feel like such an political science major; sometimes this stuff is kind of interesting!  And then I just get upset.  Ahh the joys of growing up.  
Can't I just play with my Cabbage Patch Kids and call it a day?


1 comment:

  1. Having grown up in California, I'm tempted to make a very bad joke re this Prop (of many, maybe too confusing?) but I truly think that, like cholesterol, trans fat, etc, food producers will start to label non-GMs as just that..they aren't stupid, they know that buyers are more savvy now and are even willing to pay more for a product that is not frankenfood......
    Don't move, PolySci is actually lots of fun if you ltry to turn the frustration into partying...(notice that little pun, there?)