Would you mind sharing what you recommend for the different props? I'm voting right now (at home with a mail in ballot I get to drop off at a polling station in a few hours) and wouldn't mind your opinion. For California state wide, it seems almost everything is good except for 36. So far I've got YES on 3, 4, 5, and 6. YES on 32, 33, and 35. Big fucking NO on 36. I'm thinking it should be YES for 2 and 34 but I can see how potentially those could just be rich "administrators" (the capitalists who own private schools and medical facilities respectively) pocketing the proceeds.

Also yes, Kopmala can burn in hell. I'm voting Claudia of course (De La Cruz).

Any Hexbear but especially Californian input is welcome.

[–] junebug2@hexbear.net 7 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Prop 2 is another bond, which i think is an inefficient way to fund anything. On the other hand, it’s the only way voters are allowed to influence the budget. i know some people thought the climate bond was more important, and they only wanted to approve one bond. i voted yes for it, but i can’t blame people for thinking it’s an increase in tax obligations that the government will waste.

Prop 34 is a no, and it’s written very confusingly. It’s a smokescreen to disguise the fact that exactly one organization will be affected: the AIDS healthcare foundation. Why is that? The foundation is a leading advocate for rent control measures across the state and operates affordable housing in Skid Row. 34 is a prop written by a bunch of billionaire landlords to punish the AIDS foundation.

i agree with your other prop stuff, but if you have questions about them i can answer those too

[–] dachshundwithadesktop@hexbear.net 2 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

I was reluctant on 2 because I used to work at a community college back when another bond got passed. I was happy to see that it meant a much needed new building was set to be built. Even though there were time limits and stipulations on when it had to be done, they dragged their feet and it took almost a decade to happen (by that time I was gone). But I was still there long enough to watch the president of the college give himself and all his immediate associates massive bonuses. They may have done that anyway, but all the faculty (who were facing pay cuts if they weren't tenured, so most of them) said that it was the bond money that allowed the president to hand out raises to his favorite sycophants while cutting the staff and faculty. Soured me on ever wanting to vote for bonds with the purpose of improving schools. But on the other hand, the schools do need it, and if any of it really does get to them, then, probably the right thing.

And I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought 34 was written really suspiciously. I saw that there were some groups claiming exactly what you said, that it was targeting the AIDS foundation, but most of these groups have names that sound like good advocacy groups even when they're not. (Unless "family" is in the name, then it's usually a sure bet they're the vile fundamentalist rich chud-adjacent ones). Fucking slimeball shitstains though, the billionaire landlords. It will almost for sure pass.

Thank you for the response, it's helpful. I think I'll go ahead with yes on 2 but I now know it should be NO for 34.

[–] Coolkidbozzy@hexbear.net 6 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

Just look at PSL's affiliated party voter guide if you're unsure on any props

https://www.peaceandfreedom.us/index.php/news/elections-campaigns/pfp-workers-voters-guide-election-2024

[–] ziggurter@hexbear.net 3 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

Hmm. I disagree with them on the final choice for the bonds. I agree with their analysis that choosing to borrow the money from capitalists is fucking stupid, and is an absolutely unnecessary giveaway. However, I do think it is a little idealistic in the current context—where MMT is so far from the thinking and practice of like 99.999% of politicians and government institutions that it might as well not exist—to insist they not be used. In the short-term we're basically not going to get anything at all if we put a hard line on no new bonds. I DO go so far on sates taxes, which are SOOOOO fucking regressive.

[–] Coolkidbozzy@hexbear.net 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

I agree, bonds granting money for necessary causes is better than no money at all, if the state government refuses to provide funding otherwise. Ultimately California should just increase state taxes as required, of course. And fix the property tax loopholes