Daylight Squandering Time

Early this morning was when our clocks "Fall back" at the end of Daylight Saving Time. Now we're into... Daylight Squandering Time?

I do appreciate the time change meaning that it's light in the sky when my 6:45am weekday alarm rings. Today I actually got out of bed at 6:44 instead of my weekend 8am alarm time because it was so bright out (and because I'd gotten an extra hour of sleep). The thing is, while I do like the added daylight in the morning, I dislike the loss of daylight in the afternoon/evening even more. Sunset is at 5:06pm today. It'll be totally dark out by 5:30pm.

Count me as one of the people who prefers eliminating the twice-a-year time change... by going on Daylight Saving Time permanently.

Ballot Propositions - Nov 2022 - part 1

I've written a few blogs recently about ballot propositions in California: what ballot props are, and problems that can make them thorny to decide on. I started this series as a slow roll leading up to election day, meaning to spend time examining each of the props. Alas I rolled a bit too slow. Election day is just two days away, and I haven't written anything about specific races or measures yet. Thus I'll group together the 7 statewide measures in two blogs.

Prop 1: Protect Abortion Rights: HELL YES!

Proposition 1 is a state constitutional amendment to explicitly recognize an individual's right to reproductive freedom. There's so much I could write about why I'm voting HELL YES on this (technically I'm just voting "Yes"; there isn't a super-like option on the ballot) but I'm not going to bother. It's just the right thing to do.

As a legal matter, Prop 1 is a Legislative Constitutional Amendment. That means it has been approved by the state legislature with a 2/3 supermajority vote and now needs approval by a simple majority of the voters to become part of the state constitution.

Prop 26: Legalize Sports Betting in Tribal Casinos: No.

Proposition 26 is one of two measures on the ballot this election cycle to expand gambling in the state. I'm not opposed to gambling in general but I'm also not opposed to the status quo of how gambling is limited in California. Prop 26 would increase the scope of casino-style gaming allowed at tribal casinos to include roulette and dice games such as craps. It would also allow betting on horse racing at horse racetracks. If this was all the measure did, if it was a simple and clean expansion of gambling, I'd probably support it. But it's not clean. The measure includes opaque language about allowing private lawsuits over gaming regulations. That seems designed as self-dealing by the wealthiest casinos, generally those backed by out-of-state gambling mega-corporations, sue smaller competitors out of business. This stench of industry self-dealing is what turns me against this one. Follow the money. Unsurprisingly it's backed by record amounts of money from casino interests— though not all of them; just the ones that expect they'd get to wear the boot. Vote No on Prop 26.

Prop 27: Legalize Online & Mobile Sports Betting: Heck No.

Proposition 27 is even more of a self-dealing stinker than prop 26. Prop 27 would explicitly allow out-of-state organizations to offer gambling online and through mobile apps to Californians. Gambling has a dark side to it. In California, under the status quo, that dark side is somewhat addressed by gaming creating local jobs and a portion of profits being required to be put into fighting the ills of problem gambling. This expansion of gambling would cause a commensurately large increase in the ills of gambling— but with operations being shifted to out-of-state businesses (including cronyistic accounting secrecy provisions in the measure) we'd lose the ability to mitigate the downsides.Follow the money: out-of-state mega casinos are bankrolling this, along with the few tribes who already have business partnerships with themt. Who's opposing it? Like, everyone else! It's notable that both major political parties and all the big newspapers in California oppose prop 27. Vote Heck No on Prop 27..


Continued in next blog: My recommendations for Props 28-31

Ballot Propositions - Nov 2022 - part 2

Earlier today I began sharing my opinions about the statewide propositions on the ballot in California. See Ballot Propositions - Nov 2022 - part 1. Here in part 2 I address the latter four props on this November's ballot.

Prop 28: Lock in Funding for K-12 Arts and Music: Gentle No.

A few days ago I wrote blog entry The Problems with Propositions. Prop 28 is exactly the sort of measure I had in mind when I explained the trouble with props that lock in spending requirements. The bill would ensure a certain baseline amount of funding for K-12 arts and music education. To be sure, supporting such education programs is a worthy goal. And because of that it may well pass. I mean, who could be against teaching art and music to kids? But here's the thing: a vote against this initiative is not a vote against art. It's a vote against tying the hands of state legislators in the budgeting process.

This year California's budget spends nearly $100,000,000 on K-12 education, an average of $17,000 per student. For context: yes, that's a lot. And it's a lot partly because the state has enjoyed strong tax revenues for several years. But strong revenues are not a given. During an economic slowdown— of the sort that most economists, business leaders, and even ordinary citizens are predicting will happen next year if not sooner— California's tax revenues fall. Legislators then face tough choices in where to allocate funds. Each voter-passed initiative that locks in funding for one item or another makes the decisions about where to spend the remaining money more dire. Lock-ins for art and music may mean that school programs for language suffer... or perhaps that programs for supporting the elderly or combating climate change get short shrift.

Again, I recognize that supporting art and music education is a sympathetic choice. The only problem I have with this bill is that it's a funding lock-in. That's why I'm calling my position a Gentle No on 28.

Prop 29: Dialysis Clinic Regulation: No.

Patients who need kidney dialysis face dire straits. Shouldn't the industry that keeps them alive be better regulated? Don't be fooled; that's not what this is about.

This initiative matches at least 2 of the 5 proposition problems I described the other day. First, regulation in an industry that is a matter of life-or-death for certain individuals is a deeply detailed bit of policy that  shouldn't be left to ordinary citizens to enact on strict up-or-down votes.

Second— and more importantly— this is a special-interest, self-dealing initiative in disguise. Follow the money to see who is bankrolling this and understand why. Funding comes almost entirely from the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West union, which has been fighting with the two major providers of kidney dialysis over workers' contracts for years. This is now the second time in recent years the SEIU has gone to the ballot box in an attempt to gain extra leverage in negotiations. I support unions fighting for fair pay, benefits, and working conditions. I do not support them misleading voters at the ballot box to win what they cannot win in equal party negotiations. Vote No on 29.

Prop 30: Tax the Rich to Fight Wildfires and Climate Change: No.

Ah, Prop 30, another measure with a worthy-seeming set of goals. Wildfires are already a very destructive phenomenon in California, costing billions annually, destroying homes and habitat, and often causing deaths. Who could be opposed to reducing the risk of wildfires? Especially since as bad as they are now they're expected to get worse as a result of climate change.... Which this measure nominally also fights. Who but climate deniers doesn't want to fight climate change? And who better to soak with the bill for all of this than California's highest income citizens, those making over $2 million per year?

Alas, Prop 30 is another case of a moneyed special interest looking to do itself a favor at taxpayer expense while using a noble goal as a disguise. Follow the money and you'll see: a) the measure's main sponsor is ride-share company Lyft, and b) the measure's main expenditure is subsidizing purchase of electric cars and the construction and operation of recharging stations. How does (b) relate to (a)? California recently passed a law requiring all new cars sold be electric by 2035. Lyft depends on a huge fleet of vehicles... which it wants taxpayers to subsidize its contractor-employees buying & refueling.

Look, I'm all in favor of vehicle electrification. And I don't like wildfires or climate change. But this tax-the-rich-to-subsidize-a-huge-company measure is the wrong way to further either of those goals. It's a flawed and self-dealing initiative. Vote No on 30.

Prop 31: Uphold Law Banning Flavored Tobacco: Yes.

Prop 31 is a referendum... Instead of being an initiative proposing to create a new law, it is an initiative allowing citizens to veto an existing law. Many voters feel confused and irritated by so many props each year that they take a stance of "I'm just going to vote No on everything!" This is one of the cases where that mindset is misplaced. With a referendum a Yes vote upholds an existing law and a No vote removes it.

What's the law at stake here? 2020 the California legislature approved, and the governor signed into law, a bill banning the sale of certain flavored tobacco products. Cigarette smoking is a major public health hazard generally speaking, and flavored tobacco products have repeatedly been shown to appeal to underage smokers, hooking kids on a destructive, lifetime habit. It's important to attempt funded by the tobacco industry (again, follow the money) to veto our laws— and to do that voters must vote YES on 31.