2008 General Election Guide Pt.I

We realize many of you have gone absentee or voted at the polls already but in the interest of providing to our consumers and continuing our “Life of Service”, BwD proudly rolls out its 2008 general election guide. We will start with the state-wide propositions and considering the state of the economy, the state’s budget deficit and the looming federal debt crisis, many of these propositions didn’t require much deliberation as we are operating under the mantra of “no more new debt”. Onward:


Prop. 1 High Speed Rail Bonds

You in a big hurry to get to Fresno?

Lot’s of big numbers being thrown around with respect to the ultimate burden on the taxpayers: $20 billion, $40 billion…

We have a one word response to this state-run railroad request: AMTRAK

Well, one more: No.

All aboard! Next Stop…. Prop 2.


Prop. 2 Standards for Confining Farm Animals (aka The free-range chicken statute)

Promising stress-free Denver omelettes. We had no idea this was an issue. We figure no one knows more than chicken farmers how to best raise their chickens and thus increase the yield of eggs. And since we also figure that a stressed chicken is not going to lay many eggs, the farmers may have this one figured-out already.

No on Prop. 2


Prop. 3 The Children’s Hospital Bond Act

The most dreaded phrase in ballot initiatives/propositions: “Its for the children”… at a cost of over $2 billion over 30 years. Sorry, kids.

No on Prop. 3

Man, this is easy.


Prop. 4 Parental notification prior to aborting a minor’s pregnancy. (aka Sarah’s Law)

An initiative that appears to be so rational and reasonable would explain why it has failed in its 2 previous ballot efforts here in California.

Yes on Prop. 4


Prop. 5 Non-violent drug offenses rehabilitation.

$1 billion/year. Sorry, no more new debt.

No on Prop. 5


Prop. 6 Police and Law Enforcement funding

Nearly $1 bil/year increasing each year to adjust for inflation.

No on Prop. 6


Prop. 7 Renewable Energy Generation

Mandates of utilities the amount of renewable energy required to generate power (40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025). If you’ve hung out here for any amount of time, you know we don’t do mandates. Once renewable energy technologies start paying for themselves, the utilities driven by economic self-interest (or "greed", whichever you prefer) will be busting down the door to implement them. Penalties for non-compliance will, of course, be passed along to the consumer.

Besides, they robo-called us while we were putting this together. Grounds for dismissal.

No on 7


Prop. 8 Traditional marriage constitutional amendment

Man, all those big numbers had our head spinning. OK, you know where we stand on this one so we won’t waste a lot of time. Two take-aways from the whole Prop. 8 campaign: For a state that will print official paperwork in every language under the sun but deny breeders use of the old marriage license certificate strikes us as ironic as this was supposed to be about non-discrimination and tolerance. Also, the California Teachers Association has poured well over $1 million into efforts to defeat this measure. Gee, we didn’t realize that the teachers had a horse in this race.

Yes on 8


Prop. 9 Criminal Justice System. Victim’s Rights. Parole. Initiative Constitutional Amendment Statute

Right out of the blocks the voter information guide explains that back in 1982, California voters approved Prop. 8, known as, “Victim’s Bill of Rights”. OK, then. Reading more, it appears to be mostly administrative tweaking with respect to notifications, restitution and parole hearings. And in the “Argument in Favor of Proposition 9”, a lot of ALL CAPS were used. We hate that. Its like we’re being yelled at. Bottom line: They did not make a very compelling case.

No on 9


Prop. 10 Alternative fuel vehicles and renewable energy

$10 billion more in long-term debt to subsidize the purchase of high fuel economy and alternative fuel vehicles including natural gas vehicles. Alternative energy solutions are not yet ready to be economically competitive across the board so we see no reason to increase the state’s debt to pursue them, especially when it also means lining the pockets of natural gas magnate, T. Boone Pickens who backed the funding to get this onto the ballot.

No on 10


Prop. 11 Redistricting

When a similar measure was on the ballot a couple of years ago, there was an ad running in opposition to it that claimed the committee that would re-draw the districts would be made up of (cue scary voice) “retired liberal judges”. The ad was so over-the-top ridiculous, we figured it had to be funded by a liberal group that was pretty pleased with the way the state assembly and senate districts are drawn-up, currently.

Look, it doesn’t matter who’s on this committee. It could be this guyfor all we care – it couldn’t get any more gooned-up than having it left in the hands of the very people whose political livelihood is tied to how the districts are drawn up as is the case currently in Sacramento.

Yes on 11


Prop. 12 Veteran’s Bond Act

We struggled with this bond that would provide home and farm loan assistance to California veterans to the tune of $ 900 million but we opted for consistency. When this state gets its economic house in order, put this one at the top of the wish-list and we will gladly reconsider. Until that time, everyone is in the same boat.

No on 12


There you have it. We may try to get to the San Diego City propositions later but no promises.