Note: These are not the positions of the editorial board. This contribution is from a visiting opinion columnist. His views are solely his own. By Aaron Deivaprakash Visiting Opinion Columnist Today, Nov. 5, millions of Californians who have not already voted will go to the polls to cast their ballots. While the focus of ongoing election discourse has largely been at the national level, state and local issues are also of utmost importance. Your vote has a much higher chance of flipping the outcomes on these issues that will more directly impact you. As former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill once said, “All politics is local.” In that spirit, I would like to share my endorsements on the 2024 California ballot and my reasoning behind them. Prop 2: YES A YES vote on Prop 2 authorizes $10B in bonds to upgrade our educational facilities. $8.5B would go to K-12 schools and $1.5B to colleges and universities. This would be paid back over the next 35 years. I’m supporting Prop 2 because our K-12 schools are in a grave state of disrepair and our postsecondary institutions need upgrades. Many K-12 schools across California in low-income neighborhoods (both rural and urban) do not have adequate school supplies, sanitation, building safety, after-school programs, etc., because property taxes fund most educational costs. It has been proven that when kids grow up in low-income neighborhoods and go to low-income schools, they are less likely to learn and more likely to fall into a life of crime, homelessness, addiction, or a host of other negative life outcomes. We want our kids to succeed and become productive, law-abiding, happy and healthy members of society. Prop 2 works towards that. As for our colleges and universities, we as students know very well that we could use more scholarships and fewer tuition hikes. We can also fund more research so college students can be at the cutting edge of science, as well as ensure our buildings don’t crumble during earthquakes as they are set to now. As a student who wants to save money, be in the loop on scientific progress, and not die under a pile of bricks, I’m voting YES on Prop 2. Prop 3: YES A YES vote on Prop 3 amends the California Constitution to enshrine marriage equality. The Supreme Court of the United States has already enshrined marriage equality into federal law in its ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). This is merely a matter of the State of California righting its wrong of having voted against marriage equality in the past (see: Prop 8 from 2008). I’m standing with our LGBTQ+ brethren by voting YES on Prop 3. Prop 4: YES A YES vote on Prop 4 authorizes $10B in bonds for water, wildfire prevention, and environmental protection. This would be paid back over the next 40 years. I’m old enough to remember when the drought of the 2010s first started and our water rates went up. We were finally blessed with a rainy winter 2 years ago, but lacked the reservoirs needed to store the water. We badly need the money Prop 4 would authorize to ensure the next time it rains, it does not go to waste. Furthermore, wildfires remain a significant threat to people and property, with entire cities burning down and leaving people homeless. That smoke also ends up in the air, slowly poisoning us. The money from Prop 4 helps fight that. Finally, California is known for her natural beauty, with wonderful parks like Yosemite, Sequoia, Redwood, Joshua Tree, and Mammoth Lakes. I’m voting YES on Prop 4 to expand our water supply, stop wildfires, and protect the natural beauty of California. Prop 5: YES A YES vote on Prop 5 decreases the threshold needed to pass local affordable housing bonds from the current 66.7% to 55%. It is shocking to me that in a democracy like ours, it is not enough to get things done by a simple majority vote. While not perfect, Prop 5 alleviates this issue. The fact of the matter is that many of us will not be able to afford to live in California after graduation because the rent is too high. Supply and demand tells us that this is because there are too few housing units being built. Developers want to build more homes, but are choked by excessively restrictive zoning laws that force them only to build single-family houses or no housing units at all. This is due to lobbying from older, wealthy homeowners concerned about a slight decrease in home prices and supposed changes to ‘the character of their neighborhoods.’ Their time is up. We, the future of California and America, must come first. Let us make it easier to approve local affordable housing projects so we can have a place to live in our beloved state. I’m voting YES on Prop 5 because it is time to cut the red tape. Prop 6: YES A YES vote on Prop 6 amends the California Constitution to remove the provision allowing for forced prison labor. I was under the impression that we abolished slavery in 1865, but evidently not. While the incarcerated may be in prison for potentially heinous crimes, the righteous punishment is a loss of freedom, not being worked in de facto concentration camps. They should not have their fundamental human rights violated by being forced to work in dangerous professions like firefighting with little to no experience. Under a post-slavery regime, firms would still be incentivized to hire prison laborers because they would be paid the federal minimum wage of $7.25, less than half the California minimum wage of $16. We can rehabilitate prisoners by preparing them for the job market after they finish their sentences, but they deserve fair compensation. I’m voting YES on Prop 6 because I want California inmates to be paid fairly and be prepared for jobs they actually want to work in upon completion of their sentence.. Prop 32: NO A YES vote on Prop 32 immediately raises the California minimum wage from $16 to $17, with another increase to $18 at the start of 2026, after which it would be pegged to inflation. There is a 1-year delay for small businesses. As someone who’s worked minimum-wage jobs, I’m deeply sympathetic to their desire for a wage hike. Our economy is built off of the often thankless work they do, and we owe it to them to ensure they are taken care of. Prop 32 does the exact opposite. There’s a certain point at which raising the minimum wage too much will cause excessive distortion in the market, leading to massive labor surpluses per the law of supply and demand. This means many will be left out of a job. Furthermore, prices will increase in line with wages, leaving those who would become unemployed behind while those who keep their jobs would be no better off than before. It’s also worth noting that cities often set higher minimum wages, the market wage rises higher than the wage floor, and workers get wage increases with promotions. The status-quo peg to inflation is more than sufficient. I’m voting NO on Prop 32 because I do not want to risk sending the California economy into a recession. Prop 33: NO A YES vote on Prop 33 repeals the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which currently bans local rent control ordinances. Thus, rent control will likely be expanded. Ever taken an Econ class? I am a terrible artist so I cannot draw it up for you, but one of the very first graphs Econ students learn is that of supply and demand and how price ceilings affect markets. In a nutshell, a price ceiling (like rent control) is only effective if it is below the market price, in which case supply is less than demand. Therefore, rent control will cause shortages in housing units since developers would not have as much incentive to build and landlords wouldn’t have as much incentive to rent out. Even those still able to acquire housing under a rent control regime would suffer, since rent is used to pay for maintenance. In sum, Prop 33 would lead to more homelessness and worsened living conditions for renters. The way to resolve our housing crisis is by building more housing (see: Prop 5), not artificially restricting rents. Most Californians agree, which is why we voted NO on near-identical propositions in 2018 and 2020. I’m voting NO on Prop 33 because I recognize the basic economic reality that rent control just makes things worse. Prop 34: YES A YES vote on Prop 34 requires healthcare providers spending more than $100M on non-patient expenses and owning/operation apartment buildings with at least 500 severe health and safety violations in the last decade to spend at least 98% of revenue from the federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care. It also makes permanent a policy from Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration requiring California state agencies to coordinate Medi-Cal drug price negotiations. Negotiating drug prices to keep pharmaceutical costs low is a no-brainer, so let us talk about the crux of Prop 34. There is only one healthcare provider in California meeting the aforementioned conditions: the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF). You would be hard-pressed to even consider them as such, given that their Co-Founder and President Michael Weinstein seems more interested in spending AHF revenue on campaigning for political causes than he is caring for his AIDS patients. Specifically, Michael Weinstein has backed regressive anti-housing initiatives in multiple states by dumping millions of dollars from the AHF coffers into campaign ads. This includes California, where he is the primary bankroller of Prop 33 in this election and near-identical initiatives in 2018 and 2020. The role of healthcare providers is not to play politics but to provide healthcare. Don’t let Michael Weinstein abuse AHF revenues by failing his patients. I am voting YES on Prop 34 to hold Michael Weinstein accountable and protect AIDS patients. Prop 35: YES A YES vote on Prop 35 makes permanent an existing tax on managed healthcare insurance plans that fund Medi-Cal. After my grandfather tragically succumbed to COVID-19 in 2021, my grandmother left her hometown in India to live with us here in the United States. She is currently on Medi-Cal, which ensures seniors like her do not face the same fate as my late grandfather. The tax on managed healthcare insurance plans already exists, and it is so marginal you have probably never heard about it. Letting it expire would add extra strain to Medi-Cal (whose solvency is constantly at the brink of a fiscal cliff). That would put the lives of millions of California seniors like my grandmother in jeopardy, and that is not an outcome any of us should be willing to accept. I miss my grandpa; a well-funded program like Medi-Cal would’ve let him live to see me graduate. I’m voting YES on Prop 35 to extend a crucial tax that funds Medi-Cal and ensures no California family has to grieve the loss of a grandparent prematurely. Prop 36: YES A YES vote on Prop 36 allows felony charges for drug possession and petty theft against repeat offenders. Drug possession convictions would mandate treatment under the threat of incarceration. When the Westfield Mall in San Francisco shut down due to rampant theft, my friends and I went there on its last day open. In just that one trip, we saw someone smoking crack cocaine on our BART train, people stealing from one of the few stores still open at Westfield, and someone getting put into a body bag following an overdose. It is not hard to see why cities like San Francisco have gone from beacons of prosperity to the laughingstocks of America. We need to get our drug and theft problems under control because the status quo is an absolute disaster. Allowing open-air drug use is not compassionate; it is cruel. True compassion is making our fellow Californians suffering from drug addiction get the help they need. As for theft? Enough is enough. It is time we send a message to the career criminals of California that if they rob our stores, threaten employees, hike prices up and drive businesses out, they will be thrown into prison on felony charges. I’m voting YES on Prop 36 because we need criminal justice reform to help drug addicts and put robbers in custody. Closing Remarks Regardless of how you’re voting, I strongly encourage you to vote if you haven’t already done so. The centuries-honored tradition of elections is the foundation of our Republic, so let’s stand strong and united as Americans by embracing it.
0 Comments
|
STAFFAndrew Martinez Cabrera '26, Archives
November 2024
Categories |