The glaring weaknesses of California’s Proposition 2

Dear Editor,

I find it ridiculous that $3 billion could be set aside for a day when it is deemed most needed by politicians. A strong argument for voting “No” on Proposition 2 is the conventional belief that many politicians and state lawmakers will utilize it as a slush fund that they can tap into for their own personal benefit. The politicians will end up putting this tax money towards campaigns, advertisements, and other not-so-significant financial decisions. A second argument against Proposition 2 declares that politicians should use the money that would be put into a rainy day fund to cut the taxes of citizens and give refunds accordingly. This would be much more effective than saving up for a “rainy day” because citizens would be guaranteed to have their tax money used in a way that they are able to see and agree with. If ratified, Proposition 2 will be destructive to Californians’ passion for contributing to the government and their community.

— Cole Kelley

Physician shortages in the Central Valley: A problem we can no longer ignore

Dear Editor,

The Central Valley grows the food that feeds California, but who is taking care of the people who feed us? The Central Valley deserves better access to healthcare, and more physicians. Our community faces a significant shortage of physicians, decreasing the quality of medical care, and making it difficult for families to receive treatment in time. In order to conquer this issue, we need more opportunities for future physicians to want to come to the central valley to practice.

UC Merced medical efforts including its San Joaquin Valley PRIME + program is a start to addressing this shortage. However, programs such as these are highly competitive, and we cannot rely on a limited number of positions to meet the medical needs of the entire region.

One solution is for California to expand medical education opportunities and offer student loan forgiveness to doctors who commit to practicing in communities with a lack of physicians such as the Central Valley. Medical school debt can be a significant barrier and reducing that burden would encourage more physicians to build their careers here. Investing in local students and creating additional pathways into medicine could also help develop more physicians into our area. UC Merced has shown us what is possible and now we must build upon that progress.

— Narinder Mann

Proposition 41 is disingenuous

Dear Editor,

Out of each and every proposition offered on the ballot this year, there has never been a law as misleading and disingenuous as Proposition 41. This proposal aims to apply audits to any programs funded by new taxes in accordance with the spending limits of the state, and although it may sound beneficial in terms of economic efficiency, it soon becomes apparent on who it is economically favoring. If this ballot measure gains more votes than the “billionaire tax,” also known as Proposition 40, then it has the power to eliminate such a bill. This makes it one out of the two total bills created to specifically go against the interests of those wishing to tax people who make far above the average person. Not only that, but the bill has been funded approximately $58 million dollars by groups such as Building A Better California backed by major tech billionaires. Even with the wording of this bill, it is very important to point out that these audits on new taxes can really just be used by the ultra-wealthy against any taxes that they oppose, or taxes that may affect their wealth negatively. It is important to learn to be careful of ballot decisions such as Proposition 41, as they may be hiding more than meets the eye when it comes to affecting the future of California.

— Giovanni Morgan

Vote no on Proposition 38

Dear Editor,

Proposition 38 could provide major benefits for medical research, but I do not think the money is being distributed in the best way. The Proposition would allow California to borrow $8.4 billion in bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research. Bonds are a way for the state to borrow money, then repay it with interest over time. This research could lead to better treatments for diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and heart disease. That sounds like a good investment at first. But my problem is that half of the money, about $4.2 billion, would be directed towards one specific UC-affiliated research institute. The other half would be available to other qualifying research facilities through grants. I think that is too much taxpayer money being guaranteed to one organization. If California is going to take on billions of dollars in debt for medical research, the money should be distributed based on which researchers and projects have the best chance of helping patients. It should not favor one institute before the research even begins. And if the funded research leads to new medical treatments, the average cost of patient care could either increase or decrease. As a result, the overall effect on program costs is uncertain on costs for state health programs (such as Medi-Cal). I support funding medical research, but I would vote no on Proposition 38 because I think the funding should be more competitive and benefit a wider range of researchers and patients.

— Landen Neal

California's infrastructure

Dear Editor,

California has a serious spending problem, and they know it. Here in California we have many infrastructure issues the average citizen recognises, most notably of which being the unkept state of our roads. The streets of California have fallen to a state of disrepair and have been like that for a while, but too little money has gone towards repairing these long forgotten streets. Whereas the state has recently started a large project being the High Speed Rail system. Their proposed plan originally reached an estimated cost of just $33 billion, and now after beginning construction their new evaluation has skyrocketed to upwards of $230 billion. With their current time frame expecting them to finish by 2040, having already spent upwards of $15 billion on the project as of now. While the difference in budget from beginning to present is rather shocking, the lack of transparency is more concerning. On the official website anything related to costs of budgets is almost impossible to find, requiring a lot of digging through the website, which is not feasible for ordinary citizens. Instead they choose to plaster the website with information about the number of “disadvantaged” workers they have hired to work on this project, and how many job opportunities this has created. While job openings are much needed right now in California, it is hardly the most pressing matter when we plan to spend another 200 billion dollars on a project initially estimated at less than a sixth of the cost. Likewise this amount of time, job openings, and money could have very well been better spent on something more useful to the people.Throughout California roads are crumbling and potholes are the norm in most towns and is something that almost every citizen would hope to see fixed.

— Jackson Payne

No on Proposition 40

Dear Editor,

The proposed “billionaire tax,” Proposition 40, raises some serious concerns about how California plans to address its healthcare costs. There is no question that low-income Californians deserve access to affordable healthcare, and helping struggling families should be a priority. However, creating another massive tax does not guarantee that the people who need help will actually receive it. California already has some of the highest taxes in the country. A 5% tax on a $1 billion income would put $50 million per billionaire into the pockets of politicians. With 246 billionaires living in California, the amount of money involved is astronomical; Some of these billionaires will likely choose to move their businesses, investments, and assets to other states, taking jobs and future tax revenue with them. Like what we already saw happen with SpaceX. While this appears to be a policy that will generate more money, it would likely reduce the economic activity that California depends on. Billions of dollars collected from Californian billionaires should come with clear requirements for how the money is spent, along with proof that it is actually reaching struggling families. Without those protections, Proposition 40 will become just another large sum of money controlled by the legislature without accountability for where it is going. Now, the main issue with this Proposition is that California cannot continue solving every financial problem by asking someone else to pay more. If the goal is to make healthcare more affordable, the focus should be on reducing the cost of healthcare and making sure existing resources are being used effectively. California's taxpayers need a solution that is transparent, that shows real incentive to make a change with specific places the money will go to, not another expensive promise with no guarantee that it will solve the problem.

— Giavanna Plagenza

The pattern must stop repeating

Dear Editor,

I am seething at the thought of the incident that took place at Cornell University. How dare they give only an essay to the 7 men as a punishment for assaulting an innocent and vulnerable woman. We see that Jane Doe has been treated as an afterthought not only within the jurisdiction of the University, but also in the Government of New York which raises concerns if they are delaying her legal rights or making any effort to protect them.

This lack of accountability has been very disappointing to witness from the outside. It makes me question, are our laws upholding the protection of citizens when they are intoxicated or too vulnerable to give consent? This case has brought attention to the laws of New York regarding sexual assault and voluntary intoxication. Prosecutors had initially declined to pursue criminal charges, but the case has resurfaced again and has gained national attention.

Lawmakers should properly examine if the current laws protect people that cannot consent due to being under the influence. Just because an individual is unable to think rationally as an effect of consuming alcohol does not mean that their consent matters any less. What happened to Jane Doe was outside of her control, and government officials have the responsibility to protect victims and enforce existing criminal laws through the legal process.

This pattern must stop repeating itself. No victim should feel silenced or abandoned by the law. In order to achieve faith in the justice system, the system itself must be closely scrutinized.

— Areebah Saderkhail

Why I support Proposition 39

Dear Editor,

When we cast our ballots, we should never have to wonder if our elections are secure. Proposition 39 would help prevent this. It would require voters to provide government issued identification when voting in person and would add identification requirements for mail in ballots. When people know there are clear identification requirements, they will have a greater confidence that our elections are being handled fairly and securely. This trust matters because our democracy depends on people believing their votes count. Some opponents may argue that the measure could create barriers for eligible voters who have a hard time accessing Identification and increase government cost. While those concerns should be taken seriously, the integrity of our elections are much more important. Proposition 39 is a consistent way to identify voters' identities and improve confidence in election results. This proposition would ease the concerns and anxieties of many voters, being assured in the fact that all votes are verified and eligible U.S. citizens. This measure would also provide free voter identification for those who need it, while keeping options such as mail voting and extending polling hours available. Thirty-six states require voters to present government identification in order to vote at the polls on election day and twenty four of those require voters to present photo identification. If it is possible for thirty six other states to satisfy this requirement, why should it be any different for California voters?

— Sydney Salabor

Invest in education, invest in tomorrow

Dear Editor,

Our state's future is not built on tax brackets, but on the potential of the students, such as myself and countless others, sitting in classrooms today. As the election nears, California voters face a difficult decision regarding the future of our public education system. Proposition 2 wants to extend the temporary state income tax increase on high earners to continue providing funding for K-12 schools and community colleges. This tax has served an important lifeline for K-12 schools and community colleges, which prevented drastic budget cuts, and ensured the classrooms remained staffed and equipped. We must not allow this because it will lead to an underfunded education system. The funding from this initiative directly supports essential programs, reduces class sizes, and maintains the quality of instruction that our students deserve. If we allow this funding to end, we risk undergoing the progress made and balancing our school districts during recent years. By knowing these taxes, we are making sure our educators and administrators have some cushion for a financial foundation that is necessary to plan for improvements. The students do not have the luxury of waiting for a better financial environment to receive their education. Some examples of this as a senior at Pitman High School is having smaller classes, which allows the educators to be able to provide more personalized instruction to the students. They should have the option to have the resources today to succeed tomorrow and further on. I urge the people of California to look past the situation and recognize that in order for the students to thrive, we must vote to protect our schools and secure the future for all California students.

— Gissel Salas

We cannot let our own students suffer in subpar schools any longer

Dear, Editor,

Do you want our children to attend underfunded schools without sufficient textbooks, computers, or even pencils? This is what our schools will look like in the near future if we decide to block even more school funding. The passing of Proposition 3, would prohibit any threat toward seizing vital taxes on high income earners in California. Our schools in California have faced and are facing serious staff deficits. According to the California Budget and Policy Center, California ranks dead last for students per teachers, students per counselors and students for librarians. Stopping a tax which 89% of its money goes to fund K-12 schools would further bury California deeper into our title of, according to the California Budget and Policy Center, “...the last or close to last in the nation in the number of students per staff.” We need these funds to keep our kids smart, and better equipped for their futures. Without sufficient counselors, teachers, or librarians students are suffering in their help for personal issues, their access to extremely important literature and their very learning itself. Opponents will argue against the success of this Proposition with complaints about state income taxes already being high, and that continuing to tax high income earners will motivate them to leave the state, taking their revenue and jobs with them. However this proposition would not cause any increase to state income taxes for the majority of California citizens and would only keep the tax on high income earners the same. With their taxes being at the same level as before, high income earners would not have any new motivation to leave the state to places with lower income taxes. We need to vote Yes on Proposition 3 in order to secure vital funding for our schools that will help secure a successful career for future generations, while not causing any increase to taxes, and keeping important jobs and revenue in California.

— Jacksen Skonovd

Do not let our school opportunities disappear

Dear Editor,

Our schools could lose up to $15 billion every year if Proposition 3 does not pass. Schools are places where students are given the opportunity to grow intellectually and better prepare themselves for the future. What happens when our schools do not have the budget for extracurricular activities, clubs or athletic programs? Students deserve better and I believe that students should not be placed in a low budget environment that impedes their full potential.

Public schools and community colleges receive funding from the state, but sometimes they still do not have the necessary funding needed to maintain the integrity of the educational system as a whole. Proposition 3 would benefit public schools and community colleges by providing funding for improvements and essentials. It would allocate 89% tax revenue to help schools, contributing to public schools and 11% to community colleges. This money could be used to make important upgrades creating more enhanced schools for students. Vote Yes on Proposition 3, to allow more opportunities for students by increasing funding for schools. This will provide more classes to low income students, and the opportunity to increase their academic excellence.

— Kyla Tran

Fund our schools, fund our health — Proposition 3

Dear Editor,

As more people immigrate to California, how will we continue to fund public schools, community colleges, and healthcare? Most of the funding source comes from the tax placed on those who have a high income, ranging from 10.3% on income over $360,000 to 12.3% on income over $721,000. However, the tax on top earners will expire in 2031. We will not be able to keep these institutions running any longer if we do not have sufficient funds. If there are insufficient funds, programs might have to be cut or workers will have to be laid off as a result of the funding loss. How will the cost of public education and healthcare be covered after the tax expires in 2031? The answer is simple. We can continue to tax top earners and keep the tax permanent. Their earnings allow the government to fund schools, which in turn helps students like me and countless others, have access to better technology and textbooks. Health facilities, like hospitals and clinics, cannot function without the money needed for equipment, urgent care, and salaries for staff. Therefore, the tax must remain permanent in order to keep schools and health facilities running. Top earners contribute to the funding of our institutions in education and healthcare, so vote yes on Proposition 3.

— Tina Tran

Yes to Proposition 3

Dear Editor,

Did you know that many public schools throughout California experience economic struggle and pressure? With the increased taxes placed on high earners, public services such as schools and healthcare will heavily benefit from this. With the $5-15 billion typically raised by this tax, schools would have some extra cushion that protects them from potential financial problems. High earners would only experience around a 10% tax due to this Proposition which isn’t really that much compared to what many people believe. Proposition 3 defines high earners at $371,000 and over. If they were taxed the 10%, only $37,100 would be lost, which would be directed to schools and healthcare. Some high earners may think that this tax is unfair, but we must look at the bigger picture. Schools and healthcare are an important part of society, which can be very costly at times especially with the inflation that we have today. With this extra money, schools can buy more supplies, upgrade their facilities, and teachers can potentially get paid more. For this reason, it is very important for Proposition 3 to be passed, so the schools and healthcare can receive the extra funding needed to pay for their workers and facilities.

— Mateo Vallejo

Yes on Proposition 42

Dear Editor,

California voters will soon decide on Proposition 42, a measure that would change the way that the state can create certain taxes. Proposition 42 would prohibit new state taxes on personal property, including financial assets, investment accounts, retirement accounts, and intellectual property. This means that many Californians will have one more thing to pay taxes on, which for many people would not be something that they are looking forward to and will therefore have mixed opinions. One reason this Proposition has received attention is its potential effect on personal savings and investments. Supporters argue that Californians should not face new taxes simply on what they already own. Opponents argue that the measure could limit the state’s ability to raise money in the future and could affect funding for government programs. Proposition 42 is an important issue for California voters to understand because it could affect both taxpayers and the state government. People should consider how the measure could affect their own finances as well as California’s ability to collect revenue in the future. So before the citizens of California decide to vote during the midterms they should check how Proposition 42 affects them, their wallets, their lifestyle, and their property. For these reasons Proposition 42 is a very beneficial thing for our community and should be voted Yes.

— Isaac Villapudua

The importance of voter identification

Dear Mr. Editor,

There have been numerous instances of false votes in California. If something is important enough to protect, shouldn’t we make sure we know who is participating? California elections are an important part of our democracy, and voters should be able to trust that their votes are secure and counted correctly. That is why I support Proposition 39, which would require voters to provide government issued identification when voting in person and additional identifying information when voting by mail. Proposition 39 would give voters another layer of security during elections. Voter identification would increase the majority’s confidence in elections and improve the accuracy of voter lists. This Proposition would also provide a free voter identification to people who request one, which is a counterpoint for the argument that it would make it harder for others to vote. Some people may worry that requiring identification could make voting more difficult. However, Proposition 39 is designed to keep voting accessible while adding another way to verify a voter’s identity. The state would also be required to provide a voter identification at no cost to voters who request one. As civilians of California, we should want elections that people can trust. Whether someone votes by mail or in person, voters deserve the confidence that their election system is secure and fairly managed. Proposition 39 would strengthen the verification process without eliminating the convenience of mail in voting.

— Gavin Wolford

Vote with your brain, not your heart

Dear Editor,

California has been poorly managed by Governor Gavin Newsom for far too long. As the election season is in full swing, I urge you all to vote for Steve Hilton. California needs a strong Republican leader to take over and make this great state better.

Steve Hilton actually has plans for California’s issues unlike Xavier Becerra. For example, Hilton wants to cut the state gas taxes in half (which is currently around 63 cents a gallon), greatly lowering the cost of gasoline. He also wants to suspend environmental regulations. Not to mention total state taxes add around $1.20 at the pump. All Becerra has stated about gasoline prices is that he wants to “keep gas affordable,” while lacking any course of action. As a driver, driving has become close to unattainable with the rising gasoline prices. The national average is $4.36 as of October 11th, but in California it is $6.30. This has put such a large burden on all drivers in California.

For almost as long as I have been alive, California has had a Democrat as a Governor and it is time for a change. Newsom's tenure has caused irreparable damage to this state, and the citizens of California do not vote for change. Beccerra is not the solution to our problems. He lacks a real plan and any insight for the state. All Becerra can do is talk about Trump. His entire platform is about attacking President Donald Trump. What is sad is that his approach is working. I urge you all to stop having selective empathy and reconsider not voting for a candidate just because they support President Trump. We are all exhausted from poor leadership making California unaffordable. California please vote with your brain and not your heart.

— Corbin Fisher