Mama's House

Go Dodgers!

Karen would like you all to help celebrate Joni's upcoming birthday by joining them on October 24th at Maggiano's in Woodland Hills for a 6:00 pm dinner. Leave a comment if you can make it that Friday.

BACKGROUND

In recent years, there has been a growing public awareness about farm animal production methods, and how these practices affect the treatment of the animals. In particular, concerns have been expressed about some animal farming practices, including the housing of certain animals in confined spaces, such as cages or other restrictive enclosures.

PROPOSAL

Beginning January 1, 2015, this measure prohibits with certain exceptions the confinement on a farm of pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. Under the measure, any person who violates this law would be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment in county jail for up to six months.

FISCAL EFFECTS

[T]his measure would require more space and/or alternate methods for housing pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens. As a result, this measure would increase production costs for some of these farmers. To the extent that these higher production costs cause some farmers to exit the business, or otherwise reduce overall production and profitability, there could be reduced state and local tax revenues. The magnitude of this fiscal effect is unknown, but potentially in the range of several million dollars annually.

Additionally, this measure could result in unknown, but probably minor, local and state costs for enforcement and prosecution of individuals charged with the new animal confinement offense. These costs would be partially offset by revenue from the collection of misdemeanor fines.

Proponents say Prop 2:MY TAKE:

Ever heard of free range chicken? This proposed piece of legislation is just that. Apparently, not enough people are buying products that are marked free range, which is probably why they are people pushing for this particular legislation. I'm going to assume that there aren't much buyers of free range products because it's more expensive. And since there aren't enough buyers, not enough farmers thought it wise to switch to free range practices. Simple supply and demand at work.

So if the market doesn't demand a particular product/support a particular agenda, what does one do? Make it the only legal alternative I suppose. Damn you animal rights fascists!

MY VOTE:

No on Proposition 2.

I recently received my absentee ballot in the mail, nearly a full month before I have to cast my votes. I thought I would share how and why I'm going to vote on each measure. Hopefully, this gets the rest of you interested in voting and if you should disagree with any of my votes I would hope you would leave a comment explaining why and maybe you'll even persuade me to change my vote.

The following comes from the Legislative Analyst's Office.

BACKGROUND

The authority estimated in 2006 that the total cost to develop and construct the entire high-speed train system would be about $45 billion. While the authority plans to fund the construction of the proposed system with a combination of federal, private, local, and state monies, no funding has yet been provided.

PROPOSAL

This measure authorizes the state to sell $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds to fund (1) pre-construction activities and construction of a high-speed passenger train system in California, and (2) capital improvements to passenger rail systems that expand capacity, improve safety, or enable train riders to connect to the high-speed train system.

The High-Speed Train System. Of the total amount, $9 billion would be used, together with any available federal monies, private monies, and funds from other sources, to develop and construct a high-speed train system that connects San Francisco Transbay Terminal to Los Angeles Union Station and Anaheim, and links the state’s major population centers, including Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego.

Other Passenger Rail Systems. The remaining $950 million in bond funds would be available to fund capital projects that improve other passenger rail systems in order to enhance these systems’ capacity, or safety, or allow riders to connect to the high-speed train system. Of the $950 million, $190 million is designated to improve the state’s intercity rail services. The remaining $760 million would be used for other passenger rail services including urban and commuter rail.

FISCAL EFFECT

Bond Costs. The costs of these bonds would depend on interest rates in effect at the time they are sold and the time period over which they are repaid. While the measure allows for bonds to be issued with a repayment period of up to 40 years, the state’s current practice is to issue bonds with a repayment period of up to 30 years. If the bonds are sold at an average interest rate of 5 percent, and assuming a repayment period of 30 years, the General Fund cost would be about $19.4 billion to pay off both principal ($9.95 billion) and interest ($9.5 billion). The average repayment for principal and interest would be about $647 million per year.

Operating Costs. When constructed, the high-speed train system will incur unknown ongoing maintenance and operation costs, probably in excess of $1 billion a year. Depending on the level of ridership, these costs would be at least partially, and potentially fully, offset by revenue from fares paid by passengers.

PROPONENTS of the proposition say it will:

• Ease Congestion on the highways and in the airports
  
• Create new jobs
  
• Save energy
  
• Clean and protect the environment

MY TAKE:

Well what the proponents say is all well and good and who wouldn't want to get from San Diego to San Francisco in about 4 hours time? But my main complaint about this proposition is that California taxpayers could be paying a lot for nothing.

There is no guarantee that the other $35 billion or so (remember the total cost of $45 billion is only an "estimate" and some estimate that the costs could indeed be a lot higher) needed to complete the high-speed rail project will be funded. It is assumed that the additional necessary funding will come from "any available federal monies, private monies, and funds from other sources" when "no funding has yet been provided." So how exactly is this thing going to be paid for? More issuing of bonds perhaps? Or maybe even an increase in taxes?

Of course, I'm assuming that the bonds will be issued before all of other necessary funding is accumulated. But even if that's not the case, why vote yes for the authority to issue these bonds before we get the rest of the funds? I suppose you could argue that this would encourage investors. But I really believe the only thing that encourages investors is a return profit on their investments, not a mere sharing of costs, and I don't think this proposition achieves that.

MY VOTE:

No on State Measure 1A.

(AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill)

For the first time in two decades, the Dodgers popped champagne corks in October.

Yup, two decades since their last postseason success and I've been a fan through all those years which seemingly makes this all the more special.

(AP Photo/Francis Specker)

On a night when the old stadium rocked like a giddy teen, the Dodgers shed the baggage of a 20-year postseason series drought by tossing the darling Chicago Cubs back into irrelevancy with a sweeping 3-1 victory.

Players threw their caps in the air and wrestled each other to the ground. Fans stayed in their seats rocking and waving.

In keeping with a new Dodgers victory tradition, Russell Martin later led the players back to the field to spray champagne on the fans, and why not?

Perhaps, the celebration was a little over the top for merely advancing in the playoffs but it has been 20 years since a playoff series victory and for a fan for all those years to finally see it again it was wonderful.

(AP Photo/Francis Specker)Russell Martin and Matt Kemp celebrating among the fans in the Left Field Pavilion, how cool is that?

Even for those who had been paying attention, who had understood how well the Dodgers had been playing the past month, the ease in which they dispatched the sad little Cubbies had to be astonishing.

Eight game losing streak, 4 1/2 games out of a playoff spot just a little over a month ago, and now this? Awesome.

If you're looking for that one moment the Dodgers turned their season around. That one trade, that one signing that one managerial decision that transformed this bunch from playoff outsiders to the first team to advance to the Championship Series you won't find it.

"Its right here, no question," says Don Mattingly grinning from ear to ear and bouncing up and down like a 47-year-old hitting coach trying to dance to hip-hop.... "It was this song. I don't know what it is, but I like it."

As Mattingly closed his eyes and bent his knees to the rhythm of M.I.A.'s Paper Planes, saying "Stay in the box baby, just stay in the box...."

Dodgers third baseman Casey Blake played the song prior to the team's 6-2 win over Arizona on Aug. 30 after the team was on an eight-game losing streak. The song was played from then on, before and after games, as the Dodgers went on an eight-game winning streak and won 22 of their last 30 games.

Not exactly sure how appropriate this song is but whatever works. I present to you the Dodgers' rallying song of '08:

The Cubs, whose 97 victories just sort of evaporated into thin air, never knew what hit them. The Phillies or Brewers stand warned. The Dodgers spent so much of the year limping or dragging through the schedule, right up until losing eight consecutive games -- with Manny -- in August.

But the longer this group plays together, the more special it looks.

(AP Photo/Kevork Djansezian)