Prop 3: Tax Payers Subsidy Towards Religious Institutions? Say It Ain't So.

"As the public policy arm of the nation's largest representative Orthodox Jewish organization‚ representing nearly 1,000 congregations nationwide‚ the OU's Institute for Public Affairs works to promote Jewish values and protect Jewish interests in the public square."  -Orthodox Union (Proponent of tax dollars being spent on Yeshivas)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 1st Amendment of the Constitution

Apparently tax dollars going towards religious institutions, thereby establishing government preferences among religions, should be set to Taylor Swift and not more somber music befitting the crumbling of the wall between church and state. If universally believed that the public schools are lacking in financial support why redirect any portion of the $2 Billion towards tuition supported religious schools? I'm glad I voted No on Prop 3.

Though I expressed my concerns that long term debt shouldn't be used for short term expenditures such as consumer electronics, I now also have concerns that this de facto establishment of religion if not an outright subsidy of religion makes the intended funds raised by the bond issuance to be unconstitutional.




Glad to see the video shot entirely in portrait rather than landscape, and with a recorded response like "what am I suppose do with this" when given a piece of lit. It warms the cockles of my heart to believe that even the proponents of Prop 3 constitutionally questionable financing of explicitly religious institutions may have harmed themselves more than they did good.

Vote No NYS Prop 3: $2 Billion bond measure for education, so tax cuts can remain and cost for schools are the next guy's problem

This proposal would allow the State to borrow up to two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000). This money would be expended on capital projects related to the design, planning, site acquisition, demolition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or acquisition or installation of equipment for the following types of projects:

1. To acquire learning technology equipment or facilities including, but not limited to,
1. Interactive whiteboards,
2. Computer servers, and
3. Desktop, laptop, and tablet computers;
2. To install high-speed broadband or wireless internet connectivity for schools and communities;
3. To construct, enhance, and modernize educational facilities to accommodate pre-kindergarten programs and provide instructional space to replace transportable classroom units; and
4. To install high-tech security features in school buildings and on school campuses.

The biggest bone of contention I have with this is that if these expenditures were so necessary why don't we raise taxes to pay for them rather than using the state's credit card. I would be more inclined for using borrowed money was the purpose to build new schools, but it is instead supposed to be used to buy consumer/enterprise electronics that have a depreciation life of 5 years. It would be far wiser to spend 2 billion dollars on new schools, and make permanent, some form of revenue to pay the teachers to fill those schools. A good first step would be to make all revenue from lottery and gambling earmarked for the school district that the retail location resides, essentially no longer allowing the NY State Lottery Commission's budget to be fungible with the general budget. 

Vote Yes on NYS Prop 2

Prop 2 is quite straight forward, letting the state legislature go paperless. Unless you're the Dunder-Mifflin that has the paper contract, you should be for this prop.


The purpose of this proposal is to allow electronic distribution of a state legislative bill to satisfy the constitutional requirement that a bill be printed and on the desks of state legislators at least three days before the Legislature votes on it. Under the current provisions of the Constitution, this requirement can only be satisfied by distribution of a physical printed copy.

Vote No on NYS Prop 1: Revising State's Redistricting Procedure

I would describe myself as reform minded, and am aware of the need to drastically change how redistricting occurs in New York every 10 years in response to the Constitutionally required census. The ballot prop 1 is an attempt to reform redistricting that is akin to moving around the chairs of the Titanic, though worse since if it passes it will for the foreseeable future be considered already dealt with. Currently redistricting is approved directly by the state legislature, after the passage of Prop 1 their will be commission that will have vague directives who will propose a redistricting plan that will be required approval of the state legislature's leaders.

Inserting a middleman and unenforceable directives do not make actual reform. The directives are listed below:

• No district lines may result in the prohibited denial or abridgement of racial or language minority voting rights. Districts cannot be drawn to have the purpose of or result in the denial or abridgement of such rights.
• To the extent practicable, districts must contain as nearly as may be an equal number of inhabitants. The commission must provide a specific public explanation for any deviation that exists.
• Each district must consist of contiguous territory and be as compact in form as practicable.
• Districts cannot be drawn to discourage competition or for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring incumbents or other particular candidates or political parties.
• Maintenance of cores of existing districts, of pre-existing political subdivisions, and of communities of interest must be considered.

Caveats of "as practicable", "discourage competition" or "favoring or disfavoring" are so subjective to make them entirely unenforceable, even if the legislative leaders wanted them to be enforced. The legislative leaders remaining as the final arbitrators is the core rationale that good government reformers have lambasted Prop 1. The New York Times succinctly described the prop as "This is a phony reform that purports to establish a new system of drawing legislative districts. Legislative leaders would appoint a committee charged with drawing new districts. If the legislators don’t like the first two tries, they can draw the districts themselves. The net result would be to reinforce, not reform, a system that virtually guarantees job security for incumbents and discourages competition."