Part 2 of 2 While reviewing Propositions 32, 33, 34 and 35, these proposals in this upcoming election generally revolve around the state government’s efforts to manipulate economic forces and find new ways to tax us.  These attempts are bait-and-switch endeavors to have voters interfere with the natural laws of supply and demand and increase aid to “the poor.”    Proposition 32 would authorize the state minimum wage to increase to $18 an hour. In an attempt to “give extra money” to the “working class,” the demand for labor is already artificially high, but higher does not mean better.  Of course, in some urban locations, like in L.A., the cost of living is more than in most rural areas. Up to a $2 per hour difference in prevailing wages exists within our state based on local minimum wages.     This is another flawed attempt to force employers, and therefore customers and clients, to pay more for everything. As workers make more, they spend more, increasing the cost of rent, food, gas, etc. The notion of giving out extra money for the same work perpetuates inflation, harms those on fixed incomes, and diminishes incentives for businesses to add staff.  I am voting “No” on 32.  Proposition 33 would allow local governments to impose rent controls and enact new restrictions on issuing evictions.   Right now, even without a lease or rental agreement, squatters can take over a property without ever paying rent and are yet protected by law. Evicting this trash may cost up to $10,000 in legal fees and take over six months. The state now wants to enhance opportunities for “free rent” and treats illegal renters as victims and landlords as abusers.  The Los Angeles-based Apartment Owners Association calls Prop. 33 the “The Unjust Housing Destruction Act.” Landlord associations agree government is trying to punish landlords with new restrictions while promoting outrageous privileges for the renting public.   I recommend a big-big “No” on Prop. 33.  Proposition 34 would mandate many health care providers to use nearly all federal revenues for prescription drug programs directly toward patient drug programs.   I am wondering why federal funds for prescriptions would not be for prescriptions. If funds for prescriptions are being highjacked, Prop. 34 stops medical providers from using these federal monies for other purposes. I would say that is a good thing.   I am supporting Prop. 34 and am voting “Yes.”  The passage of Proposition 35 permanently imposes a tax on managed health care insurance plans. This initiative is sponsored by California’s health care industry in order to subsidize services to compensate for those who can’t afford to pay or decide not to pay for medical services.  This is a hidden fee on everyone’s health care program in another attempt to offer free medical care for the “poor.” The taxpayers are already footing the bill for many of those who are low-income, or in many cases, having no income.  This measure meets Gov. Gavin Newsom’s promise to secure that tax money for health care for low-income patients by taxing those who already have medical benefits.  This proposition seems like another attempt to punish those with resources, just like Prop. 33, to pay for those who have less income.  Even after billions being spent on the homeless, having no visible effect by the way, I believe this proposition is just another sneaky way to tax the middle class.    “No” on Prop. 35 is my recommendation.  Proposition 36 offers to deal with recriminalizing criminal activity. Sounds crazy, but voters agreed back in 2014 to decriminalize significant illegal conduct.  This initiative would partly roll back the failed and flawed Proposition 47. If you wonder why judges let convicts out early, why district attorneys fail to charge perpetrators for their crimes, and why those who are convicted again and again show no remorse for their crimes, Prop. 47 is a big reason why.  Some specifics in this initiative include reclassifying theft and other crimes back to felonies, treating organized retail theft as the plague that it truly is, and addressing the seriousness of fentanyl sales and distribution.  Ignore Gov. Gavin Newsom’s last-minute attempts to enact laws that “kind of” correct Prop. 47. Newsom’s bills just being signed recently are window dressing that still ignores much of what Prop. 47 corrupted.  I suggest voting “Yes” on Prop. 36. Let’s put some teeth back into our criminal justice system once again.  To include my previous column on the November state initiatives, I am voting “NO” on everything except Propositions 3, 34 and 36, which seem like sound choices.   Jonathan Kraut directs a private investigations agency, is the CEO of a private security firm, is the CFO of an accredited acting conservatory, former college professor and dean, is a published author, and Democratic Party activist. His column reflects his own views and not necessarily those of The Signal or of other organizations.  The post Jonathan Kraut | Recommending ‘No’ Votes on Most of the Props appeared first on Santa Clarita Valley Signal.