*Proposition 1A* Transportation funding protection legislative constitutional amendment Ensures that gas taxes only fund transportation projects such as decreasing traffic congestion.Argument For: Proposition 1A closes a loophole in Proposition 42, passed in 2002, that diverted funds for roads and highways to other projects. Prop 1A ensures that current gas taxes will be spent on transportation projects in California, a state that currently has the most congested roads in the nation. Argument Against: The government has already borrowed $2.5 billion to prioritize California education, natural disaster relief, and hospital funding. If there is a recession in California, Proposition 1A would make traffic safety improvements a priority over education, child and healthcare, and public safety.*Proposition 1B*Proposition 1B: Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality and Port Security BondIssues $19.925 billion dollars of bond money to fund traffic improvements, reduce air pollution and secure ports.Argument For: Begins repairs of old highways and funds transportation projects. The measure improves safety and reduces congestion by adding lanes and fixing local streets and intersections. It also expands public transit and improves air quality by replacing old school buses. Argument Against: Prop 1B is fiscally irresponsible. Each additional borrowed dollar we spend worsens our budget deficit, which could possibly lead to a $32 billion debt for future generations. Moreover, if Prop 1B passes, the California Transportation Commission will have three weeks to "develop and adopt guidelines" to fund all outlined transportation programs, consequently spending billions of tax dollars without public review.*Proposition 1C*Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006 Issues $2.85 billion in bond money to fund various housing programs including the construction of shelters for battered women, low-income senior citizens, and the disabled.Argument For: Proposition 1C will provide emergency shelters for battered women, affordable homes for seniors and low-income families, and shelters with social services for homeless families with children. Last year, 5,108 women and children were turned away from domestic violence shelters because the shelters were full. Prop 1C will expand the number of shelter beds. It also helps working families to afford housing and provides accessibility improvements to apartments for disabled Californians. Argument Against: Borrowing $3 billion would burden citizens with debt for the benefit of a small number of people selected by the government, including financially eligible illegal immigrants. Prop 1C burdens the average Californian family of four with the responsibility of paying over $600 in debt and interest.*Proposition 1D*Kindergarten- University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006Issues $10.411 billion dollar in bonds to fund public schools, alleviating crowding and repairing classrooms. Argument For: California school systems have been suffering for years, and it’s time to make them a top priority. Prop 1D makes classrooms earthquake-safe, reduces overcrowding, and repairs 31,000 classrooms. Both Governor Schwarzenegger and Democratic Candidate Phil Angelides support Prop 1D. Argument Against: Prop 1D requires local districts to match 50 percent of the funds. Only wealthy districts with surplus cash to supply the matching funds will benefit. Moreover, Prop 1D is only designed to fund the next two years of need. At a cost of 10.4 billion after interest is paid, the fund creates debt that future generations will be paying back for the next 30 years.*Proposition 1E*Disaster Preparedness and Flood PreventionIssues $4.09 billion in bonds to repair flood control systems and fund disaster preparation. Argument For: In lieu of hurricane Katrina, it is time to attend to our unsafe levees and flood control systems. Updating century-old flood systems would prevent water pollution with no new taxes.Argument Against: Prop 1E does not provide any new drinking water for California’s growing population. It takes away money from education, health care, and public safety. It is not a priority for California.*Proposition 83*Punishment, Residence Restrictions, and Monitoring of Sex Offenders and Sexually Violent Predators. Increases penalties for sex offenders and child molesters, and increases surveillance through global positioning systems.Argument For: There are over 85,000 registered sex offenders in California and a sexual assault occurs every 2 minutes. Harsher punishments and parole are needed to decrease sexual offenses.Argument Against: It would cost taxpayers and estimated $500 million, and it does not guarantee success. The monitoring of sex offenders aims to protect strangers while most sexual abuse is aimed at family members. It also dilutes enforcement because it wastes a lot of resources monitoring low-risk sex offenders. A similar law was passed in Iowa and was ineffective, costly, and drained law enforcement resources. It also infringes on the civil liberties of sex offenders who have changed their ways.*Proposition 84*Water Quality, Safety, and Supply. Flood Control. Natural Resource Protection. Park Improvements. Issues $5.4 billion in bonds to fund water quality and supply systems.Argument For: In lieu of hurricane Katrina, it is time to attend to our unsafe levees and flood control systems. Updating century-old flood systems would prevent water pollution with no new taxes.Argument Against: Prop 1E does not provide any new drinking water for California’s growing population. It takes away money from education, health care, and public safety. It is not a priority for California.*Proposition 85*Waiting Period and Notification Before Termination of Minor’s PregnancyRequires parental notification 48 hours before an un-emancipated minor has an abortion. Argument For: Parents deserve to help their daughters cope with the physical and emotional distress resulting from an abortion. Argument Against: Some women live in dangerous homes of physical and sexual abuse. Young women afraid of an abusive parent may seek out an illegal "back-alley" abortion, or resort to other dangerous methods, such as ingesting poison or pills to abort the fetus. Others may face increased abuse at home.*Proposition 86*Tax on Cigarettes.Creates tax of $2.60 per pack of cigarettes to fund public health programs. Argument For: Taxing tobacco will save lives. The increased revenue of over $2.2 billion per year will go to fund healthcare and tobacco prevention programs. Argument Against: Less than 10 percent of the $2.2 billion tax-hike will go to tobacco prevention, but almost 40 percent will be handed to giant healthcare corporations. *Proposition 87*Establishes a $4 billion program to reduce oil consumption with incentives for alternative energy, education and training to be funded by tax on California oil producers. Argument For: Prop 87 would make oil companies help fund cleaner, cheaper energy. California needs to develop new sources of energy to ensure our future.Argument Against: The $4 billion oil tax increase does not depend on the program’s success It also may force the cost of gas to rise.*Proposition 88*Imposes a $50 tax on every real property parcel to provide additional funding for public schools kindergarten through grade 12. Fund usage would be restricted to educational purposes. Certain elderly and disabled homeowners would be exempt from the tax. Argument For: California schools have been ignored for too long. Prop 88 improves schools by providing funds directly to local schools for class size reductions, textbooks and learning materials. Argument Against: It creates costly new layers of bureaucracy and most schools could not receive grants under Prop 88. *Proposition 89*Creates a public campaign-funding program for eligible candidates. A 0.2 percent tax increase, primarily on corporations and financial institutions, would fund the program. Candidates choosing not to use public funds would be subject to lower contribution limits than they currently are. Argument For: It would allow candidates to focus campaigns on issues, rather than on their fundraising ability.Argument Against: It would increase taxes to fund their campaigns and their negative advertising. *Proposition 90*It would limit state and local governments’ authority to adopt certain land use, housing, consumer, environmental, workplace laws/ regulations. Governments would be required to pay property owners for property losses associated with new laws and rules, as well as for property acquisitions. Argument For: It prevents government from taking homes or property without permission.Argument Against: It would create new categories of lawsuits, which would be costly for taxpayers. It also could serve corporations who violate California’s environmental law.