Posted on 10/24/2008 3:28:57 PM PDT by Czar
T A X P A Y E R U P D A T E
. . . from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (www.HJTA.org)
------------------------------------------------------
----------------
HJTA's 2008 Ballot Recommendations
Propositions 1, 3 and 10 on this November's ballot, if approved, will add another $32 billion -- including interest -- to our alreadysubstantial debt burden. Vote no on Propositions 1, 3 and 10.
With state and local governments massively in debt, HJTA also urges voters to reject all local bonds.
HJTA recommends approval of Proposition 11. This will make legislative elections more competitive and politicians more responsive to average voters.
I marked my sample ballot earlier in the week. It seems HJTA and I are in complete agreement.
Same here, this time.
Comments?
Since her reasoning pulled me off the fence on Prop. 11, I would prefer to let her recap her reasoning when she responds to my ping. In the unlikely event she misses this, I will reluctantly attempt to dig up her prior post on Prop. 11.
My ballot is marked:
1A - No
2 - No
3 - No
4 - Yes
5 - No
6 - No
7 - No
8 - Yes
9 - Yes
10 - No
11 - Yes
12 - Yes
In case anyone missed it... Here’s Tom McClintock’s take on the CA Propositions: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2110868/posts
The summary:
Prop. 1A High Speed Rail Bond. NO
Prop. 2 Farm Animals. NO
Prop. 3 Hospital Bond. NO
Prop. 4 Parental Notification. YES
Prop. 5 Non-violent drug offenses. NO
Prop. 6 Police and Law Enforcement Funding. YES
Prop. 7 Renewable Energy Subsidies. NO
Prop. 8 Defense of Marriage Act. YES
Prop. 9 Parole Reform. YES
Prop 10 Fuel Subsidies. NO
Prop 11 Redistricting. YES
Prop 12 Veterans Bond Act. YES
bttt
I will review your list but on the surface it looks good to me.
Prop 5 advertises itself as a proposition that will save billions of dollars for Californians. Apparently it will spend billions of dollars for drug treatment programs and the ‘savings’ will come because the drug addicts will no longer commit crimes.
Huh?
Here are some prior posts from newzjunkey, amerigomag, and me (one of which may be what influenced czar).
Helps moderates (hurts conservatives):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2107138/posts?page=8#8
Lefties supporting the measure:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2107138/posts?page=6#6
manipulated, convoluted:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2107334/posts?page=26#26
Doesn’t include Congressional districts—Lefty districts get more protection through Voters Rights Act and “communities of interest”:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2110868/posts?page=31#31
Moves process further from the public eye by giving to specially selected (unelected) group:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2110868/posts?page=53#53
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
1A - No 2 - No 3 - No 4 - Yes 5 - No 6 - No 7 - No 8 - Yes 9 - No 10 - No 11 - No 12 - Yes
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
From McClintock:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2110868/posts
Prop. 5 Non-violent drug offenses. NO
The fatal flaw in this otherwise decent measure would allow criminals to use their drug offense
for leniency for other non-drug-related crimes.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I certainly don't take marching orders from any group or individual, but I have found it valuable to determine who supports any issue and usually vote the opposite (dems, unions, league of clueless voters, public employees, the welfare industry, teachers...).
We recalled Grey Davis for funding current spending with future obligations, bonds, and now the Arnold has done the exact same thing.
So we get to not only pay for uncontrolled spending, but we get to pay interest for the privilege.
No new bonds for me, thankyouvery much.
If I remember right, at least $17 billion in new bonds and interest are being proposed.
For me, it's YES on 4, 6, 8, 9 and 11
And NO on everything else!
Thank goodness I have a few days to vote yet.. You folks wear me out.. lol
I need to do more research.. and am not afraid to admit it.. I need a new dartboard. ;-)
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Nope--only half of it. The other 1/2 is on the Yes on 11 website. I posted the link to the list, above.
If they were serious about wanting a redistricting proposal to make districts competitive, they wouldn't have offered this convoluted plan, IMO.
LOL. Well, FWIW, I'm also slightly influenced by EGD's position that this really will be better than the current scenario and that we won't get anything better in the near term. With the 2010 census coming up pretty quick, I don't know if we will see a good redistricting plan.
For the record, I'd like to see a redistricting plan that lays out how the districts will be defined as opposed to who creates them. Until they firm up the criteria, you will just have one power group vying for control of the process. This race has the Bloomberg/Buffett types against the SEIU/LaRaza types. Either way, ordinary voters are screwed, IMO.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
From McClintock:
Prop. 12 Veterans Bond Act.YES
This is a self-liquidating bond (meaning taxpayers aren’t on the hook) to assist veterans with home purchases. The state has done this for many years and it has never cost taxpayers a dime. I co-authored this one.
I'm not looking for perfect.
I just see no use in replacing a bad law with another bad law, especially when it takes away the opportunity for a good law to be introduced.
I certainly am willing to look at the arguments, with a firm definition of "many years", and a brief explanation of how it's supposed to work, and why it is a State Proposition if the State is not somehow on the hook as a "last resort."
Where should I go to find that information?
For many conservatives (EGD?), Prop 11 is as unfit for office as John McCain. These same conservatives will, however, probably vote for 11 just as they will vote for McCain. To the pragmatic partisan, something is better than either nothing or the alternative. To the conservative, life is honor.
I urge all of courage to join me on the barricades and vote NO on Prop 11 and further exhort you to refrain from betraying your conscience in the presidential race.
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop12-title-sum.htm
VETERANS’ BOND ACT OF 2008.
This act provides for a bond issue of nine hundred million dollars ($900,000,000) to provide loans to California veterans to purchase farms and homes.
Appropriates money from the state General Fund to pay off the bonds, if loan payments from participating veterans are insufficient for that purpose.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
Costs of about $1.8 billion to pay off both the principal ($900 million) and interest ($856 million) on the bonds; costs paid by participating veterans.Average payment for principal and interest of about $59 million per year for 30 years.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 12
On November 7, 1922, the people of California authorized the very first Veterans’ Bond Act for the Cal-Vet Home Loan Program. Over the past 85 years there have been 26 Veterans’ Bond Acts and Californians have consistently recognized the special debt we owe to those who have served our country in the armed forces by approving all of these bonds. ... ...All costs of the program, including all administration costs, are paid for by veterans holding loans. There have never been any costs to the taxpayers of California, so this is a fiscally sound way to assist veteran men and women as they return to civilian life.
The program is also good for the California economy because, in addition to helping veterans, Cal-Vet home loans generate thousands of housing industry-related jobs with millions of dollars in annual payrolls.
As these bonds are repaid by the veterans, new bonds must be authorized to continue this self-supporting program serving our veterans. That is the purpose of Proposition 12.
Prop 11 isn't even close to perfect.
It simply takes the same old process out of the hands of one set of politicians and places it in the hands of another set of political appointees.
It's the same system. It's the same process. It's the same considerations.
The new twist: An Applicant Review Panel, ... would narrow the applicants down to 60.
From there on out it's the same old game except that there are a few more Republicans on the team.
Have you lined up the current language from the Constitution and compared it to Prop 11? Kind of interesting. The priority that they give to the Voting Rights Act and “communities of interest “ is also disturbing. From what I can determine, NONE of that language exists in the current Constitution—this will be the first time. Perhaps they are giving in to past Supreme Court decisions, but I hate to see them reinforce bad SC decisions by putting it in black and white in the Constitution.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
BTTT for reference! Thanks...
Anytime a franchise system is skewed to fit the needs (undefined) of the community, the system is deeply flawed.
In a democratic republic, it is the responsibility of the community to meet the needs of the system.
Once again you have struck the rich vein of truth!!!
I'm probably not going to vote yes on 7, but I'm really tempted to as the Sierra Flubbers are so dead-set against it and spending a wad on defeating it!
Like someone said above, it's pretty easy to judge when you see the birds of a feather flocking together to flock the ordinary voters you refer to!!!
You Sir, or Madam, are a truly courageous conservative and I admire you!!! (except on your resistance to a multi-purpose dam at Auburn, CA)(grin)
It even contains Prop 98!!!
Technically, we’re a Republic that adheres to a “democratic process,” rather than a “democratic republic!” I know... picky, picky, picky!!!
YES on 2, 4 & 6; NO on the rest.
I’m against Prop 2. I figure we’ll just end up importing chickens from Mexico and have Salmonella warnings every week.
You’re not supporting Prop 8?
As for Prop 2, we’re hardcore animal people around here and when it comes to decent treatment for animals we slaughter for food, we believe that is reasonable and humane.
Oh, okay! I was gonna ask ya why you liked Prop 6, next! Never mind.
BTW, you’re waaaay too young for senior moments! ;-)
I'm going to take that and run with it! :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.