Proposition 56: Don't be fooled

OC Register ^ | 2/8/04 | Op/Ed

[NormsRevenge]

It would be a shame, just as California was starting to take the right path to restore a semblance of fiscal sanity, if California voters were misled into supporting an initiative that took them backwards.

We don't use the term "misled" lightly, believing the average voter to be perfectly capable of making informed judgments. But the campaign to promote Proposition 56 on the March 2 ballot, just like the initiative itself, is terribly dishonest.

[NormsRevenge]

THE OC folks are kind of worked up about this Prop 56 thing. :-]

Mike Shelton
OC Register

[MegaSilver]

Arnold has, as National Review pointed out, two meagar assets: the bully pulpit and the veto pen.

He needs to stretch them as far as they can go.

[FormerlyAnotherLurker]

"The public-sector unions that authored and promote the initiative ..."

That was enough to convince me it's bad for California.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for the Toon!

[NormsRevenge]

Just spreading some cheer. 8-]

[NormsRevenge]

Great post from last night -

CA: At-a-glance look at Proposition 56

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Good editorial.

[Publius6961]

playing on the populist revulsion with Sacramento politicians by championing a portion of the initiative that would force legislators and the governor to forgo their pay if a budget is late.

Forego their pay? That'll be the day. If they include a minimum of 3 months jail time (with no legislative participation) for legislators who deficit spend or delay the budget, I might be tempted.

[Hardastarboard]

"The public-sector unions that authored and promote the initiative ..."

That was enough to convince me it's bad for California.

You needed convincing? :-)

[FormerlyAnotherLurker]

Not much but I don't live in California - just read a paper every so often when I go through.

[goldstategop]

Exactly. Its not about making Sacramento clean up its house its about giving it license to engage in a tax and spend orgy you haven't seen yet. Don't fooled by the fluff in Proposition 56 - if the sponsors simply asked voters to allow legislators to increase taxes with a straight majority vote, it wouldn't even get out of the starting gate. Beginning March 2nd, voters in California can send Sacramento business as usual is over by voting NO on all the propositions on the ballot.

[goldstategop]

More like if they put in a provision every legislator who fails to pass a balanced budget would be subject to automatic recall... well that might have made me a tad open to considering it. ;-)

[monkeyshine]

Gonna vote no, and also no on the bond measures.

[hotpotato]

Forego their pay? That'll be the day. If they include a minimum of 3 months jail time (with no legislative participation) for legislators who deficit spend or delay the budget, I might be tempted.

This is a sham to get you to buy 56. If the legislators can get their 55 % to pass tax increases, they will never have to worry about the above because they can approve tax increases willynilly to take care of their expenditures. The republicans might as well pack their bags and go home.

The democrats/progressies must really think we tax-payers are stoooopid.

Click on image for more info

[hotpotato]

This article should get a bump every Mon a.m. at least about the time folks would check in to read FR (I guess that would be a high readership time) until the election. So far, I haven't seen a single ad opposing 56. But I confess I have Replay(TM) using the unit that cuts commercials (before it was outlawed :-) However, I *have* been seeing the ads supporting 56 so they must be putting a lot of those out there.

I'm using the below logo and link on any posts I make to FR (when I remember). Can anyone say if that is ok or is that frowned upon by FR?

Click on image for more info