Posted on 10/08/2004 12:35:18 PM PDT by StoneColdGOP
McClintock on the Propositions
I've been getting a lot of calls about the various ballot propositions.
Here's how I see them:
1A. Watered Down Protection for Local Governments. YES, I suppose. Extends limited protection to local governments against future raids by the state AFTER the state finishes ripping off another $2.6 billion over the next two years. I support it because the protections are a slight improvement over existing law, but if you really want to protect local governments, Prop. 65 is the ticket.
59. Public Records, Open Meetings. YES. Louis Brandeis said it best: "Sunlight is the best of disinfectants." Public business should be public.Period.
60. The Right to the Party of Your Choice. YES. This measure guarantees all parties access to the general election ballot, and was written to knock out Prop. 62.
60A. Selling Long-term Assets for Short-term Spending. NO. Sounds good on the surface - sell surplus state property to pay for general fund spending. Here's my problem: when surplus assets are sold - and they should be - the funds should be used for the purpose for which they were raised. For example, Caltrans land was paid for by highway taxes. When it's sold, it should be used to build highways, not pay for this year's welfare increase.
61. Children's Hospitals Bond. NO. Our borrowing is out of control - general fund supported debt is up 54 percent in 14 months. No matter how appealing the purpose, California needs to stop borrowing until it has brought its credit card binge under control.
62. Election Primaries. NO. They call it an "Open Primary," but what this really does is to trade California's primary election system for a two-step general election. The result: the power to determine the official party nominee is taken away from the voters in the primary and returned to backroom political bosses. A giant step backward from clean and open elections.
63. Soak the Rich - And Then Us. NO. An extra tax on those making over $1 million might sound good to the rest of us - but beware. California's taxes are already so disproportionate that the top 1Ú4 of 1 percent of income taxpayers pays nearly one third of all income taxes. It doesn't take many of them re-arranging their affairs to claim residency in Nevada (where there is NO income tax), before there's a dramatic reduction in tax revenues. And guess who they'll tax then?
64. Honest Work for Lawyers. YES. Puts an end to predatory law firms that extort money by filing huge lawsuits against employers for technical violations of law. About time.
65. Real Local Government Protection. YES. A lost cause - the proponents have abandoned this measure in favor of Prop. 1A - but if you believe in protecting local government funds from continued raids by the state, this is the measure that will do so.
66. Weakens Three Strikes Law. NO. Under current law, in order to qualify for a third strike, you have to be convicted TWICE before for VIOLENT felonies. This bill requires the THIRD strike also be a violent felony. Call me prudish, but after a thug has been twice convicted of raping, assaulting and murdered his fellow citizens, I'm out of patience. California's Three Strikes Law works. Don't weaken it.
67. Phone Tax. NO. A half-billion tax increase - about $60 a year for an average family in both direct taxes and tax-driven price increases. Who says talk is cheap?
68. Casino Grande. NO. I don't believe it's any of government's business how grown-ups chose to spend their time and money as long as they're not hurting anyone. But I object to the extortionate provisions of the measure that would force Indian tribes to accept outlandish conditions or face financial ruin.
69. DNA Samples. YES. Requires DNA samples to be taken from all felons and criminal suspects. It means that violent crimes will become much easier to solve - and with far greater certainty than ever before. It will give "Cold Case Files" lots of new material.
70. De-politicize Tribal Gaming. YES. Provides a standard gaming compact for any legitimate Indian tribe that asks for it, assessing the corporate tax rate while restoring a free market to operations on Indian land. It would remove gaming from the tortured political environment that now has pitted tribe against tribe in winning monopoly franchises. A standardized system is the best protection against the unjust political favoritism that we're seeing today.
71. Stem Cell Research. NO. Stem cell research is a promising field, but why are California taxpayers suddenly responsible for funding research for the rest of the world? Worse, any discussion of research data when making research grants is exempt from the Open Meetings Act and the Open Records Act. Want to know what your $3 billion has bought? Sorry, that's confidential.
72. Health Care Coverage. NO. Here's a great idea. Require every business with more than 20 employees to provide health insurance.
My guess: a lot of businesses with between 20 and 40 employees will suddenly have 19 -and an awful lot of folks will be without health care OR jobs. We're from the government and we're here to help.
Thanks for posting...
saves me some time from plowing through 160 pages of verrrry small print! LOL
His opinions count with me.
Except for 70, I'll vote tht way
No problem.
Tom's takes on some of these differ very little from what most Republicans would instinctively think, but he offers a well thought out answer to the problems.
Those who appreciate insight and deliberation on the issues will find it useful.
That's what I've got on my scorecard, too.
My take, after reading all 160 pages, plus the supplemental:
Prop 1A: Local Gov't Revenue Protection - YES
Prop 59: Open Meetings - YES
Prop 60: Rights of Political Parties - YES
Prop 60A: Surplus Property - YES
Prop 61: Children's Hospital Bonds - NO
Prop 62: Louisiana Style Primaries - NO
Prop 63: Millionaire Tax - NO
Prop 64: End Shakedown Lawsuits - YES
Prop 65: Local Gov't Revenue Protection - YES
Prop 66: Ease 3 Strikes Law - NO
Prop 67: Phone Tax - NO
Prop 68: 25% tax on Indian Gaming - YES
Prop 69: Collect DNA - NO
Prop 70: Exclusive Indian Gaming - NO
Prop 71: State Funding for Stem Cell Research - NO
Prop 72: Mandated Healthcare Coverage - NO
I voted no on all but 59..
64 is a "must vote YES".
Same for me.
No doubt. It's such a bummer that Republicans bailed on him for Arnold; I guess everyone wants to rub elbows with the stars.
I agree with you on most, except a couple:
Prop 65: Local Gov't Revenue Protection - YES
Prop 68: 25% tax on Indian Gaming - YES
====
You may want to take another look.
Prop. 65 says you have to have voter approval to reduce local revenues, I think. I am voting NO. Prop 1A is what Arnold and the local governments agreed to.
Prop. 68 is bad, because first of all the 25% wouldn't go to the state, it would go to local taxes, who would fritter it away, and the state couldn't tax them on top of that, and if they won't pay it, others could put up casinos all over the place, which I personally don't really object to, but I don't like the way it's written. I am voting NO on this.
Print out and take to polls on election day. His analysis is always thoughtful and well researched.
We lost a lot when the idiotarians in California failed to make this man governor.
Re 1A: What's wrong with asking permission from the citizens of the state before they take tax receipts away from their local government to pay for more state-wide boondoggles?
Re 68: I would rather the money be in local Government's hands than the Socialists in the California State Legislature.
My positions on both initiatives are based on my perception that local government is a better steward of our tax money than the state government. Furthermore, if the PTB in the local government don't spend it wisely, it's a lot easier to fire them and get new folks in there than it is on the state level.
Re 1A65: What's wrong with asking permission from the citizens of the state before they take tax receipts away from their local government to pay for more state-wide boondoggles?
Re 68: I would rather the money be in local Government's hands than the Socialists in the California State Legislature.
My positions on both initiatives are based on my perception that local government is a better steward of our tax money than the state government. Furthermore, if the PTB in the local government don't spend it wisely, it's a lot easier to fire them and get new folks in there than it is on the state level.
I agree with you in principle, but Los Angeles county was telling us how they don't have money for police, then they found some $300M, which then they mostly spent on increasing salaries of the gov employees.
CA STATE is in a fiscal crisis right now, and we'll all be in trouble, if they can't get out of 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.