13 initiatives face California voters in November

Scripps News ^ | July 1, 2006 | PETER HATCH

[KTM rider]

No, I am for that prop 90, my mistake, I did a google search on prop 90 real quick and came up with an old prop 90 evidently, thanks for claring that up. I was trying to say the language that is printed in the ballots is misleading

Tom McClintock is doing a great job fighting emminent domain abuse...

I better get up to speed on wassup

[R.W.Ratikal]

Typical. The California politicians are going to save the taxpayers money by spending 4 billion dollars. They could immediately save 4 billion dollars by not spending the 4 billion dollars. But what do I knowf?

[bordergal]

I heard Tom McClintock talking about bond issues on talk radio the other day. His point was that you should never vote for bond measures if it's not a long term capital improvement.

For example, he said the levee bond issue was worthwhile, especially since under state law every taxpayer in the state will have to chip in if there is a levee breach and a major flood disaster.

The rest he was against, because they didn't meet his criteria.

[Joan Kerrey]

My wife and I have a simple rule: If it's a bond issue, vote no.

Good rule.

[FairOpinion]

I think Tom McClintock is also supporting the trasportation infrastructure bond.

[calcowgirl]

I think Tom McClintock is also supporting the trasportation infrastructure bond.

McClintock voted against the Transportation Bond

[jiggyboy]

the five bonds simultaneously on the ballot will make it difficult for voters to decide what public works programs the state should undertake and how much debt it should incur

Nah I won't have any difficulty at all. Anything including any of the words "tax", "bond", or "billion" in it gets a No vote.

[bordergal]

If I recall correctly, his comments were that money for transportation was being diverted elsewhere. He didn't see the need for more money, but he did see a need to stop the raids.

Oh how I wish he was governor, with a legislative majority of Tom McClintock clones.

[calcowgirl]

My interpretation of his position, and his quotes, was posted here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1629258/posts?page=9#9

Basically, the Transportation bond includes a lot of things that are not infrastructure and should not be funded by bonds, let alone General Obligation bonds paid for by all state taxpayers.

And for anyone who thinks this will actually help freeway traffic, they need to read the whole measure. It includes border improvements, bus retrofits to reduce air pollution, public transit and intercity rail projects, more toll-roads, etc. If they cut out all that, I might consider it. As it is, I see it as a $20 Billion borrowing bonanza without commensurate benefits.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1251-1300/sb_1266_bill_20060516_chaptered.html

[heleny]

a simple rule: If it's a bond issue, vote no.

The rule always works. Also, no on any tax increases.

The money goes into the budget on one end and get diverted out to what the politicos really wanted on the other.

With regard to bonds for long-term capital expenditures, it seems the offerings are either locally oriented (local levees to be paid statewide) or are overloaded with unrelated projects ("transportation" plus housing plus environment plus border plus other hodgepodge bond); major freeway expansion projects do require bonds, since one year's budget can't be devoted only to building the freeway, but it seems we're never offered anything so simple. Any other bonds should be definite "no" votes.

[freedomfromclarity]

There is no other class of criminal that is getting so much of attention these days. Most states are trying to pass " the toughest sex offender laws in the nation". It's a craze...like hula hoops. It's a craze for floundering politicians to try and drum up some votes and notoriety. The ex sex offenders usually don't want any more visibility so don't try to get lawsuits into play.This makes it an easy shot for legislators. Beat up on a group that doesn't defend itself very well, sounds like the school bully. These types of "post ex facto" (after the fact) laws are being passed and challenged in other states. The recidivism rate for sex offenders released into the population is estimated at 5.4 percent and gets less as time lapses without re-offense. Let's try this logic on another group, say burglars. Burglars on release to parole get lifetime GPS tracking. They also cannot live within 2000 feet of anything that can be stolen. They cannot live with anyone because that other person would have possessions that could tempt the RBO (registered burglar offender). They cannot own anything that isn't paid for or get a loan because that isn't their money. Can't work, drive on a road, have a job, go shopping because all these activities brings the RBO into contact with stuff that they might be tempted to steal. Oh, I forgot, they also will be on a website showing their residence and face and vitals and crime.....but not the date of their crime so people can think that it just happened when it might have been 20-30 years ago. They have to give lots of blood for DNA (and spreading on crime scenes) They can't really live in society. That's this year...next year they might pass more laws to get even tighter control over these malevolent beings.

The estimates of the recidivism rate of released "high risk" ex sex offenders are high. The High risk ones perhaps should never be free to walk the streets.
The laws that exist do deal harshly with this top ten percent and their chances of being released in California are very low. After their sentence is up they go to a criminal mental hospital and get re-evaluated every 2 years...This re-evaluation can go on indefinitely until a mental health professional clears them at being no risk to re-offend. (who is going to sign that one?!) Prop 83 will cost the taxpayers billions of dollars over ten years. Couldn't this money be better spent on the high risk offenders and leave the rest of the population that has paid for their crimes and done their time to be free to reintegrate into society? Just a thought......