Posted on 07/01/2006 1:44:05 PM PDT by FairOpinion
California voters will be asked to decide on potential record increases in state spending, including major public works programs and new taxes, under initiatives approved for the November ballot.
Mark DiCamillo, director of the California Poll, said 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.
Another measure, Proposition 87, would spend $4 billion on a program to reduce oil and gas consumption by 25 percent by promoting energy efficient technologies and research and production incentives for alternative fuel vehicles. It would be funded by a 1.5 percent to 6 percent tax per barrel of oil on producers of oil extracted in California.
Proposition 88 would seek to increase K-12 school funding by charging a $50 tax on each real property parcel in California. The measure, which would exempt certain elderly and disabled homeowners, would raise up to $500 million annually for public school programs.
(Excerpt) Read more at scrippsnews.com ...
Re: the last item, is a small shack is going to pay the same $50 surcharge that Apple pays for its corporate campus or a 500 unit apartment building?
Remind me again why I send representatives to Sacramento? Aren't they suuposed to be making these decisions?
-PJ
Vote no on EVERYTHING. Sacramento takes in far too much money as it is. The little piggies can make do with the teats they already have.
Disband the whole mess. Out source government functions to Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey Circus. "The Greatest Show On Earth."
No bonds or taxes, set up a voluntary fund for people who believe in this cr@p and want to pay out of their own wallets for it.
IMO, unless it is from their neighbor's wallets, they are NOT often as intersted.
California can solve all its budget woes by abolishing its corporate, state, and property taxes and switching to a universal sales tax of 15%.
I have to see how 1 a is phrased -- when they say only to relieve traffic congestions, it could mean anything. I thought we already voted several times to use gas tax for roads, but somehow they never manage to do that.
I'll vote yes on 1 b and 1 e -- the transportation infrastructure and levee repair bonds, we really need those, CA's roads are literally the worst in the nation and they will never get fixed otherwise. 1 c is phony, it's always sounds like "for a good cause", the housing bond is just more wasted money.
Yes on Prop. 83 (Jessica's Law), yes on Prop. 85 (parental notification), yes on 90 (curtail eminent domain seizures).
No on everything else, unless I missed something.
"They also will be asked to decide, under Proposition 83,whether or not sex offenders and violent predators must spend their entire lives with Global Positioning System monitoring and be banned from living within 2,000 feet of any school or park."
Tracking people with GPS and telling them where they can live? Why would anyone support that? And how could it conceivably be constitutional?
It's $50 per parcel. So I would guess no. The house I bought is on 2 parcels, though they are officially joined as one and if I wanted to separate them it would cost me tens of thousands of dollars in fees and surveying etc. I bet they'll try to sock me for $100 if this passes.
Have you ever voted in California???? NONE of these will be voted down.
This is about sexual predators who molest and murder children.
Do you think they should be allowed to be let out and do it again?
I personally think they should be executed, or at least locked up their entire lives.
But if they are let out, we need to have a means of keeping track of them -- there is a virtual 100% recidivism amongst these people.
Revolt In Blue? (California)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1658805/posts
The June election also signaled possible trouble for the party of government (a fair description of the California Democratic Party, which is dominated by public-employee unions). Voters firmly rejected an initiative that would have raised $2.4 billion a year for preschools by raising tax rates on high-income individuals. They also turned down a seemingly uncontroversial bond issue for public libraries.
Those votes suggest that the public is getting tired of taxes and state borrowing. If they really are in a no-more mood, they'll have plenty of ways to express it on the November ballot, which is chock-full of tax-and-borrow propositions.
They will use that money only for the intended purpose, but then they will not allocate any other funds for that purpose - and even withdraw existing budget allowances and redirect them to other purposes. Then in 2 or 4 years claim it wasn't enough and we need to raise it more.
It is an imperative to vote no on all of these spending measures.
The legislature has to get it through their big fat heads why they were elected - the make the hard decisions. Passing special taxes for special purposes is just a way for them to be lazy and not have to make hard decisions about where to allocate funds. And of course, its real purpose is to raise taxes in order to free up existing funds for their pet projects.
(The Palestinian terrorist regime is the crisis and Israel's fist is the answer.)
"when they say only to relieve traffic congestions"
Hopefully, they mean deporting all the criminal aliens and their gas guzzling beaters!
You're sure it's not $50 per parcel? Not that it matters to the way I would vote.
(The Palestinian terrorist regime is the crisis and Israel's fist is the answer.)
Proposition 1A [SCA 7]: Modification of 2002's transportation funding initiative, Proposition 42.
Proposition 1B-1E: The $37 billion in infrastructure bonds placed on the ballot back in April.
[ 1B (SB 1266) Transportation $19.925
1C (SB 1689) Housing $2.850
1D (AB 127) Schools $10.416
1E (AB 140) Flood Control $4.090 ]Proposition 83: The so-called "Jessica's Law" initiative requiring, among other things, lifetime GPS devices on sex offenders.
Proposition 84: The $5.4 billion water quality and water supply bond that qualified as a voter-circulated initiative.
Proposition 85: Waiting period and parental notification before a teenage girl can have an abortion, a repeat of 2005's failed Proposition 73.
Proposition 86: Increased $2.60 tax on a pack of cigarettes, with the money going to health and emergency services programs.
Proposition 87: Tax on oil drilled in California, with proceeds to fund alternative energy sources.
Proposition 88: $50 parcel tax, with proceeds going to education.
Proposition 89: Public financing of campaigns and new campaign contribution limits.
Proposition 90: Reform of the use of eminent domain laws.
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.