McClintock Ping List.
Please freepmail me if you want on or off this list
Posted on 07/28/2006 9:01:57 PM PDT by calcowgirl
General Election - November 7, 2006
Prop. 1A Transportation Funding Protection: YES! For years, the Legislature has raided our highway taxes for general fund spending. Though it’s more window dressing than relief, this measure makes it marginally harder to do so.
Prop. 1B Transportation Bond: NO! Although some of this money is for long overdue road construction, most goes for equipment, maintenance and social programs that will be obsolete decades before our children have finished paying off the debt. Californians pay the third highest tax per gallon of gasoline in the country – and yet we rank 43rd in per capita spending on highways. Our neglected roads are not the taxpayers’ fault.
Prop. 1C Housing Bond: NO! Economics 1: When something is plentiful, it’s cheap; when it is scarce, it’s expensive. Housing prices have skyrocketed because governmental regulations have kept the supply of new housing from meeting the demand. By pouring more (borrowed) money into the market without reducing those restrictions, the effect will be to force UP both home prices and taxes.
Prop. 1D Education Bond: NO! Five billion dollars of new school spending is apparently not enough – so here comes another school bond. But once again, most of the money is going for stuff that won’t be around when our children are still paying off the debt. Won’t our kids have their own schools to repaint without paying for painting that was done 30 years ago?
Prop. 1E Levee Bond: YES! Almost all of this money goes for levee construction that our great-grandchildren will use. Why should anyone outside of Sacramento care? Collapse of the Delta levees means collapse of the state water project – and billions of dollars of state liabilities paid for by ALL taxpayers. This is a classic ounce of prevention saving a pound of cure.
Prop. 83 Jessica’s Law: YES! Placed on the ballot by initiative when the legislature failed to act, this proposition is named for the little Florida girl who was killed by a released sex-offender. Prop. 83 prohibits felony registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park and requires lifetime GPS monitoring.
Prop. 84 Park Bond: NO! A grab bag of local pork projects (some exempt from competitive bidding requirements and conflict of interest laws) paid for by a generation of taxpayers.
Prop. 85 Parental Notification: YES! Your 16-year-old daughter cannot use a tanning bed or get her ears pierced without your written consent, but she can undergo a surgical abortion without you even being notified. This measure restores your right to know what is happening to your own child.
Prop. 86 Cigarette Tax: NO! Why should non-smokers care about a measure that increases the tax on a pack of cigarettes to $2.60? Because it gives smokers a huge incentive to avoid the entire tax by buying cigarettes through friends or family out of state. And who do you think the government will be coming after to make up the resulting drop in cigarette tax collections?
Prop. 87 Oil Tax: NO! Just when you thought gasoline taxes were high enough, along comes this gem to increase them more. Another economics lesson: When you tax something, you get less of it and the price goes up.
Prop. 88 Parcel Tax: NO! Here’s yet another way to get into your pocket: add an extra $50 to your annual property tax bill for still more money for schools. What makes anyone think this money will get any closer to the classroom than the $11,000+ per student we already pump in?
Prop. 89 Taxpayer Funding of Campaigns: NO! I love this one – force taxpayers to foot the bill for politicians’ campaigns. But remember Thomas Jefferson’s warning: "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
Prop. 90 Protect Our Homes: YES! Restores the Fifth Amendment property rights protections in the Bill of Rights that the U.S. Supreme Court shredded with its infamous Kelo decision. Prop. 90 prohibits local officials from seizing homes and businesses for the profit of politically well-connected private interests, and requires government to pay you for any damage it does to your property.
McClintock Ping List.
Please freepmail me if you want on or off this list
I agree on each and every one.
Hmm, some of these will make him unpopular with his running mate.
Tom has more faith in the Legislature spending these dollars than I do. The Proposition sure doesn't nail it down.
AP Enterprise: Gaps in levee bond raise concerns over flood fixes - California Prop 1E
ap on Riverside Press Enterprise ^ | 7/16/06 | Aaron C. Davis and Samantha Young - ap
Posted on 07/15/2006 8:29:04 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
I don't.
See you at the polls.
I am at 3 agrees, 1 maybe , the rest No.
You gotta go to the mustang ranch to see more propositions than that.
(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em Down Hezbullies.)
I hear ya.
PayAsYouGo is not a town near Pascagoula. ;-)
Since the prop system was devised as a way to bypass the state legislature, doesn't that say something about the job they are doing up in Sacmo?
Those proposing and supporting new bonds and taxes are of the opinion that we don't pay enough and/or the legislature cannot be depended upon to fund the "right" things from the existing taxes (those being, apparently, a grab bag from levees to highway equipment to yet more NEA fodder). Those proposing and supporting new laws are of the opinion that the legislature is either ignoring or actively thwarting the public's will.
The one I'm happiest to see is Prop. 90, which will address the horrible Kelo decision by the SCOTUS. It will be interesting to see who opposes it.
We agree - They don't get a dime for ANY bond until they prove they can responsibly handle what they already get.
If the Levee's are so important, take the money from something else that's not so important.
What would be the reason to vote for 90?
I agree 100% with Tom McClintock.
(Surprise, surprise.)
Since Governor and Lt. Governor are separately elected offices in CA, they aren't really running mates. They are both Republican Party candidates, but given the current state of the CAGOP, I don't know how much that counts for. It seems personal appeal counts for more than Party endorsement, these days.
Also, seeing how cross party voting patterns shook out in the recall election, it would seem the CA Dems have a similar dynamic going, with part defecting to the Left/Green splinters, and part to Arnold. Hence, his leftward swing, to retain these normally Dem voters.
I don't think either CA party has a cohesive agenda, enough to attract party line voting. Rather, I believe this election is going to be decided by interest group politics: social/welfare spending, envirals, public service unions, homosexual identity politics, illegal alien vs racism demagoguery, etc.
To avoid eminent domain abuse.
There are some good reasons discussed at their website:
Yes on 90
I disagree with him on 1A and 1E. Other than that, he got it right, ;-)
Sorry,read it wrong, Why would anybody oppose 90?
Good post
bookmark
The Kelo decision by the SCOTUS made it constitutional to use eminent domain to take private property for redistribution to other private entities, if it was thought to benefit the tax base.They found that didn't violate the 5th A.: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
However, the Court said (and almost encouraged outright) that the States could restrict their eminent domain laws to a stricter standard of public use. Prop. 90 does this. You can read the official voter guide info on all these Props here. It has the text, plus the "for" and "against" arguments.
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.