McClintock Reviews the November Ballot Propositions

Tom McClintock.net ^ | July 28, 2006 | Tom McClintock

[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.

[FairOpinion]

My vote recommendations match Tom McClintock's in all but one proposition. I will vote YES on 1B, he recommends NO.

See my recommendations on July 9, 2006.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1662959/posts?page=5#5


And Tom and I also agree on the vote recommendation for Governor: Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[hedgetrimmer]

Thanks!

[LexBaird]

Sorry,read it wrong, Why would anybody oppose 90?

Ahh. Lots of reasons. Fer instance, it endangers the tactic of using some "environmental" reason for taking land without paying for it, such as finding an endangered blue-spotted fart warbler skink in some "endangered" privately owned "wetland" that someone is trying to develop. It might be applied by the Courts to require just compensation for land use deprivation. Look for the NIMBY types to oppose it, too, for similar reasons.

[LexBaird]

And Tom and I also agree on the vote recommendation for Governor: Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Has Arnold Schwarzenegger published a list of his vote recommendations on the Props.?

[Getready]

If the governor steps down, will the Lt. Governor take over
till the next election? or will a new election be done?

I would love to see Arnold win, then step down after
2.5 years or so, and let us see what McClintock can do...

I'm sure the Dems would go nuts, but if Mc Clintock does
a good job, he will be re-elected governor...cuz we
totally sick of our dollars going to ingrates, inmates,
high tax-rates, and people with gender confusion traits.

[Seadog Bytes]

Thank you! Good stuff.

[kmiller1k]

83 worries me a bit. It seems like the urban areas would have no paroled sex offenders living in them at all --2000 feet from a school or park would effectively send all to the suburban and exurban areas that are more spread out in their city planning. Can't we keep the sex offenders out in a remote prison somewhere? Or make them their own town with a high fence around it away from children?

It just worries me as a citizen of the great Central Valley of California--we have enough problems without the urban sex ickies coming to living here.

[calcowgirl]

If the governor steps down, will the Lt. Governor take over till the next election? or will a new election be done?

Yep. The Lt. Gov. steps in--no new election.

I would love to see Arnold win, then step down after 2.5 years or so,

As long as we're fantasizing, why wait so long? LOL How about January 2007?

[FairOpinion]

CA: A rare pair of running mates (Schwarzenegger and McClintock)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1582375/posts


Typically in California, candidates for governor and lieutenant governor don't campaign as running mates -- but you would never guess it by watching Republicans Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tom McClintock lately.

The 2006 campaign is still young, but Schwarzenegger, the incumbent governor seeking an uncertain re-election, and McClintock, a state senator from Ventura County running for lieutenant governor, look very much like a tag team.

Personal friendship -- and political necessity -- have forged an alliance between the two that mirrors a presidential-vice presidential slate, with each shoring up the other's weaknesses.

Same-party candidates for governor and lieutenant governor here mainly do their own thing. They may team up at conventions and scattered events, but their campaigns are distinct.

So far, this year is an aberration.

The two men have separate campaign arms, but "they are running as a de facto ticket," said GOP consultant Kevin Spillane.

[SmithL]

It's not like we've never disagreed before. I can live with that.

I'm pre-disposed to reject all bond measures in California. I'd like to see roadwork and infrastucture taken care of, but low-cost housing doesn't meet my definition of infrastucture. Nevertheless, I saw what happened the last time the California levees broke down, and it's a scary thing to behold.

[goldstategop]

It would do more to cripple the Left than Proposition 13 which is why big dollars will be spent to stop Proposition 90. "Eminent Domain" is more than just about the government condemning private property for its own use. Its about the government impose regulatory restrictions on private property that prevents the owner from the full use or enjoyment of that property without due compensation. Among other things, Prop 90 will put to end that abuse of eminent domain. To put it quite simply, whenever the government wants to interfere with private property, it ought to bear the full costs of that interference. No wonder every bureaucrat and special group that benefits from the unlimited power of government will be up in arms over this measure.

(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em Down Hezbullies.)

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[kellynla]

Thanx for the thread.
I disagree with Mac on any spending bond...
they have plenty of money to spend on a levee,
they just need to be more efficient with the money they have.

I wish CA would create a state Dept. of Waste, Fraud & Abuse.
The welfare fraud, waste & abuse in this state alone would pay for levees & a BORDER WALL!

[Smogger]

I'm voting yes on Prop 85. I need to review Prop 1A. As for Jessica's Law, if they are so dangerous DON'T LET THEM OUT OF PRISON. Unworkable in my opinion.

NO on EVERYTHING ELSE!

[Smogger]

Sorry,read it wrong, Why would anybody oppose 90?

My city uses eminent domain as a last resort to acquire the land for badly needed redevelopment projects. Without eminent domain uscrupulous absentee slumlords living in can hold up a badly needed redevelopment, by trying to extract huge sums of money for their blighted properties.

[djreece]

Thank you! I've been waiting to see his take on them.

[going hot]

They don't get a dime for ANY bond until they prove they can responsibly handle what they already get.

Agreed 100%

[Dante3]

bttt

[editor-surveyor]

"Since the prop system was devised as a way to bypass the state legislature..."

California has never been without the Initiative and Referendum processes.

[editor-surveyor]

"What would be the reason to vote for 90?"

To restore lost property ownership rights. The Kelo v. New London decision turned your property ownership from alloidal title into a mere revocable leasehold.

Emminent domain has outlived it's purpose, and needs to be terminated; this is a minimum first step toward that goal.