[FairOpinion]

I am in complete agreement. These are my recommendations also.

[b9]

Many agree.

[FairOpinion]

My recommendations:

1A YES (spend gas tax on roads)
1B YES roads/infrastructure bond
1C NO housing bond
1D NO school bond
1E YES levees bond


83 YES Jessica's law
84 NO parks, conservation
85 YES parental notification (predecessor of which, prop. 73 in the special elections was defeated, because conservatives stayed home)
86 NO cigarette tax
87 NO tax on "big bad oil companies" (incentive for them to leave state)
88 NO real estate tax increase "for the children" :(
89 NO "campaign funding" funded by tax increase on corporations
90 YES limiting eminent domain ( although I have to read it, because I heard it's not quite what we think it is)


And STRAIGHT REPUBLICAN TICKET: starting with Arnold all teh way down the line.

With a good Republican turnout, we have a chance to elected Arnold and other Republicans. See this article:


CA: Capital Notebook (California Elections)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1711795/posts


"If Angelides can't inspire Democrats to vote -- and the best way to do that is to close the gap in the polls -- Republican turnout could be just enough to topple other Democrats. "

[calcowgirl]

Vote NO on all of them (Prop 1 B-C-D-E). They are pork filled and represent a tax on the future generation.

CA: 'Pay as you go' for transit projects - No on 1B
Sacramento Bee ^ | September 26, 2006 | Michael N. Villines (REPUBLICAN ASSEMBLYMAN)

Those in support of Proposition 1B would have us believe that bonding is the only way our state can raise the money we need to achieve our desired transportation goals. They would say this because lawmakers don't have the spine for hiking taxes to pay for these projects.

Let's set the record straight. The majority party in Sacramento rarely meets a tax increase it can't support. The fiscally responsible members of the Legislature understand that higher taxes and bonding are not the only way to fund transportation projects.

We should demand that our children and grandchildren have a transportation system that meets the needs of the 21st century. That's why the citizens of California should vote No on Proposition 1B. Force the Legislature to produce a transportation infrastructure plan for our future that is responsible, realistic and result driven.

Road money spread thin in transportation bond ($20 Billion Prop 1B)
AP - Contra Costa Times ^ | Sep. 09, 2006 | AARON C. DAVIS

...a detailed review by The Associated Press also shows that more than 40 percent of the nearly $20 billion will not go toward the well-advertised road projects. Rather, billions will go toward projects that have tenuous connections to relieving the state's worst traffic jams.

New fences around ports in Long Beach and Oakland, school buses for Los Angeles, and security cameras and disaster-plan studies for San Francisco's subway and ferry terminals are just a few of the projects that would see a slice of the money if voters say yes.

Billions also would go to buying land for railroad crossings, expanding programs to reduce harmful emissions and perhaps even building a new border crossing into Mexico.

[DB]

Why would I want to vote for any of these bonds?

We are in debt up to our eyeballs as it is.

[FairOpinion]

Proposition 1B: The biggest chunk, $19.9 billion, is for transportation projects that will cost $38.9 billion to repay. Most of the money, $11.3 billion, would be spent to improve highways and local roads; $4 billion goes to public transportation; $3.2 to improving the movement of goods through ports, highway and rail systems; and the final $1.5billion advances disaster response on transit systems and upgrades rail crossings, bridges, ramps and overpasses. We recommend a yes vote on Prop. 1B.

[NormsRevenge]

Proposition 1B: The biggest chunk, $19.9 billion, is for transportation projects that will cost $38.9 billion to repay. Most of the money, $11.3 billion, would be spent to improve highways and local roads... YES

==

so let me see if I got this right, 11.3 B is closer to half rather than most of the 19.9 B bond btw , we will spend 11.3 B on roads and such but 8.6 B will go towards other stuff and 19.0 B will go toward the repayment of the bond,, What a deal!

It don't get no more porky than that..
PorkBonds ,, the other white meat.

[Redcloak]

Vote NO on any bond. The State takes in more than enough money. They don't need one penny more in revenue.

[glorgau]

There is too much crap on the ballot. I am just going to say yes on one initative for the levees and NO on everything else that involves a bond or new taxes.

Bailing out the legislature for it's lack of responsibility is not the electorate's job. the electorate's primary function is to "throw the bums out".

[newzjunkey]

McClintock recommends voting this way:

1A YES (spend gas tax on roads)
1B NO roads/infrastructure bond
1C NO housing bond
1D NO school bond
1E YES levees bond

83 YES Jessica's law
84 NO parks, conservation
85 YES parental notification
86 NO cigarette tax
87 NO tax on "big bad oil companies" (incentive for them to leave state)
88 NO real estate tax increase
89 NO "campaign funding"
90 YES limiting eminent domain

[Political Junkie Too]

If these issues are as dire as you say, then why is it taking the ballot proposition process to solve them? Why aren't our elected officials in Sacramento solving these problems for us?

These propositions are boondoggles, sponsored by special interests who have a financial stake in the outcome.

-PJ

[Heartofsong83]

I don't live in CA, but from my view, 1B and 1C counter each other, as do 1E and 84...