McClintock Ping List.
Please freepmail me if you want on or off this list
McClintock Ping List.
Please freepmail me if you want on or off this list
Hey, the governor needs more transportation funds to borrow for "emergency" spending on other things.
Vote no on all bond issues!
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.
Surprise, surprise.
What are the polls like on these bonds? I would guess they're all headed for passage, given the past performance of the California voting public.
Tom McClintock would make a find President or VP someday. A rare occupant the Founder would be proud of.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
I was always taught that money for maintenance of roads nationwide came from gasoline taxes. Ergo: You use the gas to drive on the road, you are paying for the maintenance. Also, large vehicles pay extra for weight fees, which is supposed to be halping to pay for roads that their extra weight beats up.
Former Governor (???) Gray Davis raided the highway funds more than once. Even with reduced driving due to the price of gasoline, the road funds accounts should have more money in them. Counties are also guilty of raiding their road funds for social programs.
I am not sure where the money got spent in California under Davis, as it went into the General Fund and he left a few IOU's. Pensions that have been over the top and politicians per diems come to mind.
No one could spend more money more unwisely that Jerry Brown and Gray Davis. Now it has come home to roost in California.
Wish McKlintock would make a larger presentation including these facts.