Posted on 11/08/2007 6:34:45 PM PST by NormsRevenge
Don’t the rats only need to buy off a couple of Republicans to get their 2/3?
Superb!!! I woulda told her to “have a nice life!” Phhhhhhhhht!!! (but I’m mean and nasty)(some say even ugly!!!)(but not as ugly as Betty!!!)
2 Senators and about a half-dozen assemblymembers.
But, based on their initial alliance to stop the budget this year, I think they are coalescing against Arnie a bit better than in the past. I’m keepin’ my fingers crossed that what Dan says comes true!
LOL. That's about it... the message is pretty empty these days, isn't it?
For the record, I did tell the gal to not take anything I was going to say personally--that I knew she was just doin' her job--but that she just happened to dial someone that is NOT a happy camper.
I’d be willing to bet you weren’t the only unhappy camper that hour.
Very true! At the beginning, when I thought it was a poll, I asked her if there wasn’t some category at the bottom of it where she could input ‘other comments.’ She advised me that all of these calls were recorded. It almost seemed like she wanted to give me the platform to rail on the bosses. I took full advantage. ;-)
I did get the feeling that the “good conservatives like you” comment wasn’t just to placate me, but that she actually agreed. (One can hope, anyway.)
It will be close. Probably Maldonado will roll over in the Senate, but no one else will. Maybe two or three in the Assembly. Of course they will howl like banshees and travel the state attacking Republicans in their districts. But in the end they just don't have the votes.
“This is the old plan that they have abandoned. They are aiming for putting this on the Nov., 2008 ballot which takes the legislature out of it.”
“If they are involving the Governor then that means they are looking to put it on the ballot legislatively with an SCA or ACA. In that case, they WILL need 2/3 of both houses which again, they don’t have and won’t have any time soon. If they were thinking about trying to qualify it with signatures, then there would be no “negotiations”. They’d just draft it however they pleased.”
That is not my understanding. They are negotiating so that they can have as much support as possible. This will strengthen their position for the ballot. This worries me as it will not need 2/3 and the setting is ripe for this to pass. Once again we will need to fight this at the ballot and our hand will be strenghten as the details are defined.
“Republicans are completely irrelevant in California.
Actually, not completely. See EGD’s #2:
For this to work they will need 2/3 of both Houses, and they don’t have it and never will in the near future.”
The 2/3 is no longer relevant. This is going on the 08 ballot and will bypass the legislature in so far as the tax increase is concerned. The voters will decide. We may very well be irrelevant however I have some faith left. We’ve beat this or variations on the ballot before but this time may be the hardest yet.
If they’re free government glasses, they’ll be the kind that come with the fake bushy eyebrows, nose, and mustache.
It only goes on the 08 ballot if the legislature puts it there—with 2/3 vote.
No it's by way of a very good health insurance plan. I get them from MY eye doctor.
To qualify a constitutional amendment is EXTREMELY costly and time consuming. No one wants to put up the $2 million $3million it will take to do that. They are trying to do this the “easy” way, that’s why the negotiations.
Nunez has already submitted an Assembly Constitutional Amendment that I linked to around here somewhere.
Your post from the other thread:
“The full text of the proposal is now on the Leg. Counsel’s site if anyone has the patience to read it.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov./pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/abx1_1_bill_20071108_amended_asm_v98.html “
There seems to be some confusion here and hopefully one of you can clear the air here. The only reason, as I understand it, to go to the ballot is to bypass the 2/3 requirement. If they get the 2/3 they don’t need a ballot and the Gov signs the tax into law. The ballot is their method around the 2/3 requirement. As to the reason behind their negotiating again I’m confused. They know they aren’t gettting the 2/3 by negotiating with the Gov, hence the earlier statements on this very thread that there was no way in hell they’ll ever get the Republicans on board. IMHO they are negotiating because they will need both the Dems and the Gov on the same page to ever have a prayer of getting this passed on the 08 ballot. Please let me know what I’m missing here.
This is much more complex of an issue besides just raising a tax, so it needs to be written as a Constitutional Amendment. All Constitutional Amendments must go before the voters. There are two ways to do that. Citizens may circulate an initiative OR the legislature may place one one the ballot with 2/3 votes in each house (an ACA or SCA).
That explains quite a bit. Do they have a shot at the 2/3 in the legislature? If not, do they have time for an initiative or are they already planning it? If they end up on the ballot, in either scenario is it just a straight up vote? Thanks.
Forget the question re their chances. I’ve reread the thread. Still curious about the chances re going direct to the ballot.
They probably can’t raise the money. It’s going to take $2 million - $3 million. Think about the issue. Who has a financial interest in socializing medicine? No one. The interest is with liberal feel-good busybodies. Causes like that don’t have as many financial backers.
Of course some Hollywood sugardaddy can come along and fund it, but by that time it becomes an us-against them, contentious measure that then becomes ripe for a Harry & Louise campaign.
They like legislative initiatives because once the 2/3 has been acquired a lot of the opposition melts away. Anyway, as I noted early, that ain’t going to happen.
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.