CALIFORNIA: Ballot information omits Proposition 1A tax extensions

Sacramento Bee ^ | 2/26/9 | Kevin Yamamura

[SmithL]

If voters rely solely on ballot arguments when deciding in May whether to pass a constitutional limit on state spending, they will miss the fact that the measure also would extend higher sales, vehicle and income taxes by up to two more years.

Legislative leaders so far have successfully omitted the fact that Proposition 1A will essentially trigger up to $14 billion in additional taxes from July 2011 to June 2013.

Although Republican legislators submitted ballot arguments against the proposal emphasizing billions of dollars in tax increases, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, chose a Democratic legislator to pen the opposing ballot statement, which ignores the tax hikes.

Campaign strategists said this month that the additional taxes are the measure's greatest vulnerability.

[edcoil]

“whether to pass a constitutional limit on state spending”

We already have this, in our Constitution we require a balanced budget. Had they honored our Constitution, we would not be in the mess we are today.

Arnold and friends and the left in Sacramento don’t pay a wit to our Constitution, why care about a silly law.

[Dilbert San Diego]

I’m waiting for all of the sky is falling arguments, to scare voters into approving this hodge podge of propositions.

You can hear it now. The schools will close, the Golden Gate Bridge will close, parks and libraries will close,health care will be cut, yadda, yadda, yadda, IF we voters don’t go along with all of this.

[BlueDragon]

Freeper Tea Party

Place: California State Capitol, North Steps, L Street Sacramento
Time: Friday, February 27, 12 Noon

trying to figure how to get

Go Ahead AHr-nold
join the DemocRATS
You already Tax & Spend
and LIE like one!

all on one sign...

if I had graphic skills, perhaps a shot of the Arnold, from his Conan days, emblazed with the text, "Now starring in Porkulus Maximus!"

[goldstategop]

Its up to the HJTA to label the phony cap a $14 billion tax increase measure. Voters need to know about this poison pill. When they do - they will overwhelmingly reject it!

"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 Palelologus

[heleny]

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, chose a Democratic legislator to pen the opposing ballot statement, which ignores the tax hikes.

How did Steinberg(D) get to choose who represents the opposition? And, did the (D) opposition author vote for or against the spending in the budget that would require the tax hikes? (obviously he voted for the budget, since all D's did, so it appears he would have a conflict of interest)