Posted on 04/08/2009 8:18:55 AM PDT by SmithL
Here's a not-so-ringing endorsement from Bill Leonard, a Republican member of the Board of Equalization, for two measures on the May 19 ballot:
Proposition 1D is "not completely worthless" and Proposition 1E is "also not completely worthless."
... Leonard has been a critic of the budget deal, particularly the tax increases.
Both propositions that Leonard endorsed -- if only half-heartedly -- would raid existing funding streams for programs approved by voters to shore-up the deficit-plagued general fund.
"Our state has hundreds of separate boxes of money that have been declared "off limits" to the legislature and unavailable to reduce the deficit. Before raising taxes, we need to blow up those boxes and fully utilize the tax revenues that we already have on hand," wrote Leonard.
Leonard called Prop. 1D a "baby step" and said 1E would help the budget in a "very limited way."
Proposition 1D would set money aside from a 1998 measure that hiked tobacco taxes by 50 cents per pack. The funds currently go toward locally-operated First 5 Commissions, which run early childhood education programs.
...
Proposition 1E would take funds from a 2004 ballot measure that hiked taxes on those earning more than $1 million. Those funds currently go toward mental health programs.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
I’d vote to abolish the entire First 5 boondoggle.
Yep.
And Prop 49, too!
I would repeal any initiative that raised taxes (even sin taxes) and/or mandated spending (such as the ones mentioned in the article).
I would like to see changes in the initiative process so that any proposition (including bond spending) that imposed taxes or mandated spending requires a 2/3 majority for approval, the same requirement as on the legislature. Right now voters can increase taxes or mandate spending with a simple majority.
I second that!
Just say “no” to 1A through 1F!
I agree. The initiative process has been abused by the pols themselves to avoid responsibility for any controversial spending or legislation. Throw it in front of the people and make it sound wonderful and the idiots will vote for it, not realizing that bonds are paid for by raising taxes in out years. Then the pols will claim they can do nothing about it... unless it violates some imagined right of minorities, in which case they will shop it to a judge to get it over-turned...
In other words, the whole process has become fouled and abused in CA!!! It says:"CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC" right on our state flag, yet this over-worked process is trying to change our state into a "direct democracy" that resembles "mob rule!" (agressive unions and communutty organizers come to mind)
It's what's feeding "group-think" in our politics and completely favors "special interest groups" which it was originally designed to "tamp down!"
I would add "wealthy individuals pushing programs that result in their personal enrichment" (Think Prop 71, Stem Cell Research)
I agree with you about mob rule. I especially like Zap's suggestion:
I would like to see changes in the initiative process so that any proposition
(including bond spending) that imposed taxes or mandated spending requires
a 2/3 majority for approval, the same requirement as on the legislature. Right now
voters can increase taxes or mandate spending with a simple majority.
“Proposition 1E would take funds from a 2004 ballot measure that hiked taxes on those earning more than $1 million. Those funds currently go toward mental health programs.”
California is as crazy as ever... I don’t think it’s working.
“yet this over-worked process is trying to change our state into a “direct democracy” that resembles “mob rule!”
So, what do you think about Proposition 8? Is that mob rule?
There can be mobs ruling, only because they can, because of the initiative, referendum and recall processes!!! Because one vain little Governor Hiram Johnson wanted to "change the world" and destroy the rule of a representative republic and the Republican Party in the process. That's exactly why he's Arnold's stupid hero!!!
For those with little understanding of California's due process protections, Prop 8 was an answer to a judicial tyranny. Few other states allow their citizens relief from judicial tyranny without exercise of the rights accorded them under the US 2nd Amendment.
In our county, First 5 has provided core funding for 10 family resource centers throughout the county (6,300 square miles of mostly mountainous terrain.) The centers provide parenting courses, play groups, nutrition education, Path 1 early child abuse intervention (it is a voluntary program.) Home visitation services may be provided.
A new parent kit is given and welcoming contact is made with every new parent. Pregnant women are encouraged to get prenatal care and dental care. Some family resource centers offer special teen parenting courses and hold a community baby shower to connect young parents with support and resources.
Families in need of help are given emergency food and shelter or are referred to services provided under various programs. For instance, they found speciality services for a child who was profoundly deaf. First 5 provides incentives for early child care providers to attend college and courses in their field.
Our First 5 funds dental screenings and restorative treatment for children under 5. (They found that some children did not see a dentist until they were in high school and had severe problems. There is no medi-Cal dentist who will do children’s restorative work for hundreds of miles.) They also sign up eligible families for Healthy Families Insurance.
Fisr 5 funds kidergarten boot camp to acclimate children to kindergarten and to make sure they are prepared. For instance, pre-school teachers will meet with the kindergarten teachers to make sure there is a smooth transition. A school bus will pick up parents and kids at a summer event and take them to the school. The children will visit their new school room and meet their teacher. Each child will get a special backpack with supplies.
Personally, I think our local use of First 5 money is well spent. We have been able to leverage the money to get additional grants for our communities and it has provided us with an infrustructure to deliver other services locally.
Can’t stand Mr. Reiner, but this is a good program.
The Mental Health Services Act money has been used in our County to establish an outreach and services coordinator at each of the 10 family resource centers. A room has been set aside in each center as a drop-in center at minimal cost. (A neighboring county spent well over $200,000 to establish one center.) These types of centers have been found to be successful in recovery and less expensive than intensive services.
Again, it has worked for us.
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.