CA: May election more of an IQ test - Voters can pass the test by voting no on everything

Orange County Register ^ | May 10, 2009 | Steven Greenhut

[calcowgirl]

Don't think of the May 19 ballot as a special election so much as an IQ test.

California voters are being asked to approve six budget "reforms" that will supposedly fix the state's massive budget deficit and keep politicians from digging a big hole in the future. The titles and verbiage for each one are rather complex, but it's not any test of intelligence to figure out what the measures really mean. ...

The real test comes with our decision about how to vote ... The underlying question for each of the propositions is the same: Are voters stupid enough to believe that legislators and the governor plan fundamental budget changes after we give them the cash?

Maybe the election isn't so much about intelligence as gullibility. Anyone who has been sentient in the past decade realizes that there's no magical initiative that can force legislators to behave appropriately and to govern with a sense of responsibility and restraint. Then again, I would like a little more information about the "yes" voters – I've got a proverbial bridge or two, or a few subprime mortgages, to sell them.

We know that state officials continue to spend money far in excess of the revenue that comes in from taxpayers. We know that officials don't have the courage to cut spending and make the hard choices necessary to close structural budget deficits. We know that they placed these measures on the ballot with the full knowledge that they won't do a thing to rein in spending or reform anything in Sacramento. Yet the governor and others are touring the state and selling a deception, a lie, a fraud.

The state's leaders have, in essence, declared that voters are dumb enough to buy yet another series of tricks, gimmicks, doodads, scams ...

[coloradan]

The minute you make an election an IQ test, you are damned.

[EagleUSA]

And that was my vote -— ** NO ** on everything. Taxifornia has now taken over as the heaviest taxed state in the nation. Businesses and individuals are leaving in droves for other, non-tax-crazy, business-friendly states.

And the tax-and-spend liberals, who have trashed what was once California, just do not give a damn. Tens of billions in debt and still spending like drunken liberals.....

[rightwingcrazy]

“nyone who has been sentient in the past decade realizes that there’s no magical initiative that can force legislators to behave appropriately and to govern with a sense of responsibility and restraint.”

I disagree. All that is required is an initiative to remove them all from office and replace them with people with a sense of responsibility and restraint. That seems too profound an idea for the majority of Californians.

[martin_fierro]

There's nothing wrong with passing 1F, of course, even though it's easier to just vote no on everything.

I think that I can manage to vote Yes on 1F -- and No on everything else.

[Mister Muggles]

Doesn’t matter how the citizens of California vote; the RATS will shop some activist judge to overturn the will of the people. Prop 187 anyone?

[vbmoneyspender]

I voted no 5 of the 6. The one I voted yes on was the proposition that stopped salary payments to legislators when they couldn’t pass a budget on time. I’ve heard conflicting advice on that proposition and was wondering what you thought about it.

[nufsed]

I believe it reads that they lose salary if the state goes into deficit, not if they can’t pass the budget. I invite correction.

[umgud]

They are in a pickle. They are desparate and don’t want to cut anything that would upset the unions who put them in office.

[calcowgirl]

I oppose 1F. When the going gets tough and the only thing standing in the way of taxes and spending are our minority legislators(R) running a roadblock, I want them to hang tough. I don’t want them to have an incentive (i.e. avoid a loss in pay) to cave in.

[CAluvdubya]

I’m with you...I voted no on all of them. Hubby and I debated 1F but in the end, we voted no.

[BillyBoy]

The more things change...

ARNOLD 2005
"Kally-forn-ya is in an fiscal crisis so therefore we MUST have a taxpayer funded special election to pass needed reforms RIGHT NOW"

ARNOLD 2006
"Kally-forn-yans rejected all my ballot measures, so now I realize it was foolish of me to call for a taxpayer funded special election. I have learned my lesson and will never again try to force reforms by special election ballot referendums"

ARNOLD 2009
"Kally-forn-ya is in a fiscal crisis so therefore we MUST have a taxpayer funded special election to pass needed reforms RIGHT NOW"

[Nachum]

I was warned that one of the propositions was a trick and that it required a yes. Can someone help on this. Which one?

[BillyBoy]

Might want to ping California freepers to this thread too:

======================================================= Blago: Schwarzenegger is My Favorite Governor

"You know when I was governor of Illinois my second-favorite governor in America was Arnold Schwarzenegger," Blagojevich said at a promotional event Friday in Pasadena. "Now that I'm not governor, he's my favorite governor. "

=========================================

I bet the feeling is mutual with Arnie. Gotta love how both of them convinced the gullible public they'd "clean house", yet ended up being worse than the guy they replaced. These two phony "reformers" should get a room together.

[BillyBoy]

Might want to ping California freepers to this thread too:

=======================================================

Blago: Schwarzenegger is My Favorite Governor

"You know when I was governor of Illinois my second-favorite governor in America was Arnold Schwarzenegger," Blagojevich said at a promotional event Friday in Pasadena. "Now that I'm not governor, he's my favorite governor. "

=========================================

I bet the feeling is mutual with Arnie. Gotta love how both of them convinced the gullible public they'd "clean house", yet ended up being worse than the guy they replaced. These two phony "reformers" should get a room together.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

For anyone keeping track, CA sales tax receipts are down 50% Y-O-Y. That is an astounding number, it hardly even seems possible.

http://www.creditbubblestocks.com/2009/05/california-sales-tax-receipts-and-other.html

Friday, May 8, 2009
California Sales Tax Receipts and Other Indicators Turn Lower

Did anyone see the California Statement of General Fund Cash Receipts and Disbursements, just released?: Sales taxes were $452 million lower (-50.9%) than last April, and personal income taxes were down $5.7 billion (-43.6%).

California Retail Sales Tax Receipts YoY
Apr-09 -50.90% <<<<<<<<<<
Mar-09 -19.20%
Feb-09 -10.60%
Jan-09 -40.70%
Dec-08 1.60%
Nov-08 -17.30%
Oct-08 -4.90%
Sep-08 3.50%
Aug-08 -9.10%
Jul-08 -0.70%
Jun-08 0.90%
May-08 -16.50%

Everything I am seeing shows that there was a slight bounce in February/March 2009 and the fall has now RESUMED.
See:

http://www.creditbubblestocks.com/2009/05/falling-demand-for-diesel-fuel...
And:

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2009/05/07/55615/inventory-correction-ha...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sales tax.
SALES TAX.
High frequency, monthly reported data, not subject to seasonal adjustment or other hocus-pocus. Very tough to avoid. In the world’s 7th biggest economy, allegedly 70% dependent upon consuner (sales taxable) spending.

[Tamar1973]

Actually the prop they call 1-F is a good one. It says that if the gov’t runs us into a deficit, our elected officials can’t give themselves an automatic raise.

[calcowgirl]

I was warned that one of the propositions was a trick and that it required a yes. Can someone help on this. Which one?

I've read them and don't see anything that would support that. I'm voting NO on ALL of them.
I'd be interested in knowing which one your friend was referring to -- I just don't see it.

[coloradan]

It’s beyond not only Californians, but almost everybody else as well, considering the number of incumbents reelected every year. Arlen Specter, Ted Kennedy and Klansman Byrd come readily to mind. There are many others ... too many. Far too many.

[calcowgirl]

No, it doesn’t say that. Legislators don’t have the authority to give themselves a raise — it is done by an independent commission.

And why would you want to single out the 120 folks in the Legislature when it is the Executive Branch that is responsible for the overspending. Why not also cut the pay of the thousands of bureaucrats who actually have the ability to cut spending (including a large number who are grossly overpaid)?

Punishing only legislators for a failing economy (reduced revenues) or excessive spending (exec branch) is a power play to induce fiscally conservative legislators to cave in to tax hikes.