Posted on 05/10/2009 11:10:58 AM PDT by calcowgirl
It's important we have heads on sticks in CA!
Agreed!
My wife and I voted NO on all as well for the same reasons. My standard MO on any initiative the past 30 years has been to vote NO with very rare exceptions such as marriage, ending welfare for illegal immigrants and the occasional tax cut. You need to keep a watchful eye for those that need a YES, but generally you can’t go wrong with NO as they are almost universally liberal or union sponsored. Also, watch the TV commercials. When the standard slate of liberal special interest groups (teachers unions, government unions, Indian tribes) are in favor of something, vote NO.
When I moved to CA in ‘73, the sales tax was 3.25% in Santa Clara County, 3% State and 1/4% special tax to bring BART to San Jose. 35 years later, we’re still waiting for BART to get to San Jose.
Watching the creep of sales tax from what was a minor annoyance to a full fledge 10% raid (near VAT levels) on our wallets has been especially tough.
I would vote for 1F if it said ALL legislators are booted out of office the moment they pass a deficit spending budget bill, they would never be eligible to hold another state-wide office, and special elections were convened in the next six months. We would do just fine operating without a legislature for six months while we regroup. Shelving raises for a year won’t make a dent in their behavior.
Hope you didn’t vote no on not giving the scum raises when they run a deficit.
Why would I want to vote yes on a bill that saves gov’t workers jobs? I sure they wouldn’t give a rats ass about me losing mine.
Arnold and his buddies (D and RINO) are nothing but terrorists. Don’t vote for his propositions and he’ll release prisoners and eliminate police and fire protection.
Screw ‘em!
No, I don’t agree with him on those two. As he said about both Prop 1D and 1E, “this irresponsibly rips off another irresponsible rip-off.” Generally, I’m against passing bad laws, especially when they don’t make things much better. The only way to stop these folks from spending is to cut off all the spigots, all the borrowing, all the smoke-and-shadow tricks. Why allow them to raid yet another account to prop up their spending? Those funds are currently in the hands of communities where there theoretically is more accountability and will be spent more responsibly than the folks in Sacramento (not a hard bar to reach).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2244813/posts
Prop 1F: No
Raise Without a Balanced Budget. NO.
What’s not to like about a measure that says to the Legislature, “If you don’t pass a balanced budget you won’t get a raise?” My advice: beware any measure that puts a representative’s self-interest ahead of the public interest. I’m afraid this would ultimately end up as a perverse incentive for legislators to pass higher and higher taxes in order to qualify for higher and higher salaries. We actually had a balanced budget device in the constitution that worked well: the Gann Spending Limit. We need to bring it back.
Got it now. It is prop. 1F.
It is a total sham.
A yes vote makes sure that they CANNOT get raises. A no vote means that they can.
Here, check out this link and tell me what you think,
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/quick-reference-guide/prop1f.htm
See my posts above. Why would you want to withhold raises for the only guys that are actually standing between us and complete liberal rule? Do you want them to fight against taxes or be worried about whether they can make their house payment? The only reason the budgets haven’t been worse is that we have some warriors up their in Sacramento that put up a roadblock. I mentioned a few other reasons and posted a snip from McClintock, above.
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.