| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2006/11/6-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:45207 Activity:low 79%like:45200 |
11/6 1A: .
1B:
1C:
1D:
1E: ..
\_ None of the above because running your failed state via
proposition to purchase basic structural needs and services
while using the general fund for pork is nutty and doomed: .
\_ So, how much of the general fund is used for pork? It does
seem crazy to borrow money for basic structure, but it's
pretty obvious the CA legislature isn't going to become sane
anytime soon.
\_ In the last 3 years, tax revenue has grown by about 22% and
spending about 28%. You tell me -not pp
\_ None of the 1*'s are propositions. They're all either amendments
to passed initiatives (1A) or bond measures which the legislature
approved, but which by CA law require direct voter approval to
pass. Bonds used to be (and in most other states are) sold
without direct voter approval.
\_ ok, ok, I'm voting for 1a but not the rest.
\_ why not 1e?
\_ eh. Compared to the size of the general fund and
considering it takes several budget cycles to build,
repair, etc, on that scale, we can or at least should
be able to afford the levees from general funds.
\_ the bonds are all going to get paid that way anyway.
Why not get some balls in the legislature and get
the work done, wihtout having to pay interest for
borrowing the money to do the job. That way just costs
more in the long run.
\_ yeah that's what i'm saying. we're in agreement.
\_ If you're in favor of the legislature being able to
operate as they do in other states, as the person above,
that's exactly backwards.
\_ I'm definitely no on 1C. The problem with housing in CA won't
be solved by the govt. giving handouts. Lifiting building
restrictions would do a lot more.
\_ McClintock on the props. As usual, good on bonds.
http://www.tommcclintock.net/news.php?news_id=85&start=5
Good, Interesting justification on 1E. (no on B, C, D)
\_ Gah, hadn't read that, but that was the exact reason I came up
with for having that be my only 1* "yes"
Sad to see he actually believes 83 will do anything.
\_ I don't think opposing that prop is politically tenable.
\_ Yeah, I've decided to vote no on 83. Sad as it is to see
kids get raped, it's too much money to reduce a very rare
crime. Not to meantion things like Satutory rape can get
you a GPS tracker. Seems a bit much.
\_ False. Statutory isn't part of it.
\_ Why should my tax money go to support someone who decided
build in a flood plain? I'm voting no on 1E. |
| 5/24 |
|
| www.tommcclintock.net/news.php?news_id=85&start=5 Print Version McClintock Reviews the November Ballot Propositions General Election - November 7, 2006 Prop. For years, the Legislature has raided our highway taxes for general fund spending. Though it's more window dressing than relief, this measure makes it marginally harder to do so. Although some of this money is for long overdue road construction, most goes for equipment, maintenance and social programs that will be obsolete decades before our children have finished paying off the debt. Californians pay the third highest tax per gallon of gasoline in the country - and yet we rank 43^rd in per capita spending on highways. Housing prices have skyrocketed because governmental regulations have kept the supply of new housing from meeting the demand. By pouring more (borrowed) money into the market without reducing those restrictions, the effect will be to force UP both home prices and taxes. Five billion dollars of new school spending is apparently not enough - so here comes another school bond. But once again, most of the money is going for stuff that won't be around when our children are still paying off the debt. Won't our kids have their own schools to repaint without paying for painting that was done 30 years ago? Almost all of this money goes for levee construction that our great-grandchildren will use. Collapse of the Delta levees means collapse of the state water project - and billions of dollars of state liabilities paid for by ALL taxpayers. This is a classic ounce of prevention saving a pound of cure. Placed on the ballot by initiative when the legislature failed to act, this proposition is named for the little Florida girl who was killed by a released sex-offender. A grab bag of local pork projects (some exempt from competitive bidding requirements and conflict of interest laws) paid for by a generation of taxpayers. Your 16-year-old daughter cannot use a tanning bed or get her ears pierced without your written consent, but she can undergo a surgical abortion without you even being notified. This measure restores your right to know what is happening to your own child. Because it gives smokers a huge incentive to avoid the entire tax by buying cigarettes through friends or family out of state. And who do you think the government will be coming after to make up the resulting drop in cigarette tax collections? Just when you thought gasoline taxes were high enough, along comes this gem to increase them more. Another economics lesson: When you tax something, you get less of it and the price goes up. Here's yet another way to get into your pocket: add an extra $50 to your annual property tax bill for still more money for schools. What makes anyone think this money will get any closer to the classroom than the $11,000+ per student we already pump in? I love this one - force taxpayers to foot the bill for politicians' campaigns. But remember Thomas Jefferson's warning: "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." Restores the Fifth Amendment property rights protections in the Bill of Rights that the US Supreme Court shredded with its infamous Kelo decision. |