Propositions for CA elections – my vote

Proposition 19 - Yes -– The legalization of Marijuana. Marijuana essentially is legal in California anyway. The terminator just lowered the penalty for an ounce of marijuana to a mere 100 dollar fine. I have never been under the belief that pot will increase in usage or lead to other harder drugs. It will however lower incarcerations, and put competitive pressures on the Mexican cartels. It will be taxed and regulated, and therefore bring in money to the depleted tax coffers.

Proposition 20 -Yes - Redistricting of congressional districts, initiative constitutional amendment – When I look at some of these propositions, I look at who is against or for them. The Sierra Club is against it. That is enough for me to vote for it. Proposition 20 allows independent citizens to draw California redistricting lines instead of the politicians. Allowing the politicians to draw the lines allows entrenched politicians to remain in power. As Dr. Phil would say, "How is it working for you so far?" FAQs http://www.yes20no27.org/facts_yes20_QA.html

Proposition 21 - No – Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge to Help Fund State Parks and Wildlife Programs, Grants surcharged vehicles free admission to all state parks, Initiative Statute – You have got to love it, another tax on our vehicles in the guise of funding state parks. While State parks are important, why do you charge everyone a vehicle surcharge even if some may not use the parks. State parks should charge vehicles an entrance fee when they use the park. Not everyone should have to pay a vehicle fee, because not everyone uses the parks.

Proposition 22 –yes - Prohibits the state from borrowing or taking funds used for transportation, redevelopment, or local government projects and services. Initiative constitution amendment. This initiative is just common sense. If funds are dedicated for a specific purpose, that is where it should go. This initiative prevents the state from raiding certain funds into the general fund - similar to a "let's rob Peter to pay Paul."

Proposition 23 – yes - Suspends implementation of Air Pollution control law (AB 32) requiring major sources of emissions to report and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, until employment drops to 5.5% or less for full year. Initiative Statute. I agree with Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina when they say the passage of AB32 will cause companies to leave California for more a more amicable business environment, and it will cost jobs. Brown is against suspending prop AB 32 – Why not? He was the one responsible for starting CARB, the California Air Resource Board which operates with impunity and no oversight. It has cost jobs, and responsible for the MTBE fiasco. California operates like a fiefdom which is part of the reason we are dropping into the abyss. We enact green policies that make it more difficult to operate in the once golden state, so businesses look elsewhere for greener pastures – not in California. Prop 23 suspends the implementation of AB32. The only problem is prop 23 did not go far enough, AB 32 should be repealed. At least, this is a start.

Proposition 24 – no – Repeals recent legislation that would allow businesses to lower their tax liability. Initiative Statute. You have to love the explanation on the ballot. It says it will increase tax revenues. Tax increases in this economy will cost jobs and cause companies to further emigrate to other states. Not sure how that will raise tax revenues. California is the highest taxed state in the union apart from New York. How has it worked for us so far? The California Teacher's association loves it hmmm.

Proposition 25 – no – Changes legislative vote requirement to pass budget and budget related legislation from two-thirds to a simple majority. Retains two-thirds vote requirement for taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Why would I want to make it easier for the legislature to increase taxes? I think not.

Proposition 26 – yes – Requires that certain state and local fees be approved by two-thirds vote. Fees include those that address adverse impacts on society or the environment caused by the fee-payer's business. – Currently, the legislature can pass fees instead of taxes (they just call them fees) by a simple majority. This will stop that. I am for anything that prevents this legislature taking us further into the abyss, and this is one step.

Proposition 27 – no – Eliminates State commission on redistricting. Consolidates Authority for redistricting with elected representatives. You might wonder why this proposition is backed by incumbents like Barbara Boxer because it keeps them in power. Need I say more. Here is a good article on why. http://www.theunion.com/article/20101006/OPINION/101009874

Alameda County Propositions

Proposition F –no - – Alameda County Transportation Improvement Measure – adds a $10 local registration fee to vehicles. Soon our vehicle registration fees will be as high as our property tax (hyperbole) suppose to raise money to repair and maintain local streets – hey what happened to the stimulus money?

Proposition G –no – Ohlone college Job training / Quality Education Fund $349,000 bond to improve and continue affordable college education. – okay who is paying for the bond again?

City of Newark –

Proposition U – yes – establishes a 3.5% utility tax user tax for five years. I thought long and hard about this one. Had to recently go to the city council to prevent closure of Newark's parks. Newark is in dire straits, and it cannot afford to get rid of the police at Newark's schools. It also says it will close the Silliman Center (a recreation place in Newark.) The Silliman center has only been open for about five years, and now they want to close it. Personally, I can care less. It is cheaper for me to go to 24 hour fitness than to use the facilities at the Silliman center and for inferior equipment. They charge an arm and a leg. They have a youth program that my children never went to. So, in a word, they can close it for all I care.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Special Election - California

"Arnold Schwarzenegger, the best governor the states contiguous to California have ever had" George Will

An incompetent governor + an incompetent legislature = A special election with six incomprehensible and inane propositions that will have the effect of helping California sink deeper into the abyss.

I have written about California's woes here and here

When Governor Davis was recalled, the terminator was elected on a platform of pro-business. California's business costs have grown 20% higher than the average business costs of any state in the union. How is that for business friendly? As the saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it."

Columnist George Will states the following:

If, since 1990, state spending increases had been held to the inflation rate plus population growth, the state would have a $15 billion surplus instead of a $42 billion budget deficit, which is larger than the budgets of all but 10 states. Since 1990, the number of state employees has increased by more than a third. In Schwarzenegger's less than six years as governor, per capita government spending, adjusted for inflation, has increased nearly 20 percent.

Liberal orthodoxy has made the state dependent on a volatile source of revenues -- high income tax rates on the wealthy. In 2006, the top 1 percent of earners paid 48 percent of the income taxes. California's income and sales taxes are among the nation's highest, its business conditions among the worst, as measured by 16 variables directly influenced by the Legislature. Unemployment, the nation's fourth highest, is 11.2 percent.

California should be a test case for Barack Obama. While government spending increases, there is a continuous brain drain from the once golden state. Those with means and those with the entrepreneurial skills to grow the state's economy are leaving in droves. California is left with Mexico's unskilled and poor. Obama in his last press conference stated he was unwilling to close the border. So now, it's off to the polls. Will Californian's vote themselves a 16 billion dollar tax increase? Or will they finally say enough is enough and vote no on these propositions?

May 19, 2009 – Californians head to the polls to vote on six propositions. Californians will do the job the California legislature seems to be incapable of doing. There is no need to put too much sweat in trying to decipher all of the nonsense that these incomprehensible propositions represent. Just take that number two pencil and vote no on each one of them.

These propositions are only stop-gap measures to temporarily fix California's budget crisis, but in reality they will fix nothing.

Of course, you have to love the names given to the propositions.

1A – "Rainy Day" Budget Stabilization Fund

1B - Education Funding. Payment Plan

1C – Lottery Modernization Act

1D – Children's Services Funding

1E – Mental Health Funding, Temporary Reallocation

1F – Elected Officials Salaries. Prevents pay increases during budget deficit years.

Proposition 1A keenly disguised as a "Rainy day" fund is nothing more than an extension of the huge tax increase that the California legislature already passed. It increases taxes by another 16 billion dollars. When the economy does come back, will California even be poised to benefit? This proposition continues the tax increase already passed by the legislature for another two years. The San José Mercury says this:

Proposition 1A is a convoluted combination of higher taxes and spending restraints. The effects are so uncertain that the legislative analyst's opinion concludes, "The fiscal effects of Proposition 1A are particularly difficult to assess. This is because the measure's effects would depend on a variety of factors that will change over time and cannot be accurately predicted." Why voters should approve a measure that even the legislative analyst cannot decipher is a mystery.

When the San Jose Mercury is against the propositions, then something must really be wrong.

The blurb in the ballot on Proposition 1C, the so-called lottery modernization act says it will allow the state to be modernized to improve its performance with increased payouts, improved marketing, and effective management. Are you convinced yet? What it really does is borrow on future lottery profits to help balance the 2009-2010 state budget. The California lottery was created in November 1984 by proposition 37. It passed because of the help it was suppose to provide to schools. It is currently mandated to provide at least 34% of its revenues to public education. With proposition 1C, schools will no longer receive funds from the lottery winnings, but lottery winnings will be diverted to the General Fund, and public education will be paid from that fund.

According to the ballot, Each Californian currently squanders about 83 dollars per year in the lottery but It is common knowledge that the poor and uneducated spend much more per capita on the lottery than the average Californian. There is even a graph on the ballot showing that California is the third from the bottom as to lottery sales per resident. And, that is a bad thing? How? The proposition states "Higher prize payouts can attract more spending for lottery tickets and increase lottery profits." Proposition 1C intends to increase lottery revenues by revamping the lottery and increasing marketing efforts. This means the poor will be induced to purchase even more lottery tickets. I thought liberals were for the indigent and the destitute.

Since the economic crisis, lottery winnings have actually fallen off 10% during the first four months of the current fiscal year. California put its hopes on imaginary growth, which caused its current budget crisis, and now it is putting its hopes on future lottery winnings that may or may not materialize, but that will assuredly be paid from the backs of the poor.

The San Jose Mercury states the following on propositions 1D through 1E:

    Propositions 1D and 1E would break open dedicated tax funds for use by the general fund. Proposition 1D would allow the state to grab tobacco tax money that is currently dedicated to children's services. Proposition 1E would allow the state to raid the so-called millionaire's tax that is dedicated to mental health services.

    These two propositions highlight the folly of dedicated spending accounts. Income tax rates and tobacco tax rates are so high that raising them further would be counterproductive. Yet, without a statewide vote, the money generated by these taxes cannot be used to ameliorate crisis level deficits.

 

These six propositions do nothing to alleviate the ills of California. California is like the typical highly-leveraged individual who borrows from Peter to pay Paul. He maxes out his credit cards, and when the MasterCard bill is due, he uses the American Express card to pay off the MasterCard. He takes out home equity loans, maintains a high amount of leverage and continues to play this shell game until everything implodes. He plays this game more if he is unemployed. This is California. California is engaged in a massive shell-game and wants voters to now approve the continuation of the shell game to see how long California can continue without bursting at the seams. Companies and individuals who earn the salaries leave. Tax revenues do not materialize, but California continues its spending spree, and uses one fund to pay another fund. The hope is that some time growth will begin again in California, and all this debt can be paid back.

There is an answer to California's woes. Vote the incumbent legislators out of office. Get rid of the terminator, and get someone who knows how to grow an economy. Become a business friendly environment. Go to the polls and vote "no" on every one of these incomprehensible and idiotic propositions.

Fascists, Brownshirts and Gay Activists or the Aftermath of Proposition 8

Once upon a time there was a proposition to define marriage as between a man and a woman in the beautiful coastal state of California. California overwhelming voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman. But Fascism took hold in California, and the California Supreme Court decided to circumvent the will of the people, and the ruling to keep marriage between a man and a woman was torn asunder in favor of gay marriage. All seemed to be well in fairyland, San Francisco. Gay couples kissed in the jubilant euphoria they now felt, and they basked in their new found freedom.

Meanwhile, back in reality land, the evil trolls were planning the demise of gay marriage, and concocting a plot with the African-American community to vote once again to make marriage between a man and a woman the law of the land. They put on the November ballot proposition 8 to once again let the people decide. Gay activists before the election trolled the streets in search of "Yes on Proposition 8" signs so they could tear them down and intimidate the people who were openly for the proposition. But the people rose up against these strong arm tactics. Power to the people!

The people decide. November the 4^th- Proposition 8 passes. Once again, marriage is saved and it is defined as between a man and a woman. 70% of the African-American community voted in favor of this proposition. The wicked witch of the West Nancy Pelosi derides the people who voted for proposition 8 when she concludes that the people are just too dumb to understand the proposition, "I think people did not fully understand the initiative….Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their view of same-sex marriage was."
I wonder if she thought this when the African-American community overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama.

In a macabre turn of events, gay activists decided once again the people's vote was not good enough. In a manner reminiscent of Hitler's brownshirts, Gay activists begin to picket in front of churches like Rick Warren's Saddleback church, Mormon churches and others. Not sure what these Gay brownshirts expected. Do they expect the churches to all of sudden start preaching against their faith and the teachings of Christ? It is quite astounding when you think of it.

As Gay gremlins in the nefarious ACLU and other evil organizations work feverishly to overturn proposition 8, Gay activists resort to their tried-and-true fascist tactics like stomping on a cross held by an elderly lady (in the video above), and by posting a blacklist to announce who donated to pass proposition 8 (think McCarthyism). Individuals who donated 83 dollars or more are now subject to these tactics of these fascist brownshirts. One individual proponent was forced to resign his job. Will supporters of proposition 8 be intimidated? One has to wonder why these gay activists have not picketed the African-American community. Would it be politically incorrect to do so?

So, the question remains. Will fascism once again reign in California, and the proposition be willy-nilly overturned by activist judges in the state supreme court? Let's hope the will of the people win out.

Proposition 7 and Proposition 10 - The big frauds

Michelle Malkin wrote a column regarding proposition 7 and proposition 10 and why they are frauds.

My syndicated column today looks at Do-Nothing Nancy’s financial interests in pushing T. Boone Pickens’ quixotic Big Wind dreams, as spotlighted here, at #dontgo, and first by Jason Gillman at Michigan Taxes Too Much. More from #dontgo here.

I’ve mentioned Pickens’ backing of Proposition 10 in California. There’s another eco-boondoggle on the ballot as well. Proposition 7 has been nicknamed the “Big Wind” ballot measure; it would require “California utilities to procure half of their power from renewable resources by 2025.” Continue reading Nan and the big Wind boone-doggle

California Propositions

I thought I would put California propisitions and my recommendations on how you should vote.

Proposition 92 - Community colleges Vote yes, keeps junior colleges inexpensive without increasing your taxes.

Propsition 93 Lenghtens Politicians Terms Vote No. A yes vote would lengthen the politician's terms, therefore vote no.

Propositions 94,95,96,97 - Indian Casinos - Vote no - benefits casinos at taxpayer's expense.