Sorry to you non-Californians, but feel free to post the props for your own state. I wanted to get some feedback and give my take of some of the props on the ballot this election.
Prop 91: Transportation Funds. Initiative Constitutional Amendment
I guess I don’t know much about this one. Advice anyone? Apparently it imposes tighter controls on the way that fuel taxes are spent.
Prop 92: Community colleges. Funding, Governance, Fees. Initiative Constitutional amendment and statute.
I'm sure this will pass in any case. It has the magic word -education- in it. It's un-American to not throw more money at that, right?
Basically it requires minimum funding for schools and community colleges to be calculated separately, and sets fees at $15/unit. One of those laws that probably will have a convenient outcome, but I'm not sure that it's very smart or responsible of a state, that is up to it's ears in deficit. I'm planning to vote no right now, but am not really convinced either way. I personally don’t think that the argument: "Now the poor will be able to afford college" holds much water, because when I was in community college, I wasn't always poor enough to get financial aid, but for as long as I was an independent, I always qualified to have the tuition fees waived. It really is not that hard.
Prop 93: This is one of those that I am not going to sleep very well for a few nights if it passes. If you are planning to vote yes one this, I beg you to research it more.
The fact that our governator is endorsing this is one of the reasons for me that he has eared the title Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger. This is one that was crafted by one of the worst politicians that I have ever seen: Fabian Núñez (and some other of his like-minded friends), to create a special exception for themselves to stay in office where he would normally be termed out. And believe me, we want him out! Seriously, Hillary Clinton looks like a saint compared to this guy. To site just a few examples of many... Remember SB 777?
http://familyleader.net/Home/servlet/viewArticle;jsessionid=D41E91A26F8D53AE0AC0B4F2ABB3064C?contentId=1078&subsite=
Our good friend Nunez was one of the authors of that one. Yes, and our "Republican" governor did sign it into law. If you still need more convincing, well Nunez's biggest thing is the immigration issue. He makes John McCain look like the biggest racist on earth compared to his ideas on immigration laws (... or lack thereof).
Yeah, this one is a big NO, if I've ever seen one. And the governor endorses it... inconceivable.
Props 94-97: As I understand, allows the Indians Vegas style casinos, but puts more taxes on the gaming to increase state revenue.
I believe that both the Republican and Democratic parties endorse these ones. These are the ones that we see at least two adds for or against during every TV commercial break.
I don't have a really strong opinion either way, but I am voting no. I think racism can be defined as giving advantages or disadvantages to a group, just because of their ethnicity. The more the gaming for the Indians is allowed, the more we are telling them that they are not capable enough to earn a living the way the rest of us do. We are telling them they need a crutch.
I'll be interested to hear feedback on all these props...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Prop 91
Here's the explanation: In 2002, voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 42, an initiative that protected gasoline taxes from being used for purposes other than transportation - except in the case of fiscal emergency, in which case a two-thirds vote of the Legislature could suspend the allocation. Such a vote, of course, happened almost immediately - and repeatedly.
The transportation groups used their initiative campaign as leverage to gain protections of the gasoline tax in Prop. 1A, which was part of the package of ballot measures approved by voters in November.
The groups that started Prop 91 now say it is not needed because 1A fixed the problem. I do not agree with that. I think we still need this to keep their hands off the funds to be used for Transportation.
"Because Prop. 1A is now law, hundreds of millions of dollars in existing gasoline sales taxes are being sent each year to local communities for projects to relieve traffic congestion, improve safety, and fund mass transit," reads the ballot argument, signed by Watts and Jim Earp, executive director for the California Alliance for Jobs and a member of the California Transportation Commission.
But Prop. 1A only narrowed the loophole, says Kymberleigh Richards, public and legislative affairs director for Southern California Transit Advocates, which has taken the lead in urging voters to approve Prop. 91.
"Since everyone who had a connection with it orphaned it, there is a little grassroots organization in Southern California, deciding to take it on,"
State law, as revised by Prop. 1A, still allows the state to borrow some gas tax revenue in the event of fiscal emergency but with stricter limits. It restricts those loans to just two of every 10 consecutive years, and requires repayment with interest within three years. No borrowing can take place until outstanding loans have been repaid.
Prop. 91 would eliminate the Legislature's ability to spend gas tax money on nontransportation expenses, and would allow it to borrow gas tax money only within a budget year. Loans would have to be repaid within 30 days of the adoption of the next fiscal year's budget.
According to the state legislative analyst, if Prop. 91 passes, it would make the funding of streets, highways and roads slightly more stable while it could slightly reduce the stability of some funding for public transit.
I think it really sends a message to the governor and the Legislature,to stop messing around with transportation."
Props 94-97
I am against them because I am totaly against using casino money to suport our debt. I don't think we should have allowed the casino's in the first place. We have enough corruption in our state. We don't need to give people more ways to go into debt we need to teach people how to be more self reliant and to spend their time and money on taking care of family.
Post a Comment