PDA

View Full Version : Good news from the ballot propositions


CCWFacts
05-09-2009, 11:30 PM
They are all failing (http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/may/08/voters-are-turned-off-by-ballot-measures-poll/).

This is not only good for California's taxpayers, but it's also good because it will have the long-term effect of decreasing the size and power of the extremely anti-RKBA state employee unions. If these props fail it will make the state and local budget crunch much worse, and leave them less eager to spend $ on fighting against our civil rights.

It's really easy to vote in this special election. Vote "no" everything, with the possible exception of 1F, to prevent pay increases for legislators. I voted no on that one also, just because it seems petty, but i guess it does have the advantage of saving some money, and every bit counts.

And of course, if you're in LA, vote for Carmen Trutanich (http://www.tru09.com/) for city attorney.

Roadrunner
05-10-2009, 12:18 AM
The thing that really irritates the hell out of me about this is the fact that if these propositions were to pass, they will find some other pet projects that the money has to be spent on and then they'll ask for more to cover the future debts. It's a never ending cycle of tax and spend, and it's our money they keep spending.

bluestaterebel
05-10-2009, 12:33 AM
good news

CCWFacts
05-10-2009, 12:34 AM
The thing that really irritates the hell out of me about this is the fact that if these propositions were to pass, they will find some other pet projects that the money has to be spent on and then they'll ask for more to cover the future debts. It's a never ending cycle of tax and spend, and it's our money they keep spending.

Yeah. Our budget problems have to do with our legislators, not our revenue. Giving them more money to solve the budget problem is like trying to give an alcoholic "enough" alcohol.

Sinixstar
05-10-2009, 12:51 AM
Yeah. Our budget problems have to do with our legislators, not our revenue. Giving them more money to solve the budget problem is like trying to give an alcoholic "enough" alcohol.


That's the connection that needs to be made. that's what a lot of people don't get it.

One of the hard things to overcome - is when you stand up against various pet-projects, it gets spun as being against the idea. In some cases, that can paint the opposition in a very bad light.

For example - I drive an old honda. I spend a lot of time in the mountains in the winter. It would be a good idea for me to upgrade to something AWD, that would be a little safer in those conditions. Perhaps a top of the line volvo with all the safety features. Great, except - I can't afford it. It's not that i'm against having AWD or all the safety features, it's that on balance - having a roof over my head is a higher priority.

What "they" attempt to do when you oppose the pet projects and waste, is spin it as "you're against having AWD and all the safety features". We have to figure out a way of dispelling that garbage.
On a side note - this is a big part of how Newt orchestrated a congressional takeover in '94. He put forth a plan that said "we're not saying we're against spending money, we're not saying we want to do nothing, we're saying we want to be smart about what we do - and do it in a way that doesn't cause more problems then it solves." It worked.
If we can get that point across - it does work, and it does convince people you're right. Logic can work - it just has to be framed correctly.

Now the question is simply - how do we do that?

CCWFacts
05-10-2009, 2:25 AM
On a side note - this is a big part of how Newt orchestrated a congressional takeover in '94. He put forth a plan that said "we're not saying we're against spending money, we're not saying we want to do nothing, we're saying we want to be smart about what we do - and do it in a way that doesn't cause more problems then it solves." It worked.

Yes, Newt was able to articulate that, successfully, and that's why liberals have a special animosity towards him.

It looks to me like CA's voters are figuring that out, which is why they are rejecting these ballot props.

Now if only someone could figure that out at the national level. We need someone to come back and say what Churchill said (paraphrasing): you can't borrow your way out of debt, you can't tax your way to prosperity.

gcvt
05-10-2009, 2:36 AM
But, but....the SF Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/02/ED5B17CTKP.DTL&type=politics) says I should vote Yes on all the Propositions. They wouldn't steer me wrong, would they? :smilielol5:

dfletcher
05-10-2009, 4:58 AM
I do hope the special election on 19 May 09 is an indicator of things to come with respect to our elected representatives. I've already voted no on everything - regardless of the specifics I always vote no, I simply do not believe in the referendum system.

halifax
05-10-2009, 5:27 AM
I do hope the special election on 19 May 09 is an indicator of things to come with respect to our elected representatives. I've already voted no on everything - regardless of the specifics I always vote no, I simply do not believe in the referendum system.

I know it won't pass if 1A doesn't, but I voted NO to all except 1F. I hope it will, at least, send a message

tenpercentfirearms
05-10-2009, 6:45 AM
Vote no on 1F too. The list punishes a whole list of state employees that are not part of the budget process. Don't fall for the smoke and mirrors. If 1F stopped their pay until they balanced the budget, I would vote for it. Not allowing them to give themselves a pay raise is just plain stupid. We are the ultimate authority in this state. We don't need a law to give us some petty permission to keep them from getting a pay raise. We should simply vote them out of office.

Vote no on 1F just because it is a stupid law that won't do anything. If you want to send your legislators a message, contact their office directly or vote them out.

Erik S. Klein
05-10-2009, 7:06 AM
Vote no on 1F too. The list punishes a whole list of state employees that are not part of the budget process. Don't fall for the smoke and mirrors. If 1F stopped their pay until they balanced the budget, I would vote for it.
It's still better than nothing and I don't care if they are part of the budget process or not - if they work for the state then they are part of the problem.

I voted no on all except 1F. I'm hopeful that the eventual results will match my vote. . . that'll be a first for me.

Legasat
05-10-2009, 7:09 AM
Vote no on 1F too. We don't need a law to give us some petty permission to keep them from getting a pay raise. We should simply vote them out of office.

Vote no on 1F just because it is a stupid law that won't do anything. If you want to send your legislators a message, contact their office directly or vote them out.

But we don't vote them out. Too many people drink the kool-aid. 1-F DOES stop them from a pay raise in the years of projected deficit spending. I'll take it. I'm voting Yes on 1-F. No on all of the others.

scobun
05-10-2009, 7:29 AM
Vote no on 1F too. The list punishes a whole list of state employees that are not part of the budget process. Don't fall for the smoke and mirrors. If 1F stopped their pay until they balanced the budget, I would vote for it. Not allowing them to give themselves a pay raise is just plain stupid. We are the ultimate authority in this state. We don't need a law to give us some petty permission to keep them from getting a pay raise. We should simply vote them out of office.

Vote no on 1F just because it is a stupid law that won't do anything. If you want to send your legislators a message, contact their office directly or vote them out.

I think that if 1F will do something, it will encourage the legislature to make sure taxes are high enough to cover expenses. Let's face it, without 80% of the idiots in the legislature getting tossed out, none of these propositions will cause them to do anything differently. These folks have shown they have no problem with raising taxes instead of cutting spending, so I don't see this as causing them to change how they look at things. They'll just raise our taxes to make sure we don't have a deficit. I know that this will only cause economic disaster, but they don't know this and have proven it with these rediculous "solutions" in the special election. Vote no on ALL of them.

We've had the same elected retards suckling off union mongoloids for years, and why we expect them to change is beyond me. I've been taking dumps for 27 years, and I don't hold out much hope that one day the nature of my feces will change and I'll crap gold nuggets. Turds are turds, and it is always better to get them to go away than have them sit and wait to see what they may come up with that is better.

scc1909
05-10-2009, 7:51 AM
I've already voted no on everything - regardless of the specifics I always vote no, I simply do not believe in the referendum system.

Yeah, me too...including Prop 8. :thumbsup:

bg
05-10-2009, 7:54 AM
I'm probably going to be out of a job if the one for the schools fails,
but there's nothing I can do about it. No I didn't vote on any of the
props so what happens, happens. I won't have any right to bit*h about em.

They were sunk when the "budget" was shoved down our throats awhile back.
Sad thing is, Ca's budget is already in the red and has been for some time.
Our credit rating is so low, no one wants to front us money.

If I ran my budget and credit like the state does, I'd be homeless and stuck
with a terrible credit record. Wonder if the state would step in and help me ?

Yea, right..:TFH:

HowardW56
05-10-2009, 7:57 AM
It's still better than nothing and I don't care if they are part of the budget process or not - if they work for the state then they are part of the problem.

I voted no on all except 1F. I'm hopeful that the eventual results will match my vote. . . that'll be a first for me.

I voted no on 1F too. Now if it had prohibited them from receiving any pay when there is no budget, I would have voted for that!

BigDogatPlay
05-10-2009, 9:01 AM
Voting no on all is the best course, I believe. 1F needs to be defeated and re-written as above.... no pay until you come up with a balanced budget.

scobun
05-10-2009, 9:17 AM
Voting no on all is the best course, I believe. 1F needs to be defeated and re-written as above.... no pay until you come up with a balanced budget.

I think we need to add that they get no pay until they come up with a balanced budget without raising taxes. Don't forget the route they are taking to "balance" the current budget. I'm still 100% confident that such a measure would only guarantee additional taxes to cover the budget, afterall, we can't possibly cut spending according to Sacramento.

scr83jp
05-10-2009, 10:18 AM
As senior citizens who like to travel we get absentee ballots and already submitted ours a couple of weeks ago with NO on everyone of those money grabbing ripoffs!

CCWFacts
05-10-2009, 10:32 AM
Vote no on 1F too. We don't need a law to give us some petty permission to keep them from getting a pay raise. We should simply vote them out of office.

Vote no on 1F just because it is a stupid law that won't do anything. If you want to send your legislators a message, contact their office directly or vote them out.

I agree completely. As much as I would like to see my rep's pay cut (to zero, or perhaps negative), 1F just seems petty and inappropriate.

nicki
05-10-2009, 10:57 AM
Is the budget a gun issue, well the answer is not directly.

However, cutting off money will help us because county/city governments won't have deep pockets to "stonewall us" on exercising of our rights.:43:

Now is the time for us to go on "offense" to get not just our gun rights back, but others as well.

City and County government's are going to engage in "chicken ****" ways to raise money, like "speed traps", bs nuisance fines etc. etc.

The truth is if we got the government out of our lives where it shouldn't be, we wouldn't have a budget crisis.

Nicki

bulgron
05-10-2009, 12:19 PM
My question is, do the idiots in Sacramento understand that the reason why we keep using the ballot system to reign them in and straight jacket them on budget issues is because we're sick and tired of their statist, big-government, incompetent ways?

I mean, who here would object if they were raising the money so they can repair and even grow the water system so that we can ensure that clean water is available to all? But we all know that if we voted money for them to do that, they'd just misspend it on some stupid feel-good program so that at the end of the day, the water system would continue to be in decline.

More money to the state, or even more flexibility in how they spend money, just means more regulation, more money wasted on graft and kick backs and handouts to the professionally needy, and (of course) more stupid gun control laws. Want an improved power grid? A BART extension to Silicon Valley? The levees repaired? Forget about it. Oh, they'll promise it sure enough. But what we'll get instead is more involvement of the state in our daily lives, more constitutional infringements, and more people making a living on the public dime.

Just vote 'no' for more money for the State of California. It's turned into the only way to ring Sacramento's bell. Maybe they'll even start listening one of these days.

PonchoTA
05-10-2009, 1:06 PM
Here is Rep. McClintock’s recommendations for the May 19th Special Election:

Prop 1A: Extend the Tax Increases. NO. This is the fig leaf that hides certain deficiencies suffered by the legislators who caved into pressure for the biggest tax increase in California’s history. This measure EXTENDS the tax increases for up to two ADDITIONAL years in exchange for a spending limit that doesn’t limit spending. The “spending limit” is laughable – it requires placing “unanticipated revenues” into a special fund that is then to be spent for a variety of additional purposes including education, debt service and health care. And since all funds are interchangeable, this merely allows funds spent for one purpose to be shifted for another. The bottom line: If you were against the tax increase, you’re against Prop. 1A.

Prop 1B: Increases Public School Spending $9.3 Billion. NO. This is the classic J. Willington Wimpy approach to finance – “I would gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.” In exchange for not making certain mandated school payments over the next two years, this measure obligates $9.3 billion in supplemental payments in future years. But wait, it gets better. According to the Legislative Analyst, it’s not entirely clear the bill will actually save money in the short term, but very likely it will cost much more in the future.

Prop 1C: Lottery rip-off. NO. This measure takes the Lottery revenue away from the schools, diverts it into the general fund to pay for $5 billion of new borrowing to balance the general fund, and then locks the general fund into making additional payments to the public schools in perpetuity. If this sounds like another of the infamous Schwarzenegger “After me, the flood” proposals, you’re right.

Prop 1D: California Children and Families Rip-off. YES. This measure irresponsibly rips off an irresponsible rip-off, which in balance is probably a (barely) good thing. The Children and Families Fund (now called First 5) was the Rob Reiner disaster that raised tobacco taxes through the roof to pay for some highly dubious community programs. This slush fund has built up a sizeable reserve that Prop 1D filches for the general fund.

Prop 1E: Mental Health Funding Rip-Off. YES. This measure irresponsibly rips off another irresponsible rip-off, in this case the Mental Health Services Act that is funded by a 1 percent surcharge on upper-income wage earners and small businesses. Both 1D and 1E would require a more hardheaded appraisal of spending priorities, which is the only reason that would justify voting for them.

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.

Different take, but I generally trust what Mr. McClintock has to say. :thumbsup:

gd-bh
05-10-2009, 1:39 PM
So, if these horrible props don't pass, what next? Will the fat-cats in Sacramento suddenly get a clue and a backbone, and then cut spending? Or will they just go completely against the obvious wishes of the voters, and pass the next "largest tax increase in history"? I'm not going to be putting any money on the former...;)

sholling
05-10-2009, 3:53 PM
Whether they all pass or fail the legislature will want another tax increase next year. And the next and the next. The unions will want raises and fat benefit increases and they own the legislature - both parties. Count on a plan to increase taxes again next year.

Model X
05-10-2009, 4:10 PM
1F wont work simply because they will just pad their expense accounts to make up the difference!

Plus as has been said it could potentially impact people who work for the state (and there are a lot of odd "state" workers who have very little to do with the state - or the states money for that matter). And there is no point imo.

PLUS, it gives the RINO republicans who sold themselves out last year ammo for their whole "see my compromises worked"

AntiBubba 2.1
05-10-2009, 4:24 PM
I've already sent my ballot back. :)

These all have to fail. Will it force the Legislature to make really hard compromises and cuts? It's just barely possible. But it may take a complete collapse of all state bureaus, departments, and functions to get anything done. As punishing as it would be for so many of the people I know and love, I don't see an alternative.

tenpercentfirearms
05-10-2009, 7:56 PM
Here is Rep. McClintock’s recommendations for the May 19th Special Election:

Prop 1A: Extend the Tax Increases. NO. This is the fig leaf that hides certain deficiencies suffered by the legislators who caved into pressure for the biggest tax increase in California’s history. This measure EXTENDS the tax increases for up to two ADDITIONAL years in exchange for a spending limit that doesn’t limit spending. The “spending limit” is laughable – it requires placing “unanticipated revenues” into a special fund that is then to be spent for a variety of additional purposes including education, debt service and health care. And since all funds are interchangeable, this merely allows funds spent for one purpose to be shifted for another. The bottom line: If you were against the tax increase, you’re against Prop. 1A.

Prop 1B: Increases Public School Spending $9.3 Billion. NO. This is the classic J. Willington Wimpy approach to finance – “I would gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.” In exchange for not making certain mandated school payments over the next two years, this measure obligates $9.3 billion in supplemental payments in future years. But wait, it gets better. According to the Legislative Analyst, it’s not entirely clear the bill will actually save money in the short term, but very likely it will cost much more in the future.

Prop 1C: Lottery rip-off. NO. This measure takes the Lottery revenue away from the schools, diverts it into the general fund to pay for $5 billion of new borrowing to balance the general fund, and then locks the general fund into making additional payments to the public schools in perpetuity. If this sounds like another of the infamous Schwarzenegger “After me, the flood” proposals, you’re right.

Prop 1D: California Children and Families Rip-off. YES. This measure irresponsibly rips off an irresponsible rip-off, which in balance is probably a (barely) good thing. The Children and Families Fund (now called First 5) was the Rob Reiner disaster that raised tobacco taxes through the roof to pay for some highly dubious community programs. This slush fund has built up a sizeable reserve that Prop 1D filches for the general fund.

Prop 1E: Mental Health Funding Rip-Off. YES. This measure irresponsibly rips off another irresponsible rip-off, in this case the Mental Health Services Act that is funded by a 1 percent surcharge on upper-income wage earners and small businesses. Both 1D and 1E would require a more hardheaded appraisal of spending priorities, which is the only reason that would justify voting for them.

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.

Different take, but I generally trust what Mr. McClintock has to say. :thumbsup:

I wrote up an article for our local paper and I told my readers to ask a smoker what they wanted done with their tax dollars on 1D and to ask a rich person what they wanted to be done with their money on 1E. If either of those pass, no big deal. No on the rest.

AngelDecoys
05-10-2009, 8:14 PM
Glad these are likely to fail. Probably get yet another sales tax hike next year. It hovers at 10% here in Manteca. I'm thinking we may go as high as 15% before there's some sanity. So long as the GOP can hold the line, we shouldn't see any drastic tax increases (except more in various fees or taxes on gasoline, etc). The clowns in Sac will never get it. 2 things on the horizon to watch out for.

1) An initiative to change the vote from 2/3 to a simple 1/2 majority. It will be proposed and it will fail just like this years joke. Yet the democrats will keep trying.

2) Be on the lookout for the term 'voluntary default' in the next few years. Since the Republicans know they can't win with legislation, they have nothing to lose. If I were to guess, i'd say the Repubs will in all likelihood start suggesting default is a means of renegotiating all the public pensions we no longer have revenue to sustain.

Good times.

CCWFacts
05-10-2009, 9:01 PM
2) Be on the lookout for the term 'voluntary default' in the next few years. Since the Republicans know they can't win with legislation, they have nothing to lose. If I were to guess, i'd say the Repubs will in all likelihood start suggesting default is a means of renegotiating all the public pensions we no longer have revenue to sustain.

Right, assuming these props don't pass, their options are very very limited:


Basically shut down so many basic services that we're on our own, even though we will still have a high tax burden to pay off our pension / healthcare obligations to all the current and former employees
Somehow identify the enormous amount of unnecessary and unneeded repeated redundancies and so on and cut them out
Use some kind of default to force renegotiation of these obligations. I have a deep love and affection for the DMV, but really, giving gold-plated lifetime healthcare coverage to the guy who has spent 20 years behind the counter there being rude and slow and arrogant to his "customers" is something the state may not be able to sustain


They might be able to magically get a truckload of stimulus money to stave off this situation until California's economy and property values magically become stronger and better than ever before, but, failing that, they're going to have to undo a lot of those commitments.

My happy predictions are:


Californians are going to have to learn to be a lot more self-sufficient. You want fire protection? Organize with your community, train your own residents, get your own equipment, and rely on your own abilities. Worried about crime? Get a gun and learn how to use it.
This whole situation may cause a shift in attitudes, where people stop thinking "my safety is the state's responsibility" to thinking "my safety is my responsibility". That is great in the long-term for both CCW / gun rights, and for conservatism in general


If inflation starts up, the same volatility that has caused terrible riots in the past will come again, but this time there will be even less help from emergency services. Urban Californians may be liberal but they will figure it out when they are forced to.

sholling
05-10-2009, 9:05 PM
So long as the GOP can hold the line, we shouldn't see any drastic tax increases
Don't fall into that propaganda trap. The days when the California GOP stood for something are long over. It's now the RINO party. This may be news to you but with the exception of 2 or 3 members, the entire Republican delegation to Sacramento were deeply in bed with the Democrats for a tax increase, as were the party bosses. They just put on a show of resistance for the benefit of the voters. But it was all a scam complete with preselected mostly termed out fall guys (and one idiot) to take the heat from the voters. You note that the state Republican Party bankrolled the Yes On 1A-F campaign to the tune of $650,000 of Republican money.

2) Be on the lookout for the term 'voluntary default' in the next few years. Since the Republicans know they can't win with legislation, they have nothing to lose. If I were to guess, i'd say the Repubs will in all likelihood start suggesting default is a means of renegotiating all the public pensions we no longer have revenue to sustain.
I'm not 100% on this but I read somewhere that the California Constitution forbids including any public employee pensions in any bankruptcy filing. In other words the only obligation that the state must payout is pensions. Even if they have to layoff every firefighter, cop, prison guard, or teacher the pensions get paid in full. Something you may want to research.

CCWFacts
05-10-2009, 9:21 PM
You note that the state Republican Party bankrolled the Yes On 1A-F campaign to the tune of $650,000 of Republican money.

Ouch. That sucks.

I'm not 100% on this but I read somewhere that the California Constitution forbids including any public employee pensions in any bankruptcy filing.

Well then, if that's the case, then I have a great idea for a ballot prop we can all support!

In other words the only obligation that the state must payout is pensions. Even if they have to layoff every firefighter, cop, prison guard, or teacher the pensions get paid in full. Something you may want to research.

Hmm. Well, I don't believe we can tax our way out of this. We could lay off a lot of those employees and adjust to it to by taking on the responsibilities for public safety and education as communities and individuals and private-funded enterprises, which, in the long term, would be a big victory for the state.

sholling
05-10-2009, 9:25 PM
My happy predictions are:

My predictions are:

The legislature will continue to cave into the unions with ever increasing pay and benefits.
Union money and the media will continue to defeat any serious and effective reform initiatives.
The exodus of businesses, jobs and financially secure retirees will continue with 2 illegal aliens replacing each Californian that leaves.
The exodus of those that actually pay most of the taxes will necessitate even more tax increases forcing more business, jobs and taxpayers to leave the state, this will of course lead to another round of tax increases - and another - and another.
Within 10 years the corruption of the combined Republicrat party will cause the state to slip into a depression even as the rest of the country recovers. Leading to a great depression like eastward migration of carloads of destitute "Okies" (Californians) fleeing in search of work and a meal.

AngelDecoys
05-10-2009, 9:25 PM
Don't fall into that propaganda trap. The days when the California GOP stood for something are long over.........

Can't say I believe that altogether. My guess is there will be taxes, but one's that will be levied on everyone over just one segment. Hense why increasing the sales tax again and again (and other fees) have come up in conversations I've had. A sales tax hike at least hits the grey economy and the poor which spreads the burden. (BTW - I'm in favor of regressive taxation. The poor do not pay enough yet use most of the services).

.........Something you may want to research.

I'll look into it, but that's not my understanding of it.

sholling
05-10-2009, 9:37 PM
Can't say I believe that altogether. My guess is there will be taxes, but one's that will be levied on everyone over just one segment. Hense why increasing the sales tax again and again (and other fees) have come up in conversations I've had. A sales tax hike at least hits the grey economy and the poor which spreads the burden. (BTW - I'm in favor of regressive taxation. The poor do not pay enough yet use most of the services).
The answer isn't more money, it's an initiative rolling back the budget to 1999 level. an initiative restoring Gann limits. An initiative requiring outsourcing all state functions other than police and the courts via a competitive bid process. Yes including school vouchers. And an initiative converting the pension system to a 401k like system and capping the state contribution.


I'll look into it, but that's not my understanding of it.Again it's just something I read in the paper a few years ago.

lioneaglegriffin
05-10-2009, 9:39 PM
My predictions are:

The legislature will continue to cave into the unions with ever increasing pay and benefits.
Union money and the media will continue to defeat any serious and effective reform initiatives.
The exodus of businesses, jobs and financially secure retirees will continue with 2 illegal aliens replacing each Californian that leaves.
The exodus of those that actually pay most of the taxes will necessitate even more tax increases forcing more business, jobs and taxpayers to leave the state, this will of course lead to another round of tax increases - and another - and another.
Within 10 years the corruption of the combined Republicrat party will cause the state to slip into a depression even as the rest of the country recovers. Leading to a great depression like eastward migration of carloads of destitute "Okies" (Californians) fleeing in search of work and a meal.

Chipper aren't we>?
I predict the state will take even more money out education and why not whats the diff. between have a rank of 47 vs. 50 our educational rank is so close to the bottom why not go for the gold and save a few bucks while we screw our kids over.

sholling
05-10-2009, 9:49 PM
Chipper aren't we>?
I predict the state will take even more money out education and why not whats the diff. between have a rank of 47 vs. 50 our educational rank is so close to the bottom why not go for the gold and save a few bucks while we screw our kids over.Let's not forget that the places that spend the most get the worst results. Washington DC spends more money per pupil than any place else. You may have read that Congress is canceling their successful voucher program to make the teachers' union happy condemning more kids to poverty.

You could move to a voucher system and school choice and save 30% and give twice the education with 1/4 the number of dropouts. Schools that don't perform will lose customers and go away. Schools that do a great job will gain customers and prosper. It's a whole lot better than the current system that only cares about the unions.

dfletcher
05-10-2009, 10:59 PM
Whether they're RINOs or far right or conservative or just middle of the road, shouldn't the Republican Party as an entity be helped if these referendums all go down the drain? Shouldn't the Republican Party be making great political hay over this?

I get the sense these items will fail because voters, as a group & regardless of party, are fed up with the folks in charge & let's face it, the Democratic Party has been in charge of the state for a long time.

If the Republican Party can't capitalize on this vote - is the party pretty much dead in CA?

sholling
05-10-2009, 11:01 PM
Whether they're RINOs or far right or conservative or just middle of the road, shouldn't the Republican Party as an entity be helped if these referendums all go down the drain? Shouldn't the Republican Party be making great political hay over this?

I get the sense these items will fail because voters, as a group & regardless of party, are fed up with the folks in charge & let's face it, the Democratic Party has been in charge of the state for a long time.

If the Republican Party can't capitalize on this vote - is the party pretty much dead in CA?
They can't make hay over it because they were in on it.

N6ATF
05-10-2009, 11:26 PM
Let's not get cocky. Those who haven't voted no, no, no, no, no, NO! in absentia need to vote early and often on May 19.

7222 Hawker
05-10-2009, 11:37 PM
But, but....the SF Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/02/ED5B17CTKP.DTL&type=politics) says I should vote Yes on all the Propositions. They wouldn't steer me wrong, would they? :smilielol5:

Vote exactley oppposite from the sf chronicle and you will be on the right side of morality, law and conscience. They are the reason newspapers will be bankrupt in two years. San Francisco - legalize pot and no death penatly for cop killers - great place huh?

Trench Broom
05-11-2009, 12:07 AM
Just one more week to "6xNO" day! :D

1BigPea
05-11-2009, 11:13 AM
Wife and I sent in our ballots last week...no on all.

Aegis
05-11-2009, 12:10 PM
I can't figure out why most of the legislature gets paid anyway. There are not many other professions that people get compensated well for being miserable failures.

demnogis
05-11-2009, 4:00 PM
I'm voting no on all props.

Tillers_Rule
05-11-2009, 4:19 PM
I'm looking forward to voting next Tuesday:thumbsup:

AaronHorrocks
05-11-2009, 4:37 PM
I voted NO on everything, but 1F. I say screw 'em. I know it's petty, and won't do any actual good, but it'll send a MESSAGE to them.

N6ATF
05-11-2009, 6:57 PM
1F was put in there at the behest of one of the traitor Republicans who voted for the tax increase. SCREW HIM.

leitung
05-11-2009, 7:24 PM
There is a bitter side to these passing.. My father is a state employee, and the plans ol arnie has in stock for them if these dont pass in not good. Major paycuts, furloghs, and lay offs.

Our house is on the line if these dont pass. While my father is NOT a union man, and in fact hates the union for state employees. We have got to get this under control.

Also, expect state employees to start fighting back, they are talking walkouts, as well as finding everyway possible to make the people suffer, including longer lines at tool booths, & inspection stations.

My dad is losing 9.2% out of his paycheck right now, that's over $700 a month. It really hurts. Who is to blame? Well the union for one, may dad has worked for the state for 30 years, he has gotten exactly 1% pay raise for each year for those 30 years.
Our currently elected establishment is also to blame, I wouldn't trust these yahoos to properly butter my toast.

Want to change California, quit voting for incumbents, and get these idiots out of office.

10fcp
05-11-2009, 7:52 PM
I work for the state too. It's agood job but it's not what most people think. They talk about laying off fire fighters and releasing prisoners (non violent) due to lack of funds to support the population. This state is in a real jam now, even if we could vote them all out of office now we would still be screwed from the damage that's already been done. Since the last budget deal we have been struggling to hire more employees because we're so short handed. Cuts have been made at all levels and I and many more can feel it, not just employees but the public. Then you hear about all the money they waste on some of these projects and makes you wonder how and why. I guess we are all to blame for putting these A-holes in office, then again we don't get many options.Seems like the general fund gets hit the hardest. That's where a lot of K-12 gets it's funding. With enemployment as high as it is and our state going broke something has to happen soon to eleviate this mess. Once my boy is out of school we plan on moving out of state. ( not because of this but for many reasons, mainly family.)

CCWFacts
05-11-2009, 7:59 PM
Btw, I take no joy in the harm that our budget situation is doing to the competent, hard-working employees in this state. The best of these employees are actually make less than they could in private industry, but are working for the state because they want to work for California. They are out there. I believe that, long-term, leaner and more efficient government here would be beneficial to these star workers.

The problem is that our current gov't workers' unions make it impossible to fire the incompetent, and meanwhile our legislators have an insatiable lust for spending, often on boondoggles or unnecessary projects. And to top it off, the state employee unions are so powerful they have been able to arrange pension and healthcare packages that are unaffordable and far beyond what is offered in private industry. Combine these factors, and this is how we end up.

There was a recent article in the LA Times about how it's impossible to fire a teacher for incompetence (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teachers3-2009may03,0,679507.story), and it's difficult even for gross misconduct. It's astonishing. Maybe LA teachers are the most guilty but the same circumstances exist throughout state and local governments.

TommyGun
05-11-2009, 8:41 PM
[QUOTE=sholling;2458308]The answer isn't more money, it's an initiative rolling back the budget to 1999 level. an initiative restoring Gann limits. An initiative requiring outsourcing all state functions other than police and the courts via a competitive bid process. Yes including school vouchers. And an initiative converting the pension system to a 401k like system and capping the state contribution.


+1 I agree

KylaGWolf
05-11-2009, 9:00 PM
As much as I would love to see the measures fail I have to say the budget cuts have gutted the schools budgets for San Diego county big time. And the ones that are getting hurt are the students not the rich higher ups that should have got the cuts.

swaits
05-11-2009, 10:03 PM
Schools in trouble, State employees losing work, yes, that's unfortunate... But really, something like 1 in 10 Californians work for the State. That's insanely ridiculous.

We aren't going to fix a spending and borrowing problem with more spending and borrowing. Our tax burden is already fighting for the top spot (between NY, NJ, etc.) - more borrowing means higher taxes. Common sense.

My wife and I mailed our NO ON ALL ballots today.

sharpie613
05-12-2009, 1:11 AM
We are trapped in this state between two bad choices. If these props pass, our taxes and fees and whatnot stay at ridiculous levels. If they fail, then a bunch of people who didn't do anything wrong are going to be out of a job. They will gut education spending even more than they have already. State offices will be open less. Yes, being a fireman in an urban area with modern fire codes and building sprinklers is not a bad job. Right up until there is another wildfire and they go down and cut firebreaks and work for several days straight in a high risk environment. Law enforcement will start really going after infractions that can make them money.

You will not send a message to Sacramento by voting these down. The idiots who placed us in this mess will feel no pain at all. Props 1A-F, passing or failing, will each have an awful outcome all their own and the constant cheerleading to see these fail makes me shake my head. Some of these posters here think that this will finally be it, this will finally be the day that the Legislature will learn that they need to cut other spending, that the fools this state elects and re-elects will finally see the light. They won't. They will just get in front of some cameras and pout how disappointed they are in this state, that we won't pay our fair share(which is code for whatever we have left from our paychecks) As a relatively junior teacher in this state, I find myself in the dilemma of voting my heart, or voting to keep a job. Some people here would do well to remember that fact. As of right now, I'm leaning heavily towards no all the way down, but if it comes down to being homeless or working but taxed, well, what would you choose?

cousinkix1953
05-12-2009, 1:40 AM
They are all failing (http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/may/08/voters-are-turned-off-by-ballot-measures-poll/).

This is not only good for California's taxpayers, but it's also good because it will have the long-term effect of decreasing the size and power of the extremely anti-RKBA state employee unions. If these props fail it will make the state and local budget crunch much worse, and leave them less eager to spend $ on fighting against our civil rights.

It's really easy to vote in this special election. Vote "no" everything, with the possible exception of 1F, to prevent pay increases for legislators. I voted no on that one also, just because it seems petty, but i guess it does have the advantage of saving some money, and every bit counts.

And of course, if you're in LA, vote for Carmen Trutanich (http://www.tru09.com/) for city attorney.
KCBS radio says these are going down in flames too. I'm not sure why the supporters of Props 1-A and 1-B are spending money like drunken sailors; but their near MONOPOLY on political advertising, is enough to make anybody question their motives. It sounds like greed to me. Vote NO...

AfricanHunter
05-12-2009, 2:05 AM
Budget leaders ousted

Negotiations could be complicated by a change in Republican legislative leadership.

Assembly Republicans on Thursday voted to replace Mike Villines of Fresno and installed Sam Blakeslee of San Luis Obispo as their caucus leader.

That action means both GOP leaders who were involved in the budget negotiations early this year have now been ousted; former Senate leader Dave Cogdill of Modesto got the boot in February even as the Senate was debating the budget deal.

Both were replaced because Republicans were angered that the former leaders agreed to accept tax increases as part of the budget-balancing solution.

The new GOP leaders — Blakeslee and Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth of Murietta — will now be part of the “Big 5” negotiating team that will seek agreement on how to close the additional shortfall, which Taylor estimates will be $8 billion if the ballot measures pass or $14 billion if they fail.

That sounds particularly good. Anyone have the inside scoop on this? So that means that the tax increases arent a done deal by any means?

I agree with other posters who feel the state needs to feel a lot of pain before they are (hopefully) going to realize this crap aint gonna fly anymore. I feel bad for the many people who may have nothing to do with this mess but will feel the pain in jobs lost, etc but this would have happened at some point in the near future anyway IMO.

This out of control spending needs to stop. I think the poster earlier who likened the situation to an alcoholic is spot on. You can never give an Alcoholic "enough" alcohol. It is the same with CA. They are addicted to our tax dollars and no amount will ever be enough in the framework of their current spending practices.

I am voting no on EVERYTHING until they get their house in order.

grywlfbg
05-12-2009, 7:51 AM
Wife and I are voting NO here as well. If Cali is the 5th largest economy in the world or whatever, why the frack are we so far in the hole? It's ridiculous. There's plenty of money, the govt just needs to figure out how to spend it better.

And for those of you boo-hooing about state workers possibly being laid off, there are plenty of us out here in the private workforce w/o jobs. It's a recession, people lose their jobs, get over it. A friend of mine's company cut everyone's pay 50% from current for 2 months and 20% from current after that forever.

Also, when you take into account the money we have to save for retirement that most govt workers don't the pay is not that different. And as I look at how much my 401k has lost in the last year it's really not that tough to work for the govt.

Wizard99
05-12-2009, 9:01 AM
If we just quit spending money on social programs for illegal laborers and their families in this state we would have a balanced budget today.

N6ATF
05-12-2009, 12:32 PM
If they fail, then a bunch of people who didn't do anything wrong are going to be out of a job.

Don't believe everything the government tells you. The pink slips and layoff armageddon talk are scare tactics to push through every possible screw the taxpayer measure possible. Scheduled spending and pay increases not being able to be met does not equal layoffs, unless the unions want to cut off their noses to spite their face. It just means a somewhat lower but still highest salary in the nation, during a fracking RECESSION bordering on DEPRESSION.

Very few state workers actually lose their jobs. It is damn near impossible to fire most of them, especially if they are found to be criminals.

mblat
05-12-2009, 1:07 PM
Originally Posted by sharpie613
If they fail, then a bunch of people who didn't do anything wrong are going to be out of a job.


And your point is? Since they are on my ( ours ) payroll and we have no money why should we hesitate to let some of them go?

CCWFacts
05-12-2009, 1:20 PM
If they fail, then a bunch of people who didn't do anything wrong are going to be out of a job.

And if they pass, a bunch of people who didn't do anything wrong are going to be out billions of dollars.

What's your point?

Saying "You need to pay me because if you don't I won't have money" is not a valid argument for anything.

Model X
05-12-2009, 4:27 PM
It just means a somewhat lower but still highest salary in the nation, during a fracking RECESSION bordering on DEPRESSION.

What? Most state employees (except those working at CalPERS, probably some other departments too) have AWFUL wages. They make only a fraction of what the private sector makes, but are guaranteed a pension so that's the benefit (pensions are funded through CalPERS who gets money through investments and not taxpayer money - so theoretically having state workers BOOSTS the economy because the state is investing into start up companies in the hopes of high returns to fund their fund).

HOWEVER, Federal jobs of the same caliber are MUCH better paying than State jobs. They also offer the same, if not better benefits.

Most LOCAL AND COUNTY jobs pay MORE than the state does as well.

dfletcher
05-12-2009, 7:14 PM
After I don't know how many years of the same old routine, aren't people finally wise to the fireman "If you don't spend more money I can't save your buring home and children" advert? I think a more likely scenario are perks such as drivers, cut rate services and benefits for legislators being reduced or eliminated.

I presume there will be some good, hard working civil servants losing their jobs. I've had to lay off people, renegotiate contracts and figure out how to compete in a tighter economy also, probably making less money for myself in the process too.

scobun
05-12-2009, 7:22 PM
keen observation but there is a very very taboo subject that will never reach the MSM about this problem. Let's just say the tax payers have been paying for medical care, education, jailing, housing, food stamps and free school meals for a particular non tax paying group of folks for three decades here in Kalifornia. Don't tell anyone it's just a right wing lie and boogeyman.

There is a whole class of Californians who exist solely off your hard work. They aren't all illegal. Shaniqua Bobeesha and her six kids from six baby-daddies live on housing you pay for, eating food you pay for, having medical care you pay for, etc. We need to kill off all entitlements before they kill us and go back to private charity. The war widow who isn't making it will no doubt be supported, and Shaniqua will no doubt work or starve, as it should be.

sholling
05-12-2009, 7:25 PM
And your point is? Since they are on my ( ours ) payroll and we have no money why should we hesitate to let some of them go?
+1 Welcome to the real world. People in the private sector will lose their jobs because of these tax increases.

Sunwolf
05-12-2009, 7:55 PM
Geez,I feel like a loner here.Here I wuz thinkin` of voting yes on all the propositions.

N6ATF
05-12-2009, 8:00 PM
Only reason to vote yes is if you hate everyone in CA other than the corrupt politicians and bribing union leaders and plan to leave the state and never come back or have any interstate commerce with it whatsoever.

RaceDay
05-12-2009, 8:32 PM
Wife and I are voting NO here as well. If Cali is the 5th largest economy in the world or whatever, why the frack are we so far in the hole? It's ridiculous. There's plenty of money, the govt just needs to figure out how to spend it better.

And for those of you boo-hooing about state workers possibly being laid off, there are plenty of us out here in the private workforce w/o jobs. It's a recession, people lose their jobs, get over it. A friend of mine's company cut everyone's pay 50% from current for 2 months and 20% from current after that forever.

Also, when you take into account the money we have to save for retirement that most govt workers don't the pay is not that different. And as I look at how much my 401k has lost in the last year it's really not that tough to work for the govt.

+1000 to everything you said.

A couple corrections, I remember when Davis was still governer that CA was the 4th largest economy in the world. I think it is around 8 or 9 now. It has tumbled quite a bit with the dot com meltdown and the anti-business climate.

As far as the gov't layoffs, I totally agree. My work has cut 15% of the workforce, dumped almost all contractors, and has threatened further cuts. Nobody cries when the private sector slashes jobs.

And the retirement difference is immense. My wife works for the state is our retirement projections are night (mine) and hers (day). She'll be making approx 4x the money I will in retirement. And while you complain about your 401k going down, the state pension system lost money too. The only difference is the state will just raise taxes on everyone to fill in the gap. As for your 401k (and mine), we're just SOL.

cousinkix1953
05-12-2009, 8:49 PM
Don't believe everything the government tells you. The pink slips and layoff armageddon talk are scare tactics to push through every possible screw the taxpayer measure possible. Scheduled spending and pay increases not being able to be met does not equal layoffs, unless the unions want to cut off their noses to spite their face. It just means a somewhat lower but still highest salary in the nation, during a fracking RECESSION bordering on DEPRESSION.

Very few state workers actually lose their jobs. It is damn near impossible to fire most of them, especially if they are found to be criminals.
Those teachers in the scary ads are employed by your local school districts and not the state of Kalifornia.

Don't forget that scuzzball district attorney in Contra Costa county. He's threatening not to prosecute burglars, even though breaking into an occupied home is a felony. KTVU failed to ask if he was giving a green light to residents who might shoot those punks instead of calling the police...

southsti
05-12-2009, 8:54 PM
keen observation but there is a very very taboo subject that will never reach the MSM about this problem. Let's just say the tax payers have been paying for medical care, education, jailing, housing, food stamps and free school meals for a particular non tax paying group of folks for three decades here in Kalifornia. Don't tell anyone it's just a right wing lie and boogeyman.

Quoted for Truth