Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

13 initiatives face California voters in November
Scripps News ^ | July 1, 2006 | PETER HATCH

Posted on 07/01/2006 1:44:05 PM PDT by FairOpinion

California voters will be asked to decide on potential record increases in state spending, including major public works programs and new taxes, under initiatives approved for the November ballot.

Mark DiCamillo, director of the California Poll, said the five bonds simultaneously on the ballot will make it difficult for voters to decide what public works programs the state should undertake and how much debt it should incur.

Another measure, Proposition 87, would spend $4 billion on a program to reduce oil and gas consumption by 25 percent by promoting energy efficient technologies and research and production incentives for alternative fuel vehicles. It would be funded by a 1.5 percent to 6 percent tax per barrel of oil on producers of oil extracted in California.

Proposition 88 would seek to increase K-12 school funding by charging a $50 tax on each real property parcel in California. The measure, which would exempt certain elderly and disabled homeowners, would raise up to $500 million annually for public school programs.

(Excerpt) Read more at scrippsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: caelections; california; calinitiatives; election2006; elections; energy; govwatch; taxes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last
I sure hope most of this propositions will be voted down.
1 posted on 07/01/2006 1:44:06 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Re: the last item, is a small shack is going to pay the same $50 surcharge that Apple pays for its corporate campus or a 500 unit apartment building?


2 posted on 07/01/2006 1:57:00 PM PDT by Steven Scharf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
But the vast array of decisions voters will be asked to make don't stop with spending... "The voters will be saying: 'What are you asking me to do?'"

Remind me again why I send representatives to Sacramento? Aren't they suuposed to be making these decisions?

-PJ

3 posted on 07/01/2006 2:00:51 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
I could possibly vote yes on 4 of the propositions [1a, 1c, 83, 85] but a definite NO on the other 9.
4 posted on 07/01/2006 2:04:38 PM PDT by AmeriBrit (LIGHT A PRAYER CANDLE FOR THE TROOPS: http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Vote no on EVERYTHING. Sacramento takes in far too much money as it is. The little piggies can make do with the teats they already have.


5 posted on 07/01/2006 2:09:44 PM PDT by Redcloak (Speak softly and wear a loud shirt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
Remind me again why I send representatives to Sacramento? Aren't they suuposed to be making these decisions?

Disband the whole mess. Out source government functions to Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey Circus. "The Greatest Show On Earth."

6 posted on 07/01/2006 2:10:34 PM PDT by afnamvet (It is what it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

No bonds or taxes, set up a voluntary fund for people who believe in this cr@p and want to pay out of their own wallets for it.

IMO, unless it is from their neighbor's wallets, they are NOT often as intersted.


7 posted on 07/01/2006 2:11:58 PM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steven Scharf

California can solve all its budget woes by abolishing its corporate, state, and property taxes and switching to a universal sales tax of 15%.


8 posted on 07/01/2006 2:15:56 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (What you know about that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AmeriBrit

I have to see how 1 a is phrased -- when they say only to relieve traffic congestions, it could mean anything. I thought we already voted several times to use gas tax for roads, but somehow they never manage to do that.

I'll vote yes on 1 b and 1 e -- the transportation infrastructure and levee repair bonds, we really need those, CA's roads are literally the worst in the nation and they will never get fixed otherwise. 1 c is phony, it's always sounds like "for a good cause", the housing bond is just more wasted money.

Yes on Prop. 83 (Jessica's Law), yes on Prop. 85 (parental notification), yes on 90 (curtail eminent domain seizures).

No on everything else, unless I missed something.


9 posted on 07/01/2006 2:18:13 PM PDT by FairOpinion (Dem Foreign Policy: SURRENDER to our enemies. Real conservatives don't help Dems get elected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

"They also will be asked to decide, under Proposition 83,whether or not sex offenders and violent predators must spend their entire lives with Global Positioning System monitoring and be banned from living within 2,000 feet of any school or park."

Tracking people with GPS and telling them where they can live? Why would anyone support that? And how could it conceivably be constitutional?


10 posted on 07/01/2006 2:24:55 PM PDT by Moral Hazard (If Democrats win any more moral victories in November they'll gain moral control of Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steven Scharf

It's $50 per parcel. So I would guess no. The house I bought is on 2 parcels, though they are officially joined as one and if I wanted to separate them it would cost me tens of thousands of dollars in fees and surveying etc. I bet they'll try to sock me for $100 if this passes.


11 posted on 07/01/2006 2:27:44 PM PDT by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
I sure hope most of this propositions will be voted down.

Have you ever voted in California???? NONE of these will be voted down.

12 posted on 07/01/2006 2:29:35 PM PDT by SwankyC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moral Hazard

This is about sexual predators who molest and murder children.

Do you think they should be allowed to be let out and do it again?

I personally think they should be executed, or at least locked up their entire lives.

But if they are let out, we need to have a means of keeping track of them -- there is a virtual 100% recidivism amongst these people.


13 posted on 07/01/2006 2:29:42 PM PDT by FairOpinion (Dem Foreign Policy: SURRENDER to our enemies. Real conservatives don't help Dems get elected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SwankyC

Revolt In Blue? (California)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1658805/posts

The June election also signaled possible trouble for the party of government (a fair description of the California Democratic Party, which is dominated by public-employee unions). Voters firmly rejected an initiative that would have raised $2.4 billion a year for preschools by raising tax rates on high-income individuals. They also turned down a seemingly uncontroversial bond issue for public libraries.

Those votes suggest that the public is getting tired of taxes and state borrowing. If they really are in a no-more mood, they'll have plenty of ways to express it on the November ballot, which is chock-full of tax-and-borrow propositions.


14 posted on 07/01/2006 2:31:58 PM PDT by FairOpinion (Dem Foreign Policy: SURRENDER to our enemies. Real conservatives don't help Dems get elected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

They will use that money only for the intended purpose, but then they will not allocate any other funds for that purpose - and even withdraw existing budget allowances and redirect them to other purposes. Then in 2 or 4 years claim it wasn't enough and we need to raise it more.

It is an imperative to vote no on all of these spending measures.

The legislature has to get it through their big fat heads why they were elected - the make the hard decisions. Passing special taxes for special purposes is just a way for them to be lazy and not have to make hard decisions about where to allocate funds. And of course, its real purpose is to raise taxes in order to free up existing funds for their pet projects.


15 posted on 07/01/2006 2:32:08 PM PDT by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine
You'd pay $50 for your parcel of land. Its not based on ability to pay - meaning a retiree in a bungalow would the same rate as a billionaire in a mansion. Not only is this a statewide property tax, it also contains a poison pill - a provision that triggers $50 increases every four years after passage without a vote of the people. And that comes on top of the base property tax and various assessments that you already owe. Call it what really is - a property tax increase scheme.

(The Palestinian terrorist regime is the crisis and Israel's fist is the answer.)

16 posted on 07/01/2006 2:37:40 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

"when they say only to relieve traffic congestions"


Hopefully, they mean deporting all the criminal aliens and their gas guzzling beaters!


17 posted on 07/01/2006 2:45:48 PM PDT by gc4nra ( this tag line protected by Kimber and the First Amendment (I voted for McClintock))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

You're sure it's not $50 per parcel? Not that it matters to the way I would vote.


18 posted on 07/01/2006 2:45:54 PM PDT by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine
Most homeowners have only a parcel or two of land so its not like they'll feel the pain right away. Over a couple of years, the property tax load will reach the point that its not worth keeping the home. If this passes, look for more people to get out of California while the going is good.

(The Palestinian terrorist regime is the crisis and Israel's fist is the answer.)

19 posted on 07/01/2006 2:48:44 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
http://www.kqed.org/weblog/capitalnotes/2006/06/november-ballot-in-order.jsp

Proposition 1A [SCA 7]: Modification of 2002's transportation funding initiative, Proposition 42.

Proposition 1B-1E: The $37 billion in infrastructure bonds placed on the ballot back in April.

  [ 1B (SB 1266) Transportation $19.925
    1C (SB 1689) Housing         $2.850
    1D (AB 127)  Schools        $10.416
    1E (AB 140)  Flood Control   $4.090 ]

Proposition 83: The so-called "Jessica's Law" initiative requiring, among other things, lifetime GPS devices on sex offenders.

Proposition 84: The $5.4 billion water quality and water supply bond that qualified as a voter-circulated initiative.

Proposition 85: Waiting period and parental notification before a teenage girl can have an abortion, a repeat of 2005's failed Proposition 73.

Proposition 86: Increased $2.60 tax on a pack of cigarettes, with the money going to health and emergency services programs.

Proposition 87: Tax on oil drilled in California, with proceeds to fund alternative energy sources.

Proposition 88: $50 parcel tax, with proceeds going to education.

Proposition 89: Public financing of campaigns and new campaign contribution limits.

Proposition 90: Reform of the use of eminent domain laws.

20 posted on 07/01/2006 2:49:55 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
"This is about sexual predators who molest and murder children.

Do you think they should be allowed to be let out and do it again?

I personally think they should be executed, or at least locked up their entire lives.

But if they are let out, we need to have a means of keeping track of them -- there is a virtual 100% recidivism amongst these people."

I think you need to better define who "they" are. The recidivism rate for "sex offenders" is significantly lower than the recidivism rate for criminals as a whole.
21 posted on 07/01/2006 2:51:37 PM PDT by Moral Hazard (If Democrats win any more moral victories in November they'll gain moral control of Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Does it require a 2/3 vote to pass?


22 posted on 07/01/2006 2:55:03 PM PDT by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

So far I only see 13 to vote no on.


23 posted on 07/01/2006 2:57:25 PM PDT by jocko12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

13 initiatives = 13 tricks by the CA legislature to embezzle more $ for pet projects that have absolutly nothing to do with the original initiative description


24 posted on 07/01/2006 2:58:31 PM PDT by KTM rider ( Support Our Troops Donate to Irey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
Here's my take: vote NO to the following propositions:

1A

1B-E

Proposition 84

Proposition 86

Proposition 87

Proposition 88

Proposition 89

Vote YES for these:

Proposition 83

Proposition 85

Proposition 90

There three conservative initiatives on the ballot. The rest simply borrow more money, which we don't need, increase your taxes, which we don't need either, or put politicians on the taxpayer dole with public financing of their political campaigns, which is really the motherlode of wallet-grabbing measures on the ballot. So now people know how they ought to vote come November.

(The Palestinian terrorist regime is the crisis and Israel's fist is the answer.)

25 posted on 07/01/2006 3:00:27 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

prop 90 is not about eminent domain seizures, it is about maintaining property tax staus for seniors in order to encourage them to move to more remote areas....another example of the California "ballot initiative" shell game


26 posted on 07/01/2006 3:06:14 PM PDT by KTM rider ( Support Our Troops Donate to Irey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine
It requires a simple majority to pass. There are ten liberal measures on the ballot that deserve to be voted down because they increase the debt, raise taxes, and put politicians on the government dole. The only good stuff is Jessica's Law that locks up sexual predators, the parental notification intiative, which requires parents to be notified when a child of their gets an abortion and a measure that strengthens private property rights by restricting the government's eminent domain powers. Vote YES only for those three and NO on the rest.

(The Palestinian terrorist regime is the crisis and Israel's fist is the answer.)

27 posted on 07/01/2006 3:07:40 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I'm pretty close to your take:
Proposition 1A: NO (more formulas and they can still suspend Prop 42)
Proposition 1B: NO (Pork Ridden)
Proposition 1C: HELL NO! (Need I say more?)
Proposition 1D: NO (Enforce the immigration laws instead)
Proposition 1E: NO (Pork Ridden)
Proposition 83: Probably (Want to read the fine print)
Proposition 84: NO
Proposition 85: Probably (Want to read the fine print)
Proposition 86: HELL NO!
Proposition 87: HELL NO!
Proposition 88: HELL NO!
Proposition 89: NO
Proposition 90: YES!


28 posted on 07/01/2006 3:21:27 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
Because Californians have allowed a permanent "public" servant class of politians and bureaucrates to grab control of all the power levers.... we are doomed
29 posted on 07/01/2006 3:26:30 PM PDT by pointsal (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider
prop 90 is not about eminent domain seizures, it is about maintaining property tax staus for seniors in order to encourage them to move to more remote areas....

How would it do that?

Initiative Language from www.protectourhomes2006.com

Tom McClintock, the Pacific Legal Foundation, and other strong property rights activists are all behind this. Are you saying there is a downside?

30 posted on 07/01/2006 3:34:08 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jocko12
So far I only see 13 to vote no on.

Eminent Domain (#90) and Parental Notification (#85) seem worthy of a YES vote, don't they?

There are, however, MANY initiatives that will motivate me to go to the polls and vote NO! lol

31 posted on 07/01/2006 3:45:36 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

representatives to Sacramento? Aren't they suuposed to be making these decisions?

I'd prefer that the reps on Sacramento not make any decisions ever on anything. We'd all be bankrupt if they did. Those folks would do us all a favor of never voting on anything and stay home.


32 posted on 07/01/2006 3:56:09 PM PDT by Joan Kerrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

The gas tax we pay in California goes into a fund that is used just like the Social Security funds. They use the tax to fund anything they want.


33 posted on 07/01/2006 3:58:48 PM PDT by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AmeriBrit

I could possibly vote yes on 4 of the propositions [1a, 1c, 83, 85] but a definite NO on the other 9.

When it comes to bonds issues and/or spending on anything you'll almost always do well by voting them down. Even the reasonable sounding issues will end up favoring the demo machine and it is very likely that the reasonable sounding issue won't get a dime.


34 posted on 07/01/2006 3:58:59 PM PDT by Joan Kerrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

Vote no on EVERYTHING. Sacramento takes in far too much money as it is. The little piggies can make do with the teats they already have.

Absolutely correct.

NO on all of them.


35 posted on 07/01/2006 4:00:25 PM PDT by Joan Kerrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Joan Kerrey

Then we need to fire them all, take away their taxpayer funded SUV's, per diem, etc., etc.
I agree, I am sick to death of voting on all this crap because the legislators, duly elected, and paid a huge salary will NOT do their jobs. What the heck are they drawing those huge salaries for?


36 posted on 07/01/2006 4:03:01 PM PDT by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Mexico's contribution to California - Fabian Nunez

That's right folks, the Speaker of the California State Assembly, Fabian Nunez, is a native of Tijuana, Mexico.

You don't have to look any farther to see what is wrong in Sacramento. Nunez, Cedillo, Calderon, Romero, and the rest of the Mexican Mafia milking California dry.

Vote NO on ALL Bond and Tax raising propositions.


37 posted on 07/01/2006 4:07:32 PM PDT by CdMGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joan Kerrey

I agree with you in fact, but in point of principle that is the job of the legislature. What we need is a more principled legislature with the cajones to allocate resources as necessary for the betterment of the state, instead of lockboxing 95% of the budget and then complaining they don't have any discretionary funds for important projects.

We in this state really need to roll back the tide all the way to Pat Brown. First, we should pass a school choice initiative. We can get a coalition of minority groups and conservatives to make this happen. And we can do it nicely, in such a way that would releive the burden on tenured teachers by selling off public school properties to buy out teachers' contracts.

If we do that, we cut off the ankles of the Democratic Party here in California by taking away on of their key demagogue consituencies.



38 posted on 07/01/2006 4:08:19 PM PDT by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: AmeriBrit

You'll vote for homeless shelters and farmworker housing? (1C)


39 posted on 07/01/2006 4:15:44 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Joan Kerrey

My wife and I have a simple rule: If it's a bond issue, vote no. We don't bother with whatever glorious and noble purpose the initiative is supposed to have; it's a shell game anyway. The money goes into the budget on one end and get diverted out to what the politicos really wanted on the other. The budget stays the same and extra money magically becomes available in the budget for the politicos spend on crap the voters would never approve.


40 posted on 07/01/2006 4:24:30 PM PDT by Redcloak (Speak softly and wear a loud shirt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
No, I am for that prop 90, my mistake, I did a google search on prop 90 real quick and came up with an old prop 90 evidently, thanks for claring that up. I was trying to say the language that is printed in the ballots is misleading

Tom McClintock is doing a great job fighting emminent domain abuse...

I better get up to speed on wassup

41 posted on 07/01/2006 4:34:52 PM PDT by KTM rider ( Support Our Troops Donate to Irey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Typical. The California politicians are going to save the taxpayers money by spending 4 billion dollars. They could immediately save 4 billion dollars by not spending the 4 billion dollars. But what do I knowf?


42 posted on 07/01/2006 4:54:48 PM PDT by R.W.Ratikal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

I heard Tom McClintock talking about bond issues on talk radio the other day. His point was that you should never vote for bond measures if it's not a long term capital improvement.

For example, he said the levee bond issue was worthwhile, especially since under state law every taxpayer in the state will have to chip in if there is a levee breach and a major flood disaster.

The rest he was against, because they didn't meet his criteria.


43 posted on 07/01/2006 5:28:19 PM PDT by bordergal (John)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

My wife and I have a simple rule: If it's a bond issue, vote no.

Good rule.


44 posted on 07/01/2006 6:03:55 PM PDT by Joan Kerrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: bordergal

I think Tom McClintock is also supporting the trasportation infrastructure bond.


45 posted on 07/01/2006 7:58:10 PM PDT by FairOpinion (Dem Foreign Policy: SURRENDER to our enemies. Real conservatives don't help Dems get elected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
I think Tom McClintock is also supporting the trasportation infrastructure bond.

McClintock voted against the Transportation Bond

46 posted on 07/01/2006 9:02:42 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
the five bonds simultaneously on the ballot will make it difficult for voters to decide what public works programs the state should undertake and how much debt it should incur

Nah I won't have any difficulty at all. Anything including any of the words "tax", "bond", or "billion" in it gets a No vote.

47 posted on 07/01/2006 9:16:11 PM PDT by jiggyboy (Ten per cent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

If I recall correctly, his comments were that money for transportation was being diverted elsewhere. He didn't see the need for more money, but he did see a need to stop the raids.

Oh how I wish he was governor, with a legislative majority of Tom McClintock clones.


48 posted on 07/01/2006 9:21:22 PM PDT by bordergal (John)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: bordergal

My interpretation of his position, and his quotes, was posted here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1629258/posts?page=9#9

Basically, the Transportation bond includes a lot of things that are not infrastructure and should not be funded by bonds, let alone General Obligation bonds paid for by all state taxpayers.

And for anyone who thinks this will actually help freeway traffic, they need to read the whole measure. It includes border improvements, bus retrofits to reduce air pollution, public transit and intercity rail projects, more toll-roads, etc. If they cut out all that, I might consider it. As it is, I see it as a $20 Billion borrowing bonanza without commensurate benefits.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1251-1300/sb_1266_bill_20060516_chaptered.html


49 posted on 07/01/2006 9:58:52 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
a simple rule: If it's a bond issue, vote no.

The rule always works. Also, no on any tax increases.


The money goes into the budget on one end and get diverted out to what the politicos really wanted on the other.

With regard to bonds for long-term capital expenditures, it seems the offerings are either locally oriented (local levees to be paid statewide) or are overloaded with unrelated projects ("transportation" plus housing plus environment plus border plus other hodgepodge bond); major freeway expansion projects do require bonds, since one year's budget can't be devoted only to building the freeway, but it seems we're never offered anything so simple. Any other bonds should be definite "no" votes.

50 posted on 07/02/2006 2:59:18 AM PDT by heleny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson