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

Skip to comments.

CA: Tom McClintock on the Propositions
tommcclintock.com ^ | 10/28/10 | Tom McClintock

Posted on 10/29/2010 1:08:50 PM PDT by LibWhacker

Prop 19: When Worlds Collide.  NO.   If this simply allowed people to cultivate and smoke marijuana themselves and left the rest of us alone, it would be worth considering.   But it goes much further and provides that “no person shall be … discriminated against or denied any right or privilege” for pot use, inviting a lawsuit every time an employer tries to require a drug test, for example.  If you want to smoke pot in your own world, I don’t care.  But don’t bring it into mine.    

Prop 20: Congressional Redistricting. YES.  This finishes the work we began in 2008 to get redistricting decisions away from self-interested state legislators and into the hands of a bi-partisan commission.  The original reform omitted Congressional districts – this simply adds them.

Prop 21: Highway Robbery.  NO.  Right now, state park users pay a nominal fee that helps pay for upkeep, assuring that those who use our state parks help pay for them.  This measure ends the day-user fee and shifts the cost to the rest of us by imposing an $18 per car tax increase whether we use the parks or not.   Stealing money from highway travelers used to be called “highway robbery.”  Now it’s called “Proposition 21.”

Prop 22: Hands Off Our Money. YES.  This takes a giant leap toward restoring local government independence and protecting our transportation taxes by prohibiting state raids on local and transportation funds.  Local governments are hardly paragons of virtue, but local tax revenues should remain local. 

Prop 23:  Liberation from the Environmental Left.  YES.  In 2006, Sacramento’s rocket-scientists enacted AB 32, imposing draconian restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions (yes, that’s the stuff you exhale).  They promised to save the planet from “global warming” and open a cornucopia of new jobs.  Since then, California’s unemployment rate has shot far beyond the national unemployment rate and the earth has continued to warm and cool as it has for billions of years.  Prop 23 merely holds the Environmental Left to its promise: it suspends AB 32 until unemployment stabilizes at or below its pre-AB 32 level. 

Prop 24: Because Taxes Just Aren’t High Enough.  NO.  This is a predictable entry by the public employee unions to impose an additional $1.7 billion tax on businesses.  The problem, of course, is that businesses don’t pay business taxes – we do.  Business taxes can only be paid in three ways: by us as consumers (through higher prices), by us as employees (through lower wages) and by us as investors (through lower earnings on our 401(k)’s).

Prop 25: Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire.  NO.  This changes the 2/3 vote requirement for the state budget to a simple majority – a reform I have long supported.  Experience has shown that the current 2/3 vote requirement for the budget does not restrain spending and it utterly blurs accountability.  But such a reform MUST repair the 2/3 vote requirement for all tax increases and restore constitutional spending and borrowing limits.  Without these provisions, Prop. 25 would be a disaster for taxpayers and a recipe for bankruptcy.

Prop 26: Calling a Tax a Tax.  YES.  Under the infamous Sinclair Paint decision, virtually any tax may be increased by majority vote as long as it is called a “fee,” gutting the 2/3 vote requirement in the state constitution to raise taxes.  Prop. 26 rescinds Sinclair Paint, restores the Constitution, and calls a tax a tax.

Prop 27: OMG.  NO.  Want to go back to the days when politicians drew their own district lines, literally choosing their own voters?  This will get us there.



TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: 2010; ca2010; cainitiatives; california; mcclintock; prop19; prop20; prop21; prop22; prop23; prop24; prop25; prop26; prop27; propositions; tommcclintock
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last

1 posted on 10/29/2010 1:08:58 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Bump.


2 posted on 10/29/2010 1:10:51 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

LOL - I am glad McClintock agrees with me on all these... This is how I am voting...


3 posted on 10/29/2010 1:11:08 PM PDT by BigEdLB (Now there ARE 1,000,000 regrets - but it may be too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Thanks for the post.
I wanted to vote Yes on Proposition 19 - but I didn't realize that this Proposition included the statement "“no person shall be … discriminated against or denied any right or privilege” for pot use".
That's just wrong. I'd love to see the free market drive the drug prices to pennies on a dollar - but users of narcotics should give up a large amount of rights and privileges as opposed to those that maintain a sober lifestyle. This Proposition apparently says otherwise ...
4 posted on 10/29/2010 1:20:55 PM PDT by El Cid (Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Bump for later. Thanks


5 posted on 10/29/2010 1:33:22 PM PDT by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Except for prop 19, I agree. Gov’t has too big a hand in regulating a pretty harmless weed..


6 posted on 10/29/2010 2:00:03 PM PDT by adamjefferson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

I hope Tom gets some choice committee assignments when the Pubbies take over Congress. He deserves it.


7 posted on 10/29/2010 2:03:03 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: adamjefferson

The no-discrimination clause is a deal breaker. As an employer, drug tests should be something I can use to screen out certain employees.


8 posted on 10/29/2010 2:04:24 PM PDT by BenKenobi (Support COD - "Cash on Delivery" for DE Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

And to think that the GOP backed Ahnold Schwarzentaxxer over Tom McClintock for Governor.


9 posted on 10/29/2010 2:09:46 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Governement should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigEdLB
Prop 25: Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire. NO. This changes the 2/3 vote requirement for the state budget to a simple majority – a reform I have long supported. Experience has shown that the current 2/3 vote requirement for the budget does not restrain spending and it utterly blurs accountability. But such a reform MUST repair the 2/3 vote requirement for all tax increases and restore constitutional spending and borrowing limits. Without these provisions, Prop. 25 would be a disaster for taxpayers and a recipe for bankruptcy.

What the heck is he saying there? Does he believe in majority rule or does he believe in a need for 2/3? He says the 2/3 requirement does not restrain spending and "blurs accountability." So, if he's against the 2/3 requirement, is he in favor of 50%, which would be a Yes on 25 vote?

10 posted on 10/29/2010 2:11:19 PM PDT by Walts Ice Pick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

For comparison:

Assemblyman Chuck DeVore’s statewide ballot proposition recommendations

Prop 22 is the only difference.

11 posted on 10/29/2010 2:25:18 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Walts Ice Pick

I agree. The wording of the statement seems to have been garbled.


12 posted on 10/29/2010 2:26:08 PM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

I agree with him on everything except the $18 for the state parks. My ‘surcharged vehicle’ will then get free entry to the state parks. I view that as much cheaper than paying for a yearly pass. My local state park costs $12 per visit. So I save money on this with just two visits.


13 posted on 10/29/2010 2:28:03 PM PDT by californianmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Thanks for posting that,...just sent it to my daughter.


14 posted on 10/29/2010 3:09:36 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: californianmom

What about all the people who don’t go to state parks? Should they be forced to pay for your visit too? State parks should be funded with user fees.


15 posted on 10/29/2010 3:26:58 PM PDT by Dan Cooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS

Maybe McClintock hasn’t had a chance to actually read all these propositions. They’re pretty complicated sometimes.


16 posted on 10/29/2010 3:29:08 PM PDT by Walts Ice Pick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: californianmom
I agree with him on everything except the $18 for the state parks. My ‘surcharged vehicle’ will then get free entry to the state parks. I view that as much cheaper than paying for a yearly pass. My local state park costs $12 per visit. So I save money on this with just two visits.

Because all those who don't visit state parks should be taxed even more to subsidize your recreation, right?

I think everyone should pay their freight. Go to a state park, pay the fee.

17 posted on 10/29/2010 3:37:44 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("In politics the middle way is none at all." -- John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Walts Ice Pick
What the heck is he saying there? Maybe McClintock hasn’t had a chance to actually read all these propositions.

Apparently McClintock can read and understands the difference between supporting a proposed budget, or an increase in an existing tax, or a newly proposed tax. He also apparently recognizes that administrative fees are simply taxes.

18 posted on 10/29/2010 3:53:24 PM PDT by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Walts Ice Pick; AEMILIUS PAULUS
I don't want to misstate McClintock's position so I am searching for his original article (in about 2007, iirc) that laid out his beliefs. Basically, he thinks the super-majority should be dropped for budgets, but kept for raising taxes AND fees. Accountability would lie with the party that passed the budget.

Below is from an article quoting him... I'll keep looking for the article I remember.

“A perverse result of the supermajority requirement is that it does not constrain state spending,” McClintock says. “What it does is bid up the cost of the budget with each additional vote. Every additional vote comes with louder calls for higher spending.

“You hear, ‘This program is really, really important to me and I’m not going to vote for the budget unless it’s thrown in, plus a park in my district.’ ”

… Moreover, McClintock contends, allowing the majority party to pass a budget on its own would pinpoint blame. “Voters deserve to know which party is responsible for the budget and hold it accountable,” he says.


19 posted on 10/29/2010 3:58:05 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("In politics the middle way is none at all." -- John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: afnamvet; ALOHA RONNIE; ambrose; antceecee; atomic_dog; AVNevis; B4Ranch; b9; backtothestreets; ...

PING!

Dusting off the McClintock ping list for any of you Californians that haven’t voted yet.


20 posted on 10/29/2010 4:11:16 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("In politics the middle way is none at all." -- John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Walts Ice Pick

He’s in favor of 50% only if Constitutional limits are restored. Otherwise, 50% will lead to bankruptcy. Prop 25 gives us 50%, but does nothing to restore limits. That’s my interpretation.


21 posted on 10/29/2010 4:13:19 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

“As an employer, drug tests should be something I can use to screen out certain employees.”

They do that now.

Do you believe the Proposition wording is intended to take away from an employer, his choice to have clean/sober employees?


22 posted on 10/29/2010 4:18:45 PM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Twenty sound pretty good until you remember what it looks like on the C-Span call-in line.

Democrats call in and support Democrats.

Republicans call in and support Republicans.

People claiming not to be from either party call in and support Democrats by 85% or more.

With the California Legislature in control in California, how can I trust that this commission won’t be packed with people who are friendly to the majority party?

How is this really going to change things? I remain unconvinced. What we have now isn’t working either. That’s for damned sure.

What I fear is something similar to what the schools do every five years or so. They announce that they ARE STILL FAILING to teach our kids, and come up with another idea that is assured of failure.

Is this plan assured of failure? I am almost convinced it is.

If someone has something convincing to explain to me on the subject, I’d love to hear it. I’d like to be able to support it.


23 posted on 10/29/2010 4:21:46 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (BHO fans said I was a hater, dismissed my thoughts. Sure glad our side isn't like that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Hey, I didn’t know there was a McClintock voting recommendations list. Can I get on it? I value his advise on the propositions more than any other. Wish he put out one for judges, candidates, etc.!


24 posted on 10/29/2010 4:22:58 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BigEdLB

I got his list last. I’m voting exactly this way.


25 posted on 10/29/2010 4:23:50 PM PDT by BunnySlippers (I love BULL MARKETS . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Thank you for the resource.


26 posted on 10/29/2010 4:24:31 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (BHO fans said I was a hater, dismissed my thoughts. Sure glad our side isn't like that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Voted almost two weeks ago. I voted with Tom on the Propositions. Straight Republican ballot.


27 posted on 10/29/2010 4:25:19 PM PDT by afnamvet (Patriots Rising)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BigEdLB

Sigh.

It should have read, “I got his list last week. I’m voting exactly this way”.


28 posted on 10/29/2010 4:25:39 PM PDT by BunnySlippers (I love BULL MARKETS . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Could you please take a look at my post in 23, and see if you can give me a reason to have more confidence in this plan?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2617292/posts?page=23#23


29 posted on 10/29/2010 4:29:28 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (BHO fans said I was a hater, dismissed my thoughts. Sure glad our side isn't like that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
With the California Legislature in control in California, how can I trust that this commission won’t be packed with people who are friendly to the majority party?

That goes right to the heart of the matter; how are the bipartisan commissions chosen? Tom McClintock seems to trust the process and that's a pretty good indication to me that we can trust it. But you're right to ask the question and now I want to know how they're chosen myself!

30 posted on 10/29/2010 4:34:37 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Thank you. I’ll check around a little bit too. One thing I note right off the bat is that the number of seats on that commission isn’t divisible by three. There are three categories of individuals supposed to sit on it.

Democrats, Republicans, and other...


31 posted on 10/29/2010 4:41:45 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (BHO fans said I was a hater, dismissed my thoughts. Sure glad our side isn't like that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Amerigomag
You're probably right about what he means. I'm not sure I'd be for a system that requires only 51% for spending, but 67% for paying for it. That sounds a bit flakey to me.

I think we ought to just go one way or the other - 50% or 2/3.

32 posted on 10/29/2010 4:42:37 PM PDT by Walts Ice Pick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

BTW, the number is 14 seats. Sorry...


33 posted on 10/29/2010 4:42:48 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (BHO fans said I was a hater, dismissed my thoughts. Sure glad our side isn't like that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Prop 25: Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire. NO. This changes the 2/3 vote requirement for the state budget to a simple majority – a reform I have long supported. Experience has shown that the current 2/3 vote requirement for the budget does not restrain spending and it utterly blurs accountability. But such a reform MUST repair the 2/3 vote requirement for all tax increases and restore constitutional spending and borrowing limits. Without these provisions, Prop. 25 would be a disaster for taxpayers and a recipe for bankruptcy.

I have to admit, Tom's commentary surprised me. This is such an obvious "NO! HELL NO!!" vote, I was surprised to see any commentary at all. But to read that Tom actually supports abandoning the 2/3 provision as long as certain conditions ("restore constitutional spending and borrowing limits") are met, floored me. McClintock has been around long enough to know that such "limits" would be disposed of faster than snotty Kleenex tissues, but the annual tax hikes would go on forever.

Tom's commentary is ridiculous, even though his vote recommendation is (obviously) correct.

34 posted on 10/29/2010 4:57:29 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amerigomag
McClintock may not like marijuana, but he sounds like he must be on something hallucinogenic. Is he saying that he supports a simple majority vote for the budget as long as there is also a simple majority for tax hikes?? It sure reads like that to me. And that's insane.
35 posted on 10/29/2010 5:02:13 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

Yeah, surprised me too. What do you think of his argument that the supermajority requirement actually “bids up” the cost of the budget; i.e., if I’m a legislator and you want to persuade me to vote for the budget so you can get to two-thirds, you’ll have to throw my constituents a bone (and maybe a big beautiful park).

Always liked the 2/3rds reqirement myself, but this argument does give me pause.


36 posted on 10/29/2010 5:14:15 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
I used to use McClintock's guidelines for propositions, but a few years ago he endorsed a real bad one. And from his response, he knew it was bad, he just gave up.

And this year he endorsed a radical left-winger for governor.

37 posted on 10/29/2010 5:15:49 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

The ping list is for anything or everything McClintock.

I originally put it together when he was still in Sacramento and writing some really good articles.

So, people who are on that list, whether from California or not, get to be pinged to threads like this, LOL.

You want on the list? Anybody else?


38 posted on 10/29/2010 5:18:52 PM PDT by calcowgirl (YES on PROP 23!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

It also doesn’t cut off the “fee” loophole, something the legislature increases whenever they see fit.

It’s the old “a fee is not a tax” argument from these pick pockets.


39 posted on 10/29/2010 5:24:51 PM PDT by calcowgirl (YES on PROP 23!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
I think you'll find this to be a pretty good resource on the subject of the redistricting commission in California, the selection process.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Californa 'We Draw the Lines' Resource

The application period for becoming a commissioner has ended.

The first phase of the application process to become a member of the Commission ran from Dec 15 through Feb 16, 2010, and the second phase —the supplemental application phase—closed on Apr 19, 2010. Applicants who were tentatively eligible based on information they provided in the first application, were invited to complete the supplemental application. Applicants had until April 19, 2010, 5pm to complete the supplemental application. The Applicant Review Panel (panel) has reviewed the applications and interviewed nearly 120 applicants between August 6, 2010 through September 10, 2010. On September 22 and 23, 2010, the Panel held its final meeting and reduced the applicant pool to 60 of the most qualified applicants—20 Republicans, 20 Democrats, and 20 not affliated with either of those two parties. All the panel meetings were public and agendas are posted here. The panel on September 29, 2010 submitted the list of names to Legislative leadership. Legislative leadership can strike up to 8 names from each of the three groups. To learn more about the selection process, go to this link.

* * * * *

I note this would be whittled down by... wait for it... wait for it... the Legislative Leadership.  They can only cut eight from each group of 20 though.  This should wind up with a final field of 36 from which to seat the 14 commissioners.

* * * * *

Ah, this helps...  at the above provided link at the bottom.

* * * * *

What happens now that the Applicant Review Panel narrowed the Applicant Pool to 60?

On Sept 29, 2010 the Applicant Review Panel transmitted the names and other information related to the 60 most qualified applicants to the Legislature. As required by the Voters FIRST Act, this pool of 60 of the most qualified consists of three groups of twenty each: one group includes 20 applicants who are registered Democrats, 20 who are registered Republicans, and 20 who are not registered with either of those two parties. Next, the Majority and Minority Leaders in the California Senate and Assembly may each strike, or remove, 2 applicants from each of the 3 pools of 20. This means that there may be a total of 8 strikes from each of the 3 pools of twenty. Assuming these Legislative leaders fully exercise their right to remove applicants from the 3 pools, this would mean that 8 applicants would be removed from each of the three pools of twenty, leaving 12 names remaining in each of the three pools. The leaders have until November 15 to make their decisions.

The name of the applicants who remain in the Applicant Pool after the Legislative Leaders have exercised their strikes, then come back to the State Auditor, who is required by the Voters FIRST Act to conduct a random drawing where the first 8 members of the Citizens Redistricting Commission are selected. This random drawing must be conducted by no later than November 20, 2010.

Finally, the first 8 members of the Citizens Redistricting Commission are required, by no later than December 31, 2010 to select the final six members of the commission from among those applicants who remain in the Applicant Pool.

This entire process of application and selection is set out in greater detail in the Act and in the regulations that the State Auditor adopted to implement

* * * * *

Okay, then this could wind up pretty lopsided either way, if the luck of the draw for the initial eight members were more Dem or Pubbie.

If there had been an intial group of nine, and the state auditor was required to pull three names from each group, it might have been more equitable.

This does seem to allow for a potential lopsided panel.  Even if it's tilted towards Republicans, I don't like it.  I want equity so that there doesn't come a time when Democrats rule the roost.

* * * * *

This State PDF document may go into more detail.  I don't have time now to review it in full.  In the first few pages it seemed to reiterate the same as above.

Farther down, it may give better breakdown on the selection of the eight.


LINK

40 posted on 10/29/2010 5:24:51 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (BHO fans said I was a hater, dismissed my thoughts. Sure glad our side isn't like that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: adamjefferson

You are going to vote for Prop 19, so that in a year taxpayers can pay for drugs for those on welfare. Wow, you’re so libertarian. Until protections for taxpayers are put into the proposition for taxpayers, don’t delude yourself that you are anything else besides a big government liberal.


41 posted on 10/29/2010 5:24:57 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

D1 — I share your concerns and expressed them a year or two ago when this was originally put on the ballot and passed. Among my concerns then: the commission is another step removed from the voter who has no ability to kick those people off the committee. BUT — some of those folks who worked in Sacramento seemed to believe this was an improvement (e.g. Tom McC, Ray Haynes, etc), so I was willing to give it a go and see if it works.

There are a lot of criteria included on how the commission is established. So, it shouldn’t be like C-Span — but time will tell.

At the time, they wrote the law to cover only California state officers. That seemed silly to have the legislature drawing districts for Congress and the Commission to go through a separate exercise for state officers. We’ll know how well this works after they draw the lines based on the 2010 census.

Personally, I’d still like the whole thing to get replaced by a computer model.


42 posted on 10/29/2010 5:30:56 PM PDT by calcowgirl (YES on PROP 23!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Bookmarked


43 posted on 10/29/2010 5:32:35 PM PDT by Aurorales (I will not be ridiculed into silence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
You are going to vote for Prop 19, so that in a year taxpayers can pay for drugs for those on welfare.

Lots of people are voting for Prop 19 because they really are tired of big government. They want lower taxes, fewer regulations, fewer cops, fewer prisons, lower or no public pensions, and fewer politicians even.

Government has no business in welfare or health care, including giving away drugs.

Don't be afraid of smaller government. For thousands of years, we had smaller government.

44 posted on 10/29/2010 5:32:41 PM PDT by Walts Ice Pick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
Is he saying that he supports a simple majority vote for the budget as long as there is also a simple majority for tax hikes??

NO.

He's saying he might support a simple majority vote for the budget, but ONLY if there was a spending limit in place (like the old Gann spending cap), AND there was a 2/3 majority requirement for increasing FEES and taxes.

He has never supported lifting the 2/3 majority requirement for taxes.

45 posted on 10/29/2010 5:35:55 PM PDT by calcowgirl (YES on PROP 23!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl; All

Thanks. Glad to be reminded I’m not the only one with questions about this.

You raised a good point regarding the selection committee being answerable to the public (actually in this instance, they not being answerable).

I believe you’re right, we’ll just pretty much have to wait and see how this plays out. I hope it achieves it’s goal.

I also agree with the seeming conflict of sorts, with regard to the redistricting process for Congressional and other California politicians. It is too bad both the state and national party players couldn’t be governed by the same process. Perhaps this is a fix for a later date, if the in-state portion IS fixed by this.

I did look up the state info on the commission selection process.

If you like, it’s here.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2617292/posts?page=40#40


46 posted on 10/29/2010 5:38:09 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (BHO fans said I was a hater, dismissed my thoughts. Sure glad our side isn't like that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Walts Ice Pick

Don’t you get it? Prop 19 is bigger government. They will have to create a whole department so drug users can get drugs paid for by the tax payers. The courts will be filled with cases slamming businesses, because they don’t want employees who are under the influence. There are going to be even more unintended government regulations. If someone wants to take that drug in their home, and accept any consequences, that’s fine. But this bill doesn’t do that. This bill will grow government more than any other proposition this year.


47 posted on 10/29/2010 5:38:33 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
It is too bad both the state and national party players couldn’t be governed by the same process.

Yep -- that is what this proposition accomplishes. It makes it the same process, overseen by the same commission.

I did look up the state info on the commission selection process.

I saw that. Thanks.

48 posted on 10/29/2010 5:46:06 PM PDT by calcowgirl (YES on PROP 23!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
I think the phrase he uses that has me confused is this:

But such a reform MUST repair the 2/3 vote requirement for all tax increases...

What does he mean by "repair"?

49 posted on 10/29/2010 5:46:48 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Baloney.

No one "will have to create a whole department so drug users can get drugs paid for by the taxpayers."

The obvious effect will be to reduce court cases, not increase them.

You should read the proposition itself, sometime when you're sober.

It's not a sin for you to believe that government needs to be big enough to control everyone's personal conduct, but it is a sin to be dishonest about why you're an opponent of truly small government. :)

50 posted on 10/29/2010 5:51:08 PM PDT by Walts Ice Pick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 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