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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last
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]

To: calcowgirl

I’m sorry. I thought you were intimating that it didn’t. Well good. Lets hope this works.

Prop. 27 is such an ‘in your face’ to voters isn’t it.


51 posted on 10/29/2010 5:51:49 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 48 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

BTW, if your computer model could not only make the districts the relative same size related to numbers of voters, and additionally make sure the political breakdown was also near parity, I’d love it. We already get the numbers part of it close to parity. I just don’t like it that they can pack the districts by political party.


52 posted on 10/29/2010 5:54:45 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 42 | View Replies]

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

Just a guess . . . Local governments have discovered and/or invented all kinds ways around the 2/3 requirement. Like calling the tax a fee instead of what it is. Maybe Tom means it should squash the loopholes.

53 posted on 10/29/2010 5:59:28 PM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson ("Every nation has the government that it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Walts Ice Pick

I did read it. Did you? You think businesses don’t have the right to allow drug taking on their property? Don’t tell me you are for small government, when you, George Soros, and Obama want to micromanage my life.


54 posted on 10/29/2010 6:08:27 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Walts Ice Pick
Why don't you vote for a proposition that says people can take their drugs, but they accept all consequences of such, their rights end when they start imposing on others,that they will NEVER accept a cent from the government or taxpayers to pay for their drugs, and they will receive the same punishments as a sober person for any crimes they commit under the influence.

Oh. you can't live with those terms? I guess you libertarian costume can't hide your statist reality.

55 posted on 10/29/2010 6:11:33 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

We’ve got computer programs that use GPS to locate your exact location via satellite. Computer programs that can drive cars around town. Computer programs that do everything imaginable but.... they can’t seem to write one that takes the California population and segregates it into 53 unique Congressional Districts, 40 State Senate Districts, and 80 State Assembly Districts? Where there is a will, there is a way, IMO.

Until such time as districts are computer generated, without any consideration for differences between voters, the process will be tainted and attempts will be made to gerrymander. Unfortunately, computer models would have to consider some differences in voters to comply with the Voting Rights Act as to make special consideration for minorities. While the computer model could make efforts to comply with those restrictions, it would still leave open an area for challenge.


56 posted on 10/29/2010 6:12:14 PM PDT by calcowgirl (YES on PROP 23!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: californianmom

I disagree. The fees are to the users at this time which is correct. These users may or may not be Californians. All vehicles entering the parks pay them including visitors from other states and countries vacationing here. Once the responsibility is put on California vehicle owners they will bear it forever, including any and all increases in the “fees” “deemed” to be necessary by the oh so crooked California legislators.


57 posted on 10/29/2010 6:16:08 PM PDT by antceecee (Bless us Father.. have mercy on us and protect us from evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Nick, at post 47, you wrote:

"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."

Nick, you can find the text of Proposition 19 here.

Nick, now put down your drink and go to that link and find the specific section (number) of Prop 19 that provides that "[t]hey will have to create a whole department so drug users can get drugs paid for by the tax payers."

And, then, Nick, see if you can remember who told you that that provision was in Prop 19.

"Quit listening to them, Nick. Think for yourself."

58 posted on 10/29/2010 6:25:40 PM PDT by Walts Ice Pick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
If you put on the ballot a proposition that says that no one (whether they be alcoholic or pot smoker or Sunday freeper or whatever) shall escape responsibility for their conduct and that no one shall accept any money from government for drugs or booze (or anything else), I'll vote for it.

See the difference between us? I do believe in a much smaller government.

59 posted on 10/29/2010 6:29:47 PM PDT by Walts Ice Pick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Walts Ice Pick
I guess you haven't realized half of the big government programs weren't part of the original legislation. The fact that you trust legislators who write this stuff is a bad sign. Have you ever heard of the new healthcare bill? You are probably for it, but you don't realized all the results that will happen that aren't part of the bill.

I'd object to your constantly implying I am a drunk, but it wouldn't be worth it. It's called, "projection." Look it up sometime. The fact is, I debate the issues, but you have to interject ad hominem attacks, since you can't back it up/ You won't agree to the stipulations in post #55 either.

60 posted on 10/29/2010 6:34:05 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 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