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 1-5051-85 last
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]

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."

Now that you've had a chance to really read Prop 19, you know like I know that your claim was just a lot of baloney. There is no such provision.

I was trying to be generous to you by offering that maybe you heard that baloney from someone else. The alternative is that you just made up that baloney yourself.

But, no matter how you slice it, Nick, baloney is baloney and you should always read these propositions for yourself so that you don't wind up with a head full of baloney when you're voting.

And, if sometimes you're unclear as to what you should do, just ask me. I won't give you no baloney! :)

61 posted on 10/29/2010 6:42:31 PM PDT by Walts Ice Pick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

The minority issue is rather flimsy IMO. You wind up with folks like Gloria Molina, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman... now there’s a lofty goal.


62 posted on 10/29/2010 6:45:13 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 56 | 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.

Nothing is free. They will keep the vehicle fee forever and start charging you for entrance to the parks within one year of the date this thing passes!!!!!! VOTE NO!!! It's a TAX for Heaven's sake.

Have you lost your mind?

63 posted on 10/29/2010 7:00:54 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Flimsy, yes. But it’s the law, unfortunately.


64 posted on 10/29/2010 7:05:25 PM PDT by calcowgirl (YES on PROP 23!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Bump


65 posted on 10/29/2010 7:32:32 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne; calcowgirl
And that's the bottom line here. Can't imagine this new panel being any worse or biased than the politicians drawing the lines themselves. This is our once in a decade opportunity to try something different.

And if it fails, seeing how easy Prop 27 got on the ballot shortly after passage of Prop 11, we have the next eight years to qualify an initiative with any necessary changes, and we'll have empirical data to prove our case.

So I am willing to give this panel a chance.

I know one of the criteria was that one could not have been on a party central committee for the past ten years, which disqualified me from considering applying, so this takes some of the hard-core political party activists out of the running (not all, but some is better than none).

66 posted on 10/29/2010 9:12:25 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

Good points, CCC.

We should all watch closely and pounce early if
this turns out bad.


67 posted on 10/29/2010 9:15:12 PM PDT by calcowgirl (YES on PROP 23!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Yikes, I do vaguely remember that. I must have Alzheimer’s or something since I totally forgot about it, or was subconsciously willing to ignore it. Still, if we can’t trust someone who is otherwise solidly conservative, who can we trust? I like all of his recommendations for those initiatives I understand. Guess I’ll just have to be careful about the ones I don’t and read DeVore’s recs, Rush, and especially, Free Republic, all the time!


68 posted on 10/29/2010 9:49:58 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Awww, it’s for all things McClintock. I thought it might be only for his proposition recs. I’d better pass, thank you. Already on too many ping lists to manage.


69 posted on 10/29/2010 9:59:39 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

I’m convinced, Prop 25 is definitely going to get a big fat ‘NO’ vote from me, thanks!


70 posted on 10/29/2010 10:03:42 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Somebody usually posts his recommendations before each election w/ Keyword “McClintock”. You can usually find it about the time ballots are mailed out.

I’m not sure why I, or someone else, didn’t post this earlier. I know it was posted in the body of one thread, but it deserved its own.

Thanks for posting it.


71 posted on 10/29/2010 10:09:26 PM PDT by calcowgirl (YES on PROP 23!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Great information, thanks. Very interesting. I’m with you. Don’t like it, but don’t want legislators directly involved in redistricting either. It’s an age-old problem. Amazing that after centuries, gerrymandering issues are still with us. No one’s found the perfect solution.


72 posted on 10/29/2010 10:40:27 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
Granted, grudgingly. 
73 posted on 10/29/2010 11:00:46 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 64 | View Replies]

To: californianmom

Read Atlas Shrugged. You are one of the Looters.


74 posted on 10/29/2010 11:10:33 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

I had come around to you’re way of thinking on this, and can confirm I’ll be voting for it.

I appreciate your comments on it. I agree with them.


75 posted on 10/29/2010 11:39:16 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 66 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

No one is discriminated against or denied any right or privilege for alcohol use, are they?


76 posted on 10/30/2010 7:47:11 AM PDT by stuartcr (When politicians politicize issues, aren't they just doing their job?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Well, I was only addressing what I saw as reality. I’m not overly upset over it. We’ll see how it works out.


77 posted on 10/30/2010 9:28:43 AM 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 72 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Thanks for your post.


78 posted on 10/30/2010 10:29:47 AM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker

Undoubtedly. I was unaware that the proposition had that wording and I was wondering why one of my dopehead friends was so supportive of it, now I know.


79 posted on 10/30/2010 12:14:23 PM PDT by BenKenobi (Support COD - "Cash on Delivery" for DE Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl; LibWhacker
Thanks for the ping, CalCowgirl! I had actually printed out those recommendations for reference before I marked my ballot a few days ago.

It's interesting how valuable information is often available from a VARIETY of sources... This year, I actually got some great help from a Sierra Klub mail piece concerning four of the propositions, as well, confirming that the contrary to THEIR positions matched up well with Tom McClintock's excellent recommendations.

...Way To Go Tom!

(...Of course, unfortunately, that once-great conservation organization, went over to the dark side some years back, after some kind of internal power struggle. Pity, huh?)

80 posted on 10/30/2010 4:03:28 PM PDT by Seadog Bytes ("Smart Growth"... isn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Thanks for posting this. So glad Tom still makes these recommendations.


81 posted on 10/31/2010 9:16:44 AM PDT by whinecountry (Semper Ubi Sub Ubi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

My votes were cast a few weeks back.

Comparing, I agreed with McClintock on all except Prop 26, the 2/3rds approval on “fees.” I had a different reading of it then he does.


82 posted on 11/01/2010 8:07:32 AM PDT by newzjunkey (Has it been two years since I was here? Yes. Yes it has.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl; californianmom
I think everyone should pay their freight. Go to a state park, pay the fee. I agree.
83 posted on 11/01/2010 8:19:57 AM PDT by newzjunkey (Has it been two years since I was here? Yes. Yes it has.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
I agreed with McClintock on all except Prop 26, the 2/3rds approval on “fees.” I had a different reading of it then he does.

Then you better read it again.

Just as it takes 2/3 majority to approve tax increases, Prop 26 would require 2/3 majority to approve "fee" increases.

This has been a loophole for quite some time and it needs closing!

From the LAO:

A YES vote on this measure means: The definition of taxes would be broadened to include many payments currently considered to be fees or charges. As a result, more state and local proposals to increase revenues would require approval by two-thirds of each house of the Legislature or by local voters.

A NO vote on this measure means: Current constitutional requirements regarding fees and taxes would not be changed.


84 posted on 11/01/2010 5:57:15 PM PDT by calcowgirl (YES on PROP 23!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Check out this online learning tool on the redistricting process.

The Redistricting Game
http://www.redistrictinggame.org/index.php?pg=resourceguide


85 posted on 11/02/2010 3:34:00 PM PDT by alexandria ("If this be treason, make the most of it!" Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


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