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

Skip to comments.

CAs Awful Prop. 31: Is This Your Future? [becoming second-class citizens in your own state]
National Review Online - The Corner ^ | September 4, 2012 | Stanley Kurtz

Posted on 09/04/2012 10:59:27 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife

Wake up California. You are perilously close to ratifying Proposition 31, a sweepingly redistributionist and profoundly undemocratic transformation of your way of life, and you don’t even know what’s at stake. Suburbanites of California, you are the special targets of Prop. 31. Act now, or be turned into second-class citizens in your own state.

Wake up America. Look toward the regionalist revolution on California’s horizon. In an era of looming municipal bankruptcies, this could be your fate: robbing the suburbs to pay for the cities. The regionalist transformation now being quietly pressed on California is exactly the sort of change President Obama has in mind for America should he win a second term. In California and America both, the 2012 election could open the door for a regionalist movement in hot pursuit of a redistributionist remaking of American life.

California’s Proposition 31 is the project of a collection of “good government” groups, in particular, California Forward. California Forward says its goal is “fundamental change.” They’re right about that. The change they have in mind, unfortunately, is creating a collection of de facto regional super-governments designed to undercut the political and economic independence of California’s suburbs. The goal is to redistribute suburban tax money to California’s failing cities. Instead of taking on the mismanagement that is breaking California’s cities, Prop. 31 lets failing cities bail themselves out by raiding the pocketbooks of California’s suburbanites. In the process, Prop. 31 will kill off the system of local government at the root of American liberty.

How does Prop. 31 work? It allows local governments to join together to form “Strategic Action Plans.” Supposedly, this pooling of local municipal services into a kind of de facto collective regional super-government would be voluntary. In fact, Prop. 31 deploys powerful incentives to effectively force the creation of these regional super-governments. To begin with, municipalities that join regional collectives–and only those municipalities–can effectively waive onerous state laws and regulations by creating their own more lax versions of those rules. Next, Prop. 31 channels a portion of state sales tax revenue to municipalities that join regional governing collectives–and only those municipalities. Finally, Prop. 31 authorizes local governments participating in the regional collectives to pool their property-tax receipts.

The result will be the effective redistribution of suburban tax money to the cities, and second-class citizenship for Californians who live in municipalities that refuse to pool their tax money by joining regional collectives.

If you understand the goals and tactics of the regionalist movement that created Prop. 31, it’s easy enough to see what California Forward hopes to achieve. In the beginning, California’s cities will join together with a few only-moderately-well-off nearby suburbs to form a de facto regional government with pooled tax receipts. Although some of the suburbs that join up will experience a net tax loss, this will be offset by the additional sales tax revenue preferentially funneled to regional governing consortia by the state. Relief from onerous state regulations will be another compensatory advantage of tax-sharing.

Meanwhile, the bulk of California’s more prosperous suburbs will decline to pool their tax money with the cities, and so will retain their independence by standing outside of the collectives. Yet that won’t be the end of it. For one thing, just by staying out of the regional governing collectives, the preferential funneling of state sales tax revenue to the regional consortia will effectively redistribute money from the suburbs to the cities.

Also, the ability of the regional governing collectives to effectively waive onerous state laws and regulations will disadvantage the suburbs. A legislator from a city in one of the regional consortia could vote for unpopular regulatory bills, knowing that his own constituents could exempt themselves from the harshest effects of those laws. Increasingly, cities will rule the suburbs, imposing laws and penalties from which they themselves would be exempt.

The only way out for the suburbs would be to join the nearest tax-pooling regional governing consortium, effectively redistributing a huge share of their tax money to the cities. Any way you look at it, the suburbs lose. Under Prop. 31, some combination of redistribution and second-class citizenship will be their fate.

Proposition 31 is an offense against America’s most fundamental concepts of liberty and self-government. Yet the outrages don’t end there. The revolutionary regionalism that is the boldest and most significant change contained in Prop. 31 has played almost no role in the public debate over this ballot initiative. Instead, when Prop. 31 is debated, the focus has largely been on its far less consequential “good government” provision mandating that bills in the California legislature be published at least three days prior to passage.

The irony here is that a proposition supposedly designed to further government transparency now threatens to impose a regionalist revolution on California’s citizens with barely any debate. Prop. 31 proponents are vastly outspending opponents. Their campaign, moreover, greatly underplays the regionalist revolution hidden in the text. Nor has the press come close to grasping what the regionalist provisions of Prop. 31 would actually do. Never has so great a governmental change come so close to success, with so little debate.

The state of California owes a debt of gratitude to Wayne Lusvardi. So far as I know, Lusvardi is the first analyst to uncover and publicize the regionalist implications of Proposition 31. Lusvardi also persuasively shows that the public debate over Prop. 31 has entirely missed the point.

If you want to understand the political and policy roots of Proposition 31, the best place to turn is the California Speakers Commission on Regionalism. (You can read a condensed version of the Commission’s 2002 report here.) This report was prepared for then-Speaker of the California Assembly, Robert Hertzberg. Hertzberg now serves as co-chair of California Forward, the key sponsor of Proposition 31.

The report of the California Speakers Commission on Regionalism is a pure product of the regionalist movement, the goals of which I describe in my book, Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities. Obama, too, is a product of the regionalist movement, and the regionalist provisions of Prop. 31 are prototypes of policies the president hopes to press on the country should he secure re-election. Sad to say, Obama is being every bit as open about all this as the proponents of Prop. 31 have been about their ballot initiative’s real goals, which is to say, not very open at all.

I’ll have more to say about Proposition 31 in the coming days.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: agenda21; bankrupt; ca; pensions; prop31; proposition31; suburbs; sustainability; unions; urban; wealthredistribution
"If you want to understand the political and policy roots of Proposition 31, the best place to turn is the California Speakers Commission on Regionalism. (You can read a condensed version of the Commission’s 2002 report here.) This report was prepared for then-Speaker of the California Assembly, Robert Hertzberg. Hertzberg now serves as co-chair of California Forward, the key sponsor of Proposition 31."
1 posted on 09/04/2012 10:59:34 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

We are becoming a nation of looters and parasites. Thou shall not covet other people’s stuff is so old-fashioned. And surely racist.


2 posted on 09/04/2012 11:04:21 AM PDT by all the best (`~!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

The clock to REV II keeps ticking down, it is almost at midnight now.


3 posted on 09/04/2012 11:05:30 AM PDT by Mouton (Voting is an opiate of the electorate. Nothing changes no matter who wins..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Rush Limbaugh, as usual, quickly identified the fact that Obama and his minions are waging war on the suburbs. This is the California state-level version of this war. If you think California is going downhill now—you’ve not seen anything yet. Wait and see what happens if Prop 31 passes.

Suburbanites—you will be slaves to the Liberals and their constituents.


4 posted on 09/04/2012 11:08:24 AM PDT by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides

Burn Down the Suburbs? Not exactly, but Obama is already working to get rid of them.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2915017/posts

This article is adapted from Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities, by Stanley Kurtz, from Sentinel HC.


5 posted on 09/04/2012 11:12:37 AM PDT by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Running afoul of Godwin's law, I know but...isn't this what the Germans did under Hitler?

Consolidated all the quaint little German towns into more easily administrated political entities?

6 posted on 09/04/2012 11:14:02 AM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
31 is referred to innocuously as a "Two-Year Budget Cycle" on Wikipedia.
7 posted on 09/04/2012 11:14:24 AM PDT by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Other supporters include: The California Republican Party.
8 posted on 09/04/2012 11:16:52 AM PDT by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Republicans are going to have to learn how to win the cities.

Long-term nations are becoming more urbanized. This means that more and more voters will be in urban areas. Hence, conceding them to the Democrats is self-defeating.

Cities are also the economic powerhouses of the nation. Blue states are the ones which pay more to the federal government and subsidize the Red.

Cities are the source of civilization as the word itself shows. Every great civilization has a great city at its center.


9 posted on 09/04/2012 11:21:11 AM PDT by arrogantsob (Obama MUST Go. Sarah herself supports Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni
They will be assimilated into "The 0bama Collective".


10 posted on 09/04/2012 11:26:48 AM PDT by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: Cincinatus' Wife

So this is UN Agenda 21 to be implemented at the state level.


12 posted on 09/04/2012 11:28:42 AM PDT by NeoCaveman ("If I had a son he'd look like B.O.'s lunch" - Rin Tin Tin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Isn’t this essentially what happened in places like Jacksonville, Florida and Columbus, Ohio that went out and annexed the whole danged County?


13 posted on 09/04/2012 11:29:55 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic; but destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.
William Jennings Bryan
14 posted on 09/04/2012 11:31:40 AM PDT by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides

It is interesting that they are giving voters a chance to weigh in. Normally it would be some law that only the state electors would vote for. This at least is a fairer way to pass something or shoot it down if a majority of the voters don’t want it.


15 posted on 09/04/2012 11:35:58 AM PDT by napscoordinator (Paul Ryan/Rick Santorum 2012....That would be the best scenario ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

I wonder what’s meant by ‘regional’ and ‘local’? Are any geographic or mileage restrictions?

If this comes about and I was part of one of the local governments that’s doing ok or better than ok, I’d be searching across the _entire_ state of CA to find other local governments I could team up with, versus being forced into a partnership with the neighbors down the road who can’t take care of their own affairs.


16 posted on 09/04/2012 11:38:56 AM PDT by bobwoodard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
If I'm not mistaken, this was done in Georgia. A friend of mine had a very nice home in Buckhead area of Atlanta, Ga. I don't know the exact particulars except him telling me that each year, more taxes were being diverted from services in Buckhead to inner city Atlanta. I do know he said enough is enough and sold his home.
17 posted on 09/04/2012 11:39:25 AM PDT by liberalh8ter (If Barack has a memory like a steel trap, why can't he remember what the Constitution says?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
Republicans are going to have to learn how to win the cities.

Turning the AG loose to start sending a bunch of corrupt Democrat Mayors to prison and to expose their malfeasance for all the world to see would be a good place to start.


18 posted on 09/04/2012 11:51:14 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

This article is adapted from Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities, by Stanley Kurtz, from Sentinel HC.
**************************************************************
Thanks for the tip. Just ordered from Amazon. Should receive it on Thurday along with “No Easy Day”.


19 posted on 09/04/2012 11:54:51 AM PDT by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Agenda 21: Get everybody moved into the cities. I recently read an article about "micro apartments" in NYC. Square footage: 300 or less. Talk about packing them in!

Oh, and the best part: the apartments will rent for round $2,000.00 per month.

I sit here in my house in a pine forest on some land in Aiken County, SC and have two thoughts:

  1. Never in a million years
  2. Over my dead body

20 posted on 09/04/2012 11:56:21 AM PDT by upchuck ("Definition of 'racist:' someone that is winning an argument with a liberal." ~ Peter Brimelow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Not surprised, as states like California loose more and more tax revenue they will be looking at more and more ways to separate hard working people from their money and at the same time ensure that the voice of those being robbed is effectively silenced.


21 posted on 09/04/2012 12:02:50 PM PDT by trapped_in_LA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

They are doing this here in NY State too.

There are activists claiming that there is too much “duplication” in our town Governments - schools, police, fire, soc. services could all be managed much more effectively if the local Gov’ts dissolved themselves into county or regional size Gov’t, thus creating super-size school districts, etc..

And most “small-Gov’t” types shout: “yeah! We can cut Gov’t employees and gov’t expenditure!”

They just don’t realize that everything will be combined to the lowest common denominator. Unions will then control not only the city employees of Syracuse, Buffalo, Rochester, but you can be sure they will control the suburban employees too. School districts will be run the same way. Standards and indoctrination will be run for everyone as they are now in the hell-hole urban districts. If there are any cost or tax savings, they will be very short-lived. I guarantee you there will be no tax savings in the long-run.


22 posted on 09/04/2012 12:04:50 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

The future? (Intro passage to RUSH’s Red barchetta)...

“My uncle has a country place that no one knows about
He says it used to be a farm before the Motor Law
And on Sundays, I elude the eyes, hop the turbine freight
To far outside the wire, where my white-haired uncle waits...”


23 posted on 09/04/2012 12:12:18 PM PDT by Axenolith (Government blows, and that which governs least, blows least...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

How are the “regions” defined?

Can’t the “rich” suburbs get together and form their own?


24 posted on 09/04/2012 12:27:58 PM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Inside

This is a great novel. And prophetic......................


25 posted on 09/04/2012 12:42:29 PM PDT by Red Badger (Anyone who thinks wisdom comes with age is either too young or too stupid to know the difference....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: bobwoodard
I wonder what’s meant by ‘regional’ and ‘local’? Are any geographic or mileage restrictions?

Here in MN , that's determined by unelected bureaucrats from the "Metropolitan Council". (think 'Star Chamber' for cities) They started out being "central planners" of "smart growth" years ago just for the metro, but have expanded outward and are still doing so.

26 posted on 09/04/2012 12:53:51 PM PDT by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides

“Wait and see what happens if Prop 31 passes.”

California will just take another step down the road to irrelevancy.


27 posted on 09/04/2012 1:10:01 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Just bought that book. Thanks for the recommendation.


28 posted on 09/04/2012 1:21:32 PM PDT by upchuck ("Definition of 'racist:' someone that is winning an argument with a liberal." ~ Peter Brimelow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
Used to live in Calif. We the people passed a few things.

Prop. 8

Prop. 187

Prop. 198

Prop. 208

Prop. 225

Were all voted by the people..and passed.

And all were overturned by the State and or District Courts.

IOW, We the People don't count for much.

Prop. 13 will fall too...before it's over.

29 posted on 09/04/2012 1:25:22 PM PDT by Osage Orange ( Liberalism, ideas so good they have to be mandatory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
Agenda 21: Get everybody moved into the cities. I recently read an article about "micro apartments" in NYC. Square footage: 300 or less. Talk about packing them in! Oh, and the best part: the apartments will rent for round $2,000.00 per month.

And people in those rural parts of the State will then be victimized by the urban pols pitching their caged rats to vote for bills that rip off the country people.

Your best bet, after North Korean or Chinese "urban renewal", is the residual protection afforded you by living in another State. As people realize what these Communist despots have in mind, they'll find the States to be once again the gristly, resistant backbone of the opposition. The $64,000 question is whether Abraham Lincoln broke too much in 1865.

30 posted on 09/04/2012 1:33:29 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: all the best

This is already well underway in WA state, they are using the storm water issue to tie regions together.

I have the book, Spreading the Wealth, right here on my desk, waiting for me. I really need to get busy reading it.


31 posted on 09/04/2012 1:50:12 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

I feel very blessed to live in South Carolina, a largely rural state.


32 posted on 09/04/2012 1:52:14 PM PDT by upchuck ("Definition of 'racist:' someone that is winning an argument with a liberal." ~ Peter Brimelow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

sounds like a third way op.. Thanks for posting.


33 posted on 09/04/2012 2:09:21 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni
Here in MN , that's determined by unelected bureaucrats from the "Metropolitan Council".

Do you know (1) who they are (2) where they work and (3) where they live? If not, find out. They are the enemy within, and belong on the WTSHTF target list. And they need to KNOW that they are listed; that may deter them a bit.

34 posted on 09/04/2012 3:17:00 PM PDT by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed &water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife; Jim Robinson; SmithL; ExTexasRedhead; AuntB; fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican; ...

If this passes, Nevada, Arizona, and Oregon better watch out, because there will be an exidous from California like never seen before. I’m glad I got out when I did.


35 posted on 09/04/2012 6:52:23 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (Obama and Company lied, the American economy died)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

Sounds like an excellent idea.


36 posted on 09/04/2012 6:54:00 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Obama MUST Go. Sarah herself supports Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: reg45

When civilizations collapse it is because cities collapse or have been destroyed by invasion. It is cities which produce civilizations.

Most rural areas would also be destroyed by the destruction of cities. Or they would be nothing more than subsistence agriculture. In other words rural wealth and income would dry up. It is because of the enormous demand of cities that farmers can become wealthy.

When “Dark Ages” have occurred rural areas become dirt poor, illiterate and subject to roaming bands of raiders without the means to protect themselves.


37 posted on 09/04/2012 7:00:31 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Obama MUST Go. Sarah herself supports Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

Lincoln’s destruction of the Treasonous Slavers has nothing to do with this issue.


38 posted on 09/04/2012 7:03:43 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Obama MUST Go. Sarah herself supports Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued; AuH2ORepublican; BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj; calcowgirl; GOPsterinMA

We’ve said it before, the state needs to be broken up. Everyone should not suffer cause LA and the Bay area turn the rest of the state.

If the shite continues I hope a real secession movement comes into being.


39 posted on 09/06/2012 3:39:07 PM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Impy; Clintonfatigued; BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj; calcowgirl; GOPsterinMA

You all probably know where I stand on this. California should be divided into five states (the state “names” below are decriptive, but hardly optimal):

1. State of Los Angeles, with all of L.A. County:

10.0 million pop in 2010, 45%-50% Hispanic, 10% black, 12%-15% Asian

16 electoral votes, 29.17% McCain 2008, 35.60% Bush 2004, 32.35% Bush 2000

2. State of San Francisco Bay, with all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Humboldt, Marin, Mendocino, Monterey, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma and Yolo Counties:

8.1 million pop in 2010, 21%-25% Hispanic, 7% black, 17%-20% Asian

13 electoral votes, 24.82% McCain in 2008, 29.95% Bush in 2004, 30.64% Bush in 2000

3. State of Inland Empire, with all of Kern, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties:

6.7 million pop in 2010, 36%-40% Hispanic, 6% black, 4%-5% Asian

11 electoral votes, 46.79% McCain in 2008, 55.54% Bush in 2004, 50.70% Bush in 2000

4. State of Central Valley, with all of Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Inyo, Kings, Lake, Lassen, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San Benito, San Joaquin, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Tulare, Tuolumne and Yuba Counties:

6.5 million pop in 2010, 27%-32% Hispanic, 5% black, 7%-8% Asian

11 electoral votes, 48.27% McCain in 2008, 56.92% Bush in 2004, 53.17% Bush in 2000

5. State of San Diego, with all of Imperial, Orange and San Diego Counties:

6.3 million pop in 2010, 30%-35% Hispanic, 4% black, 11%-13% Asian

11 electoral votes, 47.07% McCain in 2008, 55.86% Bush in 2004, 52.57% Bush in 2000

Essentially, comfortably Democrat California would be converted into two ridiculously Democrat states (based in L.A. and San Francisco Bay, respectively) and three GOP-leaning states, and under normal circumstances the 5 states would give the GOP a 6-4 edge in U.S. Senate seats (the Dems have had a 2-0 edge since 1992) and a 33-29 edge in electoral votes (the Dems got all 55 EVs from CA in 2008 and 2004 and all 54 EVs from CA in 2000, 1996 and 1992).

We should also split Texas up into four GOP states of around 11 electoral votes each, which would give us 6 new GOP Senators (and increase GOP electoral votes by 6 as well).


40 posted on 09/06/2012 4:40:45 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican; All

I like it!


41 posted on 09/09/2012 9:40:49 AM PDT by GOPsterinMA (The Glove don't fit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Well, I’m a month late to this particular party, but like a lot of folks here, I’ve been distracted by the national campaign, and hadn’t realized that something this radical had made it onto the ballot.

Thank you for sounding the alarm (and for the link to Hertzberger’s report.) This prop. really prompted the “who are those guys?” reflex while I was reading the voter pamphlet over the weekend.

Bottom line is that it’s not hyperbole to note that this measure would effectively end four centuries of representative self-rule, at least as it’s still understood in the US, and at least in California. The power grab is breathtaking.


42 posted on 10/09/2012 11:46:13 AM PDT by absalom01 (You should do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, and you should never wish to do less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RonDog

Ping...haven’t seen you on any prop. 31 thread. This may be the most important item on the California ballot this year. Time to rally the troops!


43 posted on 10/09/2012 11:48:35 AM PDT by absalom01 (You should do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, and you should never wish to do less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: absalom01
Thanks for the ping, absalom.

I have not posted much here on ANY topic lately. :(

For now, I am primarily in LURK mode here.

44 posted on 10/11/2012 10:08:41 AM PDT by RonDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

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