Posted on 10/17/2012 10:21:41 AM PDT by unique1
Cool - Save Cal & I agree down the line.
Hugh Hewitt, Constitutional Professor & Conservative Talk Show host, says:
“No!” on all but 32.
He and guest were discussing reasons for voting against 35, but I didn’t catch reasoning....
Probably typical Headline grabbing title, with freedom grabbing implications.
Just a typo
NO on 30, No on 38, Yes on 32. No rest of them.
..and county measure B? I am embarrassed to even HAVE that on the ballot. But sister called last night and wanted clarification.
No on 35? That's simply nonsense. Did they explain why?
Now, 32 and 40 are confusing, at best but CA Republicans have those as recommended YES.
Folks, I want you to be very careful about Proposition 31.
IMO it is a Trojan Horse that fits nicely into U. N. models for economic zones that userp normal governmental districts where the officials are answerable to the public.
One description I read a few weeks back explained that regional boards would be set up, and the result would be that suburbs would be united with inner cities in such a manner that the tax base that used to be kept locally, would instead be disbursed to help inner cities where taxes were inadequate to fund all the Leftist crap.
One thing here that pops out immediately. It’s the change to two-year budgets. This merely takes the pressure off the Leftist legislature to do their job on time each year. We give them two years, and guess what, they’ll miss the deadline then too. Not interested...
Get started by reading this, and pay special attention to, the “Proposition 31 “realigns” government through a process that requires the development of Community Strategic Action Plans (CSAPs).” portion.
With more study I think Californians will recognize this for what it truly is. It’s a Leftist dream come true.
The appointed board governing the CSAPs WILL NOT stand for election. Any questions...
Vote no on 31. You’ll rue the day this piece of garbage passes.
32. Y
33. Y
35. Y
40. Y
No on everything else.
Oh so true. In addition to the propositions, locally the High School wants a $22 Million Bond passed - to renovate buildings, maintenance, etc. - no new construction. We already have a College Bond and an Elementary School bond that are being added to our local property tax bill. If this one passes, that will be three bonds at the same time over and above the base property tax.
Just think about how much each one of us pays for public education over a lifetime. Of course, those who don’t have any children really get the short end, but the big bill anyway.
More:
What’s the benefit of the state legislature being prevented from passing a bill involving more than $25 million without offsets?
Why it’s going to save us money right?
Do you see any verbiage in there that prevents the legislature from passing seventy-two $24.9 million dollar bills without offsets? No. You don’t.
This is snake-oil verbiage. It means nothing.
Hopefully, a NO vote on 34 will encourage CA to enforce the death penalty - with over 700 on death row just in CA.
In addition, I'm a fan of ID TV - tons of cases have the death penalty traded for information or a confession that saves money - lots of money - and leads to bodies and more cases solved - if there is nothing to trade, that will be sad, especially for the families involved.
Please use the links provided by this post on the this thread.
Check out the recommendations on Proposition 31.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2946162/posts?page=20#20
VOTE NO on 31.
It’s designed to look like it’s written by a Conservative. It isn’t.
This is a very crafty bill. Those who have donated 1/9 against the bill, are all devout Leftists. Strangely, you can find obvious massive Leftist donations supporting this bill by 9 to 1.
This is probably one of the most crafty destructive bills to face us in decades. It’s a terrible bill. Please don’t be fooled.
People with no children are not the only ones who get the short end. My grandkids are being homeschooled, and getting a great education which my daughter provides at her own expense. In addition to educating her children herself, she pays property taxes on her home to support a public education system she is not even using because she considers it less than worthless.
So, why in the CA Republican Committee supporting it (Prop 31)?
Proposition 31
Community Strategic Action Plan
What you mention there, is wrong IMO. People who home-school or send their kids to private school should get some form of tax break. I don’t think they should be spared all expense toward public schools, because many citizen without kids still help fund the public school system.
I know that we hate what the public schools are today. There are some folks where the parents can’t stay home and home-school. They need a place to send their kids.
Let me expand on how your daughter’s plight could be worse.
What if your daughter lived on the outskirts of Los Angeles. What if a regional CSAP district were set up? Your daughter lives in a nice upscale community, which her taxes support. What if the taxes she paid were pooled with other suburbs and the City of Los Angeles. What happens when the CSAP administrators calculate that your suburb was getting an unfair amount of money percapita, and that inner city youths were being short-changed?
How would your local community function, if the CSAP administrators ruled that your community would have to do with 50% of what it was used to, so those funds could be diverted to the inner city? That’s my real concern here. I think it’s what this is all about. And I don’t know that the people on the Left even understand what’s up here.
This is a real beast. It could easily see people in the suburbs instantly tasked with paying for plans and programs for the inner city.
And then, how do you get rid of this once it’s implemented?
And if you don’t go along, guess who becomes a target for inner city youth who think you’ve dissed them?
I won’t go anywhere near this piece of tripe.
In re: 35, Traditional Values Coalition says:
“Prop 35 is a much needed initiative to help stop the deadly practice of human trafficking for sexual and commercial purposes.
. . . would increase penalties for human trafficking; require that fines be used for helping victims and law enforcement; would require a person who is convicted of human trafficking to register as a sex offender; would prevent any photos of a victim showing them engaged in sexual conduct against their will from being used against them in court. Protecting the victims, not exploiting them further! . . .trafficking of a minor is penalized by eight years to a life term.
“Human trafficking is predominantly the commercial sexual exploitation of primarily women and children by force, fraud or coercion. Prominent methods of exploitation include prostitution, pornography and more. . .”
So as I see it, it is an increase in the penalties for forcible pimping, which includes kidnap, fraud and false imprisonment as well, which I can understand TVC supporting.
Oh, I see your question better.
I said they said no on everything BUT 32, 35, and 40.
Thus TVC recommends YES on 32, 35, and 40.
Still finishing the ballot here, but:
30 - HELL NO
38 - OH HELL NO
Contra Costa County Measure A - NO F’IN WAY
All of these are “for the children”, that is, more money for the teacher’s union bankrupt pension schemes. Let ‘em live within their means, or get someone who can manage money better!
32 - YES
Starve the union bastards that force certain professions to contribute under duress, then use the money however they want. Interestingly, got a call just as the Debate was ending last night from someone on the “No on 32” committee. After he stumbled hopelessly through my name, he started to ramble about why I should vote No. Asked him which union he was representing, got a nice stammer from him.
At this point, I put him out of his misery, and informed him that I’d already voted and it was YES on 32. Didn’t bother waiting for his response, wanted to get back to the baseball game.
I see some Leftists and City Mayors/managers opposing it too.
I don’t think these people fully understand the ramifications of the legislation.
Straight up, I don’t think it could get passed. I think this is a craftily worded framework for screwing people who work hard for a living, and have joined communities to provide the best life they can for their families.
What if they drew up the legislation so that not even a $5 million dollar bill could be passed without offsets? They could easily break down the bill and pass all of a $45 million dollar bill in $4.95 million dollar parts, without any offsets.
This is just worded to sound like something we really need to get the government back under control. I don’t think that is what this is about at all.
Tap the suburbs, and guess what? All of a sudden, the inner cities don’t need so much money, and the state can keep more for it’s Leftist plans.
If you’re not sure about this bill, we’ll be no worse off if you vote no on it. Things will remain the same.
If I thought this is what it pretends to be, I’d be pushing it hard. I’m not buying it, and it seems a lot of others aren’t either.
Good point. On the other hand, not having kids and having kids - but not sending them to public schools ends up the same - you pay for your entire life through property tax or by even renting since property tax is paid from rent proceeds by the property owner.
Of course, those who do well in life pay big time since they tend to purchase more property and higher value property. In some cases the ‘education’ expense number is huge over time with the actual public education no so good.
If you provide an opt out ‘credit’ or ‘voucher,’ say for your daughter on a per child basis, what about those that don’t even have kids?
It’s an odd system, at best.
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.