[AFPhys]

YOU may not feel that providing infrastructure is one of the most important functions of state government, but I do. When CA is spending under 1/2%, and the politicians are not admonished in some way to do so, then it is no wonder jobs are leaving that state. It was not long ago that CA was spending about 20% on that.

It appears from your list that those on it are not "labor unions" in general, but are those who are interested in jobs for CA. Both "RINO-Arnie" and "McKlintock" support #53 - (I have no dog in this fight - I would like to see CA become a viable state again.) In contrast, the "no on 53" folks are indeed heavily (teachers & other welfare agent) union associated.

I'm sorry you were duped by the "Busta & 53" ad campaign, as you said in post 612.

Truth sometimes hurts, I know, but sometimes it is best to simply state you were duped, than to keep defending a mistake.

[norton]

It's an election,
we're all being duped.

If I voted with the teacher's union I'm sure I'll pay in the next life.

[FairOpinion]

I agree.

California has worst road and highway pavement conditions in the nation. Source: The Road Information Program, December, 2001.


37 percent of major roads and highways in California are rated in poor condition, meaning they have potholes, cracking, and/or rutting. Resurfacing is necessary to repair the problem. Source: TRIP 2001.

Another 35 percent of California roads and highways is rated in mediocre condition -- this means 72 percent is either poor or mediocre. Source: TRIP, 2001.

California spends less money per capita on highways than any other state: $82 in 2000, just 56 percent of the national average of $147. Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and Ohio round out the bottom of the list -- but all spend more per capita than California. Source: TRIP, 2001.

http://www.rebuildca.org/positions_RN_refile_main.html