Posted on 08/13/2006 10:22:10 AM PDT by FairOpinion
By taking a stand on sex offenders, alternative energy, Schwarzenegger, challenger get message out, highlight differences.
If Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has his druthers, Californians will vote in November to crack down on sex offenders, reject several taxes and authorize a raft of new borrowing for public works.
If Treasurer Phil Angelides gets his way, voters will force oil companies to fund research into alternative energy, create a new system to publicly finance political campaigns and reject a new limit on abortion.
The treasurer has endorsed initiatives that would raise tobacco taxes to fund health care, institute an oil extraction tax to pay for research into new energy sources and raise corporate taxes by .2 percent to publicly fund campaigns.
Steadfast in his opposition to new taxes, the governor is against all three initiatives.
Last year, as he pushed a conservative agenda of reform initiatives, the governor made headlines when he endorsed an almost identical measure. Schwarzenegger said he would be tempted to "kill" anyone who assisted one of his daughters in seeking an abortion without his knowledge.
(Excerpt) Read more at contracostatimes.com ...
Both support the bonds: Prop. 1A to 1E both YES.
83-84 both YES.
Prop. 85 (Parental notification for abortion): Schwarzenegger: Yes; Angelides: No
Prop. 86 (Tobacco tax for health services): Schwarzenegger: No; Angelides: Yes
Prop. 87 (Oil extraction tax for alternative energy): Schwarzenegger: No; Angelides: Yes
Prop. 88 (Parcel tax for education): Schwarzenegger: No; Angelides: Undecided
Prop. 89 (Public financing for campaigns): Schwarzenegger: No; Angelides: Yes
Prop. 90 (Changes to eminent domain): Schwarzenegger: Undecided; Angelides: Undecided
more borrowing, more taxes. Lovely.
We need the infrastructure bonds, CA has the worst roads in the nation.
But the only way Arnold could get the Dem Legislature to agree, if he agreed to the bonds on houseing, parks, and so on.
The problem is that Dems have too much power in CA.
Prop. 90 (Changes to eminent domain): Schwarzenegger: Undecided
Huh?
Both support the bonds: Prop. 1A to 1E both YES.
Hmmmm?
Not much of a difference there..
37 billion dollars more debt, and when it is paid-off , the sum will be almost twice that.
Bond brokers are salivating as the next meat wagon pulls into the station.
Arnold Phil Prop 1A Transportation Funding Protection YES YES Prop 1B Highway/Traffic/Air/Port Bond ($19.9 billion) YES YES Prop 1C Housing/Emergency Shelter Bond ($2.8 billion) YES YES Prop 1D Kindergarten-Univ School Bond ($10.4 billion) YES YES Prop 1E Disaster/Flood Protection Bond ($4.1 billion) YES YES Prop 83 Jessica's Law, sex offender punishment YES YES Prop 84 Water Quality/Park Bond ($5.4 billion) YES YES Prop 85 Parental Notification YES YES Prop 86 Cigarette Tax NO YES Prop 87 Alternative energy, Oil Tax NO YES Prop 88 Parcel Tax NO ? Prop 89 Taxpayer Funding of Campaigns NO YES Prop 90 Eminent Domain ? ?
(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em Down Hezbullies.)
I'm interested to see an explanation of any opposition on that one. It should be a no-brainer.
Is it possible that enactment would preclude such foolishness that allowed the establishment of the California Conservancy ?
No, the conservancies were established by the legislature. Their operating expenses are funded by the general fund and supplemented by bonds for acquiring properties, etc.
There are some interesting tax implications of eminent domain application that I wasn't aware of before. They are highlighted in this article that I just posted:
Official's Tax Break: on Firm Ground? (Eminent Domain claimed for tax benefits)
Los Angeles Times ^ | August 13, 2006 | William Heisel
Posted on 08/13/2006 12:54:38 PM PDT by calcowgirl
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.