Posted on 10/29/2010 1:08:50 PM PDT by LibWhacker
You are going to vote for Prop 19, so that in a year taxpayers can pay for drugs for those on welfare. Wow, you’re so libertarian. Until protections for taxpayers are put into the proposition for taxpayers, don’t delude yourself that you are anything else besides a big government liberal.
D1 — I share your concerns and expressed them a year or two ago when this was originally put on the ballot and passed. Among my concerns then: the commission is another step removed from the voter who has no ability to kick those people off the committee. BUT — some of those folks who worked in Sacramento seemed to believe this was an improvement (e.g. Tom McC, Ray Haynes, etc), so I was willing to give it a go and see if it works.
There are a lot of criteria included on how the commission is established. So, it shouldn’t be like C-Span — but time will tell.
At the time, they wrote the law to cover only California state officers. That seemed silly to have the legislature drawing districts for Congress and the Commission to go through a separate exercise for state officers. We’ll know how well this works after they draw the lines based on the 2010 census.
Personally, I’d still like the whole thing to get replaced by a computer model.
Bookmarked
Lots of people are voting for Prop 19 because they really are tired of big government. They want lower taxes, fewer regulations, fewer cops, fewer prisons, lower or no public pensions, and fewer politicians even.
Government has no business in welfare or health care, including giving away drugs.
Don't be afraid of smaller government. For thousands of years, we had smaller government.
NO.
He's saying he might support a simple majority vote for the budget, but ONLY if there was a spending limit in place (like the old Gann spending cap), AND there was a 2/3 majority requirement for increasing FEES and taxes.
He has never supported lifting the 2/3 majority requirement for taxes.
Thanks. Glad to be reminded I’m not the only one with questions about this.
You raised a good point regarding the selection committee being answerable to the public (actually in this instance, they not being answerable).
I believe you’re right, we’ll just pretty much have to wait and see how this plays out. I hope it achieves it’s goal.
I also agree with the seeming conflict of sorts, with regard to the redistricting process for Congressional and other California politicians. It is too bad both the state and national party players couldn’t be governed by the same process. Perhaps this is a fix for a later date, if the in-state portion IS fixed by this.
I did look up the state info on the commission selection process.
If you like, it’s here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2617292/posts?page=40#40
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. The courts will be filled with cases slamming businesses, because they don’t want employees who are under the influence. There are going to be even more unintended government regulations. If someone wants to take that drug in their home, and accept any consequences, that’s fine. But this bill doesn’t do that. This bill will grow government more than any other proposition this year.
Yep -- that is what this proposition accomplishes. It makes it the same process, overseen by the same commission.
I did look up the state info on the commission selection process.
I saw that. Thanks.
But such a reform MUST repair the 2/3 vote requirement for all tax increases...
What does he mean by "repair"?
No one "will have to create a whole department so drug users can get drugs paid for by the taxpayers."
The obvious effect will be to reduce court cases, not increase them.
You should read the proposition itself, sometime when you're sober.
It's not a sin for you to believe that government needs to be big enough to control everyone's personal conduct, but it is a sin to be dishonest about why you're an opponent of truly small government. :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh. you can't live with those terms? I guess you libertarian costume can't hide your statist reality.
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.
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.
"Dont 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."
See the difference between us? I do believe in a much smaller government.
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.
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.