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

Skip to comments.

CA: Tom McClintock on the Propositions
tommcclintock.com ^ | 10/28/10 | Tom McClintock

Posted on 10/29/2010 1:08:50 PM PDT by LibWhacker

Prop 19: When Worlds Collide.  NO.   If this simply allowed people to cultivate and smoke marijuana themselves and left the rest of us alone, it would be worth considering.   But it goes much further and provides that “no person shall be … discriminated against or denied any right or privilege” for pot use, inviting a lawsuit every time an employer tries to require a drug test, for example.  If you want to smoke pot in your own world, I don’t care.  But don’t bring it into mine.    

Prop 20: Congressional Redistricting. YES.  This finishes the work we began in 2008 to get redistricting decisions away from self-interested state legislators and into the hands of a bi-partisan commission.  The original reform omitted Congressional districts – this simply adds them.

Prop 21: Highway Robbery.  NO.  Right now, state park users pay a nominal fee that helps pay for upkeep, assuring that those who use our state parks help pay for them.  This measure ends the day-user fee and shifts the cost to the rest of us by imposing an $18 per car tax increase whether we use the parks or not.   Stealing money from highway travelers used to be called “highway robbery.”  Now it’s called “Proposition 21.”

Prop 22: Hands Off Our Money. YES.  This takes a giant leap toward restoring local government independence and protecting our transportation taxes by prohibiting state raids on local and transportation funds.  Local governments are hardly paragons of virtue, but local tax revenues should remain local. 

Prop 23:  Liberation from the Environmental Left.  YES.  In 2006, Sacramento’s rocket-scientists enacted AB 32, imposing draconian restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions (yes, that’s the stuff you exhale).  They promised to save the planet from “global warming” and open a cornucopia of new jobs.  Since then, California’s unemployment rate has shot far beyond the national unemployment rate and the earth has continued to warm and cool as it has for billions of years.  Prop 23 merely holds the Environmental Left to its promise: it suspends AB 32 until unemployment stabilizes at or below its pre-AB 32 level. 

Prop 24: Because Taxes Just Aren’t High Enough.  NO.  This is a predictable entry by the public employee unions to impose an additional $1.7 billion tax on businesses.  The problem, of course, is that businesses don’t pay business taxes – we do.  Business taxes can only be paid in three ways: by us as consumers (through higher prices), by us as employees (through lower wages) and by us as investors (through lower earnings on our 401(k)’s).

Prop 25: Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire.  NO.  This changes the 2/3 vote requirement for the state budget to a simple majority – a reform I have long supported.  Experience has shown that the current 2/3 vote requirement for the budget does not restrain spending and it utterly blurs accountability.  But such a reform MUST repair the 2/3 vote requirement for all tax increases and restore constitutional spending and borrowing limits.  Without these provisions, Prop. 25 would be a disaster for taxpayers and a recipe for bankruptcy.

Prop 26: Calling a Tax a Tax.  YES.  Under the infamous Sinclair Paint decision, virtually any tax may be increased by majority vote as long as it is called a “fee,” gutting the 2/3 vote requirement in the state constitution to raise taxes.  Prop. 26 rescinds Sinclair Paint, restores the Constitution, and calls a tax a tax.

Prop 27: OMG.  NO.  Want to go back to the days when politicians drew their own district lines, literally choosing their own voters?  This will get us there.



TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: 2010; ca2010; cainitiatives; california; mcclintock; prop19; prop20; prop21; prop22; prop23; prop24; prop25; prop26; prop27; propositions; tommcclintock
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last

1 posted on 10/29/2010 1:08:58 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Bump.


2 posted on 10/29/2010 1:10:51 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

LOL - I am glad McClintock agrees with me on all these... This is how I am voting...


3 posted on 10/29/2010 1:11:08 PM PDT by BigEdLB (Now there ARE 1,000,000 regrets - but it may be too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Thanks for the post.
I wanted to vote Yes on Proposition 19 - but I didn't realize that this Proposition included the statement "“no person shall be … discriminated against or denied any right or privilege” for pot use".
That's just wrong. I'd love to see the free market drive the drug prices to pennies on a dollar - but users of narcotics should give up a large amount of rights and privileges as opposed to those that maintain a sober lifestyle. This Proposition apparently says otherwise ...
4 posted on 10/29/2010 1:20:55 PM PDT by El Cid (Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Bump for later. Thanks


5 posted on 10/29/2010 1:33:22 PM PDT by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Except for prop 19, I agree. Gov’t has too big a hand in regulating a pretty harmless weed..


6 posted on 10/29/2010 2:00:03 PM PDT by adamjefferson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

I hope Tom gets some choice committee assignments when the Pubbies take over Congress. He deserves it.


7 posted on 10/29/2010 2:03:03 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: adamjefferson

The no-discrimination clause is a deal breaker. As an employer, drug tests should be something I can use to screen out certain employees.


8 posted on 10/29/2010 2:04:24 PM PDT by BenKenobi (Support COD - "Cash on Delivery" for DE Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

And to think that the GOP backed Ahnold Schwarzentaxxer over Tom McClintock for Governor.


9 posted on 10/29/2010 2:09:46 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Governement should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigEdLB
Prop 25: Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire. NO. This changes the 2/3 vote requirement for the state budget to a simple majority – a reform I have long supported. Experience has shown that the current 2/3 vote requirement for the budget does not restrain spending and it utterly blurs accountability. But such a reform MUST repair the 2/3 vote requirement for all tax increases and restore constitutional spending and borrowing limits. Without these provisions, Prop. 25 would be a disaster for taxpayers and a recipe for bankruptcy.

What the heck is he saying there? Does he believe in majority rule or does he believe in a need for 2/3? He says the 2/3 requirement does not restrain spending and "blurs accountability." So, if he's against the 2/3 requirement, is he in favor of 50%, which would be a Yes on 25 vote?

10 posted on 10/29/2010 2:11:19 PM PDT by Walts Ice Pick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

For comparison:

Assemblyman Chuck DeVore’s statewide ballot proposition recommendations

Prop 22 is the only difference.

11 posted on 10/29/2010 2:25:18 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Walts Ice Pick

I agree. The wording of the statement seems to have been garbled.


12 posted on 10/29/2010 2:26:08 PM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

I agree with him on everything except the $18 for the state parks. My ‘surcharged vehicle’ will then get free entry to the state parks. I view that as much cheaper than paying for a yearly pass. My local state park costs $12 per visit. So I save money on this with just two visits.


13 posted on 10/29/2010 2:28:03 PM PDT by californianmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Thanks for posting that,...just sent it to my daughter.


14 posted on 10/29/2010 3:09:36 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: californianmom

What about all the people who don’t go to state parks? Should they be forced to pay for your visit too? State parks should be funded with user fees.


15 posted on 10/29/2010 3:26:58 PM PDT by Dan Cooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS

Maybe McClintock hasn’t had a chance to actually read all these propositions. They’re pretty complicated sometimes.


16 posted on 10/29/2010 3:29:08 PM PDT by Walts Ice Pick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: californianmom
I agree with him on everything except the $18 for the state parks. My ‘surcharged vehicle’ will then get free entry to the state parks. I view that as much cheaper than paying for a yearly pass. My local state park costs $12 per visit. So I save money on this with just two visits.

Because all those who don't visit state parks should be taxed even more to subsidize your recreation, right?

I think everyone should pay their freight. Go to a state park, pay the fee.

17 posted on 10/29/2010 3:37:44 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("In politics the middle way is none at all." -- John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Walts Ice Pick
What the heck is he saying there? Maybe McClintock hasn’t had a chance to actually read all these propositions.

Apparently McClintock can read and understands the difference between supporting a proposed budget, or an increase in an existing tax, or a newly proposed tax. He also apparently recognizes that administrative fees are simply taxes.

18 posted on 10/29/2010 3:53:24 PM PDT by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Walts Ice Pick; AEMILIUS PAULUS
I don't want to misstate McClintock's position so I am searching for his original article (in about 2007, iirc) that laid out his beliefs. Basically, he thinks the super-majority should be dropped for budgets, but kept for raising taxes AND fees. Accountability would lie with the party that passed the budget.

Below is from an article quoting him... I'll keep looking for the article I remember.

“A perverse result of the supermajority requirement is that it does not constrain state spending,” McClintock says. “What it does is bid up the cost of the budget with each additional vote. Every additional vote comes with louder calls for higher spending.

“You hear, ‘This program is really, really important to me and I’m not going to vote for the budget unless it’s thrown in, plus a park in my district.’ ”

… Moreover, McClintock contends, allowing the majority party to pass a budget on its own would pinpoint blame. “Voters deserve to know which party is responsible for the budget and hold it accountable,” he says.


19 posted on 10/29/2010 3:58:05 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("In politics the middle way is none at all." -- John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: afnamvet; ALOHA RONNIE; ambrose; antceecee; atomic_dog; AVNevis; B4Ranch; b9; backtothestreets; ...

PING!

Dusting off the McClintock ping list for any of you Californians that haven’t voted yet.


20 posted on 10/29/2010 4:11:16 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("In politics the middle way is none at all." -- John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last

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