LP of CA Makes Ballot Recommendations
I'm still undecided as to how I'll vote on the upcoming special election ballot propositions, with the exception of Prop 1F. That's an easy YES vote.
Various organizations and news media are starting to make their recommendations. The Libertarian Party of California came up with their recommendations recently and it's no surprise to me they recommend NO on all the props except for 1F.
I'm quite impressed they finally added a statement to each prop explaining their position. I've suggested for years that they do exactly that and it seemed to fall on deaf ears, until now.
The Humboldt Taxpayer's League was supposed to discuss the propositions at yesterday's meeting. I'm guessing, if they make any recommendations at all, they'll be along the line of the LP of CA's.
I've seen recommendations from at least one newspaper that was along the line of recommendations the San Diego Union- Tribune made recently. I can't remember the other paper that made a similar recommendation of NO on all the propositions, but I find this sort of blanket recommendation troubling.
Regardless of how one feels about the other props, I don't see any sense in lumping Prop 1F in with the others. It's mixing apples with oranges. Prop 1F simply disallows pay raises for state legislators if the budget is in deficit. It has nothing to do with tax increases or shifting around state funding as the other props do.
Adding that prop to the paper's blanket NO recommendations makes no sense to me. It makes all their recommendations seem more along the line of an anti- Sacramento temper tantrum, which it probably was meant to be.
Addendum: Richard Riordan, former Mayor of Los Angeles, had a critique of sorts on the propositions published a few days ago. He says he might be convinced to vote for them. I don't think he'll get the reforms he wants, though.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 7:34 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Leaning yes on 1A,and yes on F.
I'm actually leaning toward Standing Aside, as the Greens put it, on 1A and not voting on that one. Either that, or NO. Most likey NO on all the others, except 1F.
I actually wonder if there's any way around the largest tax increase in the state's history, despite whatever the reasons are for us getting to this situation.
Problem is, it likely won't be the last tax increase in my lifetime and I'm suspicious of basing future budgets on the average revenue of the last ten years as 1A supposedly does.
The last ten years before now includes the huge revenue increase from the dotcom boom that was a big reason for us getting into this mess. If the average revenue from over last ten years is too high, we'll likely lock in even higher rates of spending than we're already dealing with.
What is needed is a real spending limit- for instance, increasing spending only to account for population growth and inflation-, although it might well be that 1A is the closest thing we can come to any kind of limit.
No on all but yes on 1f as it is a start. These scum sucking pigs in state office should be in prison.
For some reason I just view that internal issues regarding A and F are intertwined.I could also just be being too philosophical.
1F is Maldanado trying to make up with his constituents for his budget vote which got a lot of bad press for him. Actually the legislators don't give themselves raises every year so read up on this and you may determine that it would not be a big deal in money saved. Just makes us feel like we are doing something good.
I don't know that it matters how or why 1F made it on to the ballot and I don't know that I said anything about it saving any money. It simply makes sense that legislators shouldn't give themselves raises when the budget is running a deficit.
I don't understand how any responsible voter could support a proposition to divert money away from mental health.
Yep, everybody has their pet project.
Post a Comment
<< Home