Saturday, May 09, 2009

I've Cast My Vote

I filled out my absentee ballot yesterday. Not sure if I feel ashamed or proud for not standing aside on Prop 1A as I'd planned to do. I'd pretty much convinced myself to stand aside until the very last minute, when I voted YES on 1A.

My reasoning: As I wrote earlier, while 1A isn't the type of spending cap I think the state needs, it may be the best we can hope for in a Democrat controlled state. Compounding the problem are efforts to get rid of the 2/3 majority requirement to raise taxes. Many leftists and even some misguided middle- of- the- road types are behind efforts to remove the 2/3 requirement.

I'm thinking efforts to remove the 2/3 requirement will be successful, eventually. If that happens, there'll be hell to pay as taxes and spending will likely go through the roof without some sort of protection. While it may not be a spending cap, Prop 1A will be the closest thing we'll have to one and we definitely need something to protect us from out of control taxing and spending that we may be facing.
As far as the others:

Prop 1B was an easy NO vote, if for no other reason than it will throw even more money at the schools. Funding for education has increased every year for decades, yet still we have nothing to show for it and are told we're not spending enough on schools. This goes on whether enrollments are up or down. Enough is enough. A rainy day fund should be used for rainy days, not for throwing even more money at the schools.

Prop 1C was a fairly easy NO vote. I don't have a problem with using lottery funds for general government, but borrowing the money to only have to pay it back with interest will likely just make things worse. We have more than enough debt to pay off as it is.

Prop 1D& E I'll link together because they're similar and I think the idea behind them has at least some merit. These measures take money from certain programs and divert them to the general fund, if necessary. What the heck. I don't have a problem with that. My main concern is that supporters of the affected programs would simply try the same thing, again, that they did to get funding in the first place: Raise another tax.

No way to say for sure if they would do that but I'll use these two issues to find common ground with the Republicans, the Humboldt Taxpayer's League and a host of others with their temper- tantrum voting this election and voted NO on both of them.

Prop 1F was an obvious YES vote. The least significant of all the propositions, I've yet to hear one halfway decent argument against it with the exception of Eric Kirk's. His argument centered along the lines of our legislators not being paid enough. Not that I necessarily agree with him, but it was the only argument I've heard that rose above the temper- tantrum level.

So there you have it. Now you know how to vote. If you haven't done it yet, fill in the blanks on your sample ballot and on May 19 go in and vote for The Freddy!


At 8:55 AM, Anonymous Chris Crawford said...

Don't you find it interesting, Fred, that the HTL chose 1A among all the props to oppose in a public campaign?

As you note, it isn't a solid spending cap, but it's a good start. They could have found MUCH more to vocally oppose in some of the other props, but I found their choice of 1A to be a head scratcher.

At 9:03 AM, Blogger mresquan said...

Voted the same way as you did,same reasoning behind 1A.
In regards to F,I guess I could fear that the legislature will find one way or another and enact something to compensate for the freeze and then once were out of a deficit,we'll see the legislators go right for those raises to boot.

At 9:13 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Chris writes, "...I found their choice of 1A to be a head scratcher.".Indeed. Especially since all sides of all the aisles are split on it.

Esquan writes, "...I could fear that the legislature will find one way or another and enact something to compensate for the freeze...That was the last temper- tantrum type argument I heard on 1F: "They'll just find some other way around it...".

Maybe so, but it doesn't mean the measure doesn't have merit even though it's a pretty insignificant measure even if they don't find ways around it.

At 11:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If schools have enough money, someone tell me why Humboldt schools have been left out of the loop. Parents supplement virtually every aspect of schools these days. The school you enjoyed as a child does not exist anymore. It's dead and gone. What's left is whatever parents scrap together in fundraising events.

At 1:10 PM, Blogger Fred said...

...tell me why Humboldt schools have been left out of the loop..

That's one of the great mysteries of our time, as far as I'm concerned. School funding increases pretty much every year, yet it never seems to accomplish anything and we're told we're still not paying enough.

At 11:05 AM, Anonymous Mr. Nice said...

1A... $16 billion dollars in taxes disguised as a "spending cap."

That doesn't compute here. I am not scratching my head, I am voting no.

At 9:51 AM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Interesting vote Fred. So you didn't buy into the argument that the cap is "phony" and that it's simply a trojan horse tax increase?

Incidentally, depending on which numbers you use, California is 29th, or 49th in terms of dollar-per-pupil spending. Ironically, the better numbers which the Republicans often rely on come from the NEA. even the most optimistic of the studies has us below the national average.

At 10:05 AM, Blogger Fred said...

This article in today's Orange County Register has me rethinking my vote:

He makes the point that even though spending would be limited to the last ten year's average, nothing in the proposition says the legislature just can't raise taxes to increase revenue. That would make it useless as a spending cap, especially with efforts by the Left to get rid of the 2/3 majority requirement looking more likely to be successful.

It kind of makes my argument for 1A moot, imo.

As far as school spending, some of the schools that spend the most are supposedly the worst. Washington D.C., for example.

At 6:02 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

But it's generally not the case. The New England states perform the best, and they spend the money.

At 8:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The California Lottery was sold to us based on the idea it would take care of California's education needs.

Where has all the F'ing money been going?

And isn't this the same F'ing governor who made the big deal with the Tribes for even more money to go to education?

So why is education in California starving to death? WHO IS GETTING ALL THE LOTTERY AND CASINO MONEY?

Find THAT person and make HIM bail out the State Budget!

At 11:15 AM, Anonymous Mr. Nice said...

The problem with the way California treats the lottery is the government takes too high of a percentage. The takeout from the California lottery causes it to have terrible odds which causes less people to gamble.

It is just like taxes, low tax rates increase tax receipts and low lottery takeout increases lottery ticket sales.

At 6:11 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

The lottery is for special projects, not ongoing costs.


Post a Comment

<< Home