California 2009 ballot propositions

[Reason]

California 2009 ballot propositions

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_2009_ballot_measures

Just got my sample ballot today and will be starting my research over the next few days.

Interested in thoughts/analysis on the ballot propositions :)

On May 19 ballot

See also: May 19, 2009 ballot measures in California

Proposition Description
Proposition 1A Prop 1A combines a 4-year tax hike of about $16 billion with a state spending cap
Proposition 1B Modification of California Proposition 98 (1998) to free up money for state's budget overruns.
Proposition 1C Sell rights to future lottery proceeds as a way of raising some cash now for state budget.
Proposition 1D Asks voters to approve taking money from Prop 10 in 1998 for purposes not allowed in that 1998 vote.
Proposition 1E Asks voters to take money from Prop 63 for purposes not allowed in that 2004 vote.
Proposition 1F No pay raises for state legislators in years when there is a state budget deficit
Proposition 13 (SCA 4) Prohibit re-evaluating new construction for property tax purposes when the new construction was undertaken to seismically retrofit an existing building.

[Reason]

bump for thoughts & input on these props

[Reason]

Voting NO on all except 1F

All of these seem to be attempts to drag money from pretty much anywhere in order to prevent our state govt from actually cutting spending. 1B Requires passage of 1A.

Proposition Description
Proposition 1A Prop 1A combines a 4-year tax hike of about $16 billion with a state spending cap
Proposition 1B Modification of California Proposition 98 (1998) to free up money for state's budget overruns.
Proposition 1C Sell rights to future lottery proceeds as a way of raising some cash now for state budget.
Proposition 1D Asks voters to approve taking money from Prop 10 in 1998 for purposes not allowed in that 1998 vote.
Proposition 1E Asks voters to take money from Prop 63 for purposes not allowed in that 2004 vote.
Proposition 1F No pay raises for state legislators in years when there is a state budget deficit


http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_2009_ballot_measures

[Golding]

I agree with you. 1F is a clever way to freeze the payroll of legislators so long as they keep screwing around. The rest of the measures seem to be more about "How do we get more money to afford what we're spending?" rather than "How do we stop spending on things that are unnecessary?"

[Pauls' Revere]

Bandaids to fix a gaping wound. None will fix the underlying problem of over spending money California does not have.

[Reason]

Bandaids to fix a gaping wound. None will fix the underlying problem of over spending money California does not have.

Agreed but you should still vote no on all except 1F :)

Vote/Voice

[0zzy]

from Rep. Liberty Caucus of California:

NO on Proposition 1-F: ELECTED OFFICIALS' SALARIES. PREVENTS PAY INCREASES DURING BUDGET DEFICIT YEARS

This "feel good" proposition pretends to freeze legislator's salaries, but it does nothing of the sort. It pretends to be an incentive for responsible budget reductions, but it only guarantees more tax increases when legislators insist that they have to spend more. It does nothing to cut legislator salaries, nor those of the exploding state bureaucracy. This is a con game, to top off the shell games and slush funds of the other propositions.

[Reason]

from Rep. Liberty Caucus of California:

NO on Proposition 1-F: ELECTED OFFICIALS' SALARIES. PREVENTS PAY INCREASES DURING BUDGET DEFICIT YEARS

This "feel good" proposition pretends to freeze legislator's salaries, but it does nothing of the sort. It pretends to be an incentive for responsible budget reductions, but it only guarantees more tax increases when legislators insist that they have to spend more. It does nothing to cut legislator salaries, nor those of the exploding state bureaucracy. This is a con game, to top off the shell games and slush funds of the other propositions.

Can you give some links to where you are getting this, I have a feeling that the reasoning for that position is that 1F might not do anything if 1A doesn't pass?

I am not sure.

[Reason]

bump

[Golding]

Bandaids to fix a gaping wound. None will fix the underlying problem of over spending money California does not have.I think it would be irrational to expect that even the underlying problems of over-spending would be resolve in any one ballot. But nevertheless, the incorrect approach of trying to find more money to continue spending more should be rejected. 1F does, in a way, impede an increase in one form of unnecessary spending. That's probably what makes it somewhat appealing.

[Reason]

bump

[dannno]

bump for clarification on 1F..

That letter says that they just have to raise taxes to get their raises, but if they do they will be voted out.. I still say vote yes on 1F until I get a better explanation of why not to.

[He Who Pawns]

The fucking sample ballot I received in the mail is so fraudulent that it's criminal. If an average person read it cold, they would be completely confused and tricked.

The group trying to pass 1A and 1B (which together would cost CA taxpayers at least $16 BILLION in tax hikes) is running ads in CA claiming that they will reduce spending! The ads say something like, "Paid for by Citizens for Less Spending" or some horeshit like that!! :mad:

The whole thing is a complete fraud.

John and Ken, two libertarian-leaning talk show hosts here in LA, say vote NO on 1A through 1F.

[Reason]

The fucking sample ballot I received in the mail is so fraudulent that it's criminal. If an average person read it cold, they would be completely confused and tricked.

The group trying to pass 1A and 1B (which together would cost CA taxpayers at least $16 BILLION in tax hikes) is running ads in CA claiming that they will reduce spending! The ads say something like, "Paid for by Citizens for Less Spending" or some horeshit like that!! :mad:

The whole thing is a complete fraud.

John and Ken, two libertarian-leaning talk show hosts here in LA, say vote NO on 1A through 1F.

I still can't figure out what the deal is with 1-F though, why not vote no on all of them except 1-F?

[H Roark]

From a cursory look at the sample ballot I will be voting NO on all the props except 1F. (This thread may be better suited in the California sub-forum)

[0zzy]

http://www.rlcca.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=127:may-19th-recommendations&catid=12:rlcfl-positions&Itemid=21

[Reason]

From a cursory look at the sample ballot I will be voting NO on all the props except 1F. (This thread may be better suited in the California sub-forum)

no one would read/reply on it there tho

[weslinder]

It doesn't matter how you vote. The California Supreme Court will make the right choice for you.

[Reason]

It doesn't matter how you vote. The California Supreme Court will make the right choice for you.

I'm sorry but I don't buy the whole "activist judges" arguments used by the mormon prop 8 nazi's