Vote NO on 55 & 56; Vote YES on 57 & 58

[MagicMtnDan]

Today is election day in California (and elsewhere - it's "Super Tuesday"). Get out and vote.
If you need info on the propositions click here (http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/propositions/prop_summary.html)

[Kachina26]

I agree, but above all VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[redneckgirl]

Already did last week!! :D :D

[Dr. Eagle]

MMD sent mine about a week ago. Yes, I voted no... and yes. Just like you said... Can't wait to hear Ahhhnuld talk about the results... whatever they may be.

[dr. margarita]

Hey Magic...thanks a million for posting the info on the Props. I just got back from vacation and started panicing because I couldn't find the info. Got on Hot Boat and bingo! Magic comes through again. I plan on voting exactly the way you posted. Tom

[Pointerman]

Vote NO on ALL of the propositions!
Our elected officials need to make spending reductions rather than put our state further into debt.

[mirvin]

Right on Pointerman! THat's what I did. I'd like to see the state "go bankrupt". Right. Fat chance.
Mirvin;)

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by Pointerman
Vote NO on ALL of the propositions!
Our elected officials need to make spending reductions rather than put our state further into debt.
With a socialist legislature? Good luck! I agree in principle though... The bond is a bail out for the democrats. And lots of them oppose it, they want to hike lots of taxes. Screw them, the proposition is bad medicine, but I think probably the most reasonable compromise given the COMMIE legislature!

[mirvin]

Hey Doc, I guess what needs to happen is this:
All the props fail, the Dems scream bloody murder for a few months, in November we vote all the ****s out of office and Ahnod and company will clean up the budget next year :D
mirvin

[Ducatista]

Originally posted by Pointerman
Vote NO on ALL of the propositions!
Our elected officials need to make spending reductions rather than put our state further into debt.
You have a good point. Prop 57 sounds good, refi and consolidate the deficit. But maybe its better to stop the overspending now, vote no and force extreme spending cuts. I can't think of a better way to "stop the welfare state" than to force their hand now. It would be "very" painful to alot of people, but would send a very clear message to the elected officals. I don't know.....I'm still wavering on this but will make up my mind by tonight when I vote after work. :confused:

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by mirvin
Hey Doc, I guess what needs to happen is this:
All the props fail, the Dems scream bloody murder for a few months, in November we vote all the ****s out of office and Ahnod and company will clean up the budget next year :D
mirvin
I wish it would work that way, but what will happen is they will raise taxes big time. Car tax will be back, sales, property, fees for everything will go up...
I like to dream that part two of your statement will happen next year anyway.... Vote the MFs out. But we are talking about SF, LA, lots of very liberal areas. I don't know if there is enough voters that will hold the losers accountable for their shovel being in there digging the hole.
But with short term bonds due in June, we could conceivably have to file for bankruptcy... that wouldn't be a good thing.

[eliminatedsprinter]

I was dissapointed. On prop 56 I could only vote no. I wanted to vote HELL NO!:burningm:

[mirvin]

Originally posted by eliminatedsprinter
I was dissapointed. On prop 56 I could only vote no. I wanted to vote HELL NO!:burningm:
But Steve, prop 56 promises to end the "budget stalemate and bring fiscal accountablility"!!
Doesn't that sound swell
:p
mirvin:D

[Pointerman]

The problem with the bond is that it only covers our current deficit. Next year they will create another budget deficit and it will continue to spiral. Tom McClintock is about the most fiscally responsible politician I have ever heard. Check out his website with his take on these props. I tend to agree with his fiscal concepts 100% of the time.
http://tommcclintock.com/issues/learnmore.cfm

[Pointerman]

How to Solve the Budget Crisis in Three Easy Steps
California’s budget crisis is not complicated and it is not intractable and it is not mysterious. Over the last four years, population and inflation have grown at a combined rate of 21 percent. Revenue has grown 28 percent. Spending has grown 40 percent.
Our distress is not for lack of revenue but for lack of discipline. And to restore that discipline, three simple acts are all that is needed to put California’s financial crisis behind us.
First, the immediate budget shortfall requires policy makers to abide by the first law of holes: when you’re in one, stop digging.
Most of California’s deficit is not the difference between what it is currently spending and what it is currently taking in. It is rather caused by the projected increases in state spending over the next 18 months. Most of the deficit is not a matter of cutting current spending – but rather arresting the growth in future spending.
That growth is driven by a variety of constitutional and statutory mandates. But virtually all of them can be suspended by the legislature at any time by the same vote that it takes to enact the budget. The principal exception is service on the debt.
Thus, merely suspending these mandates and reducing current expenditures by 9.5 percent – and then holding at that level for 18 months – would eliminate the deficit without the tax increases, raids on local government and pilfering of pension and special funds that the Governor has proposed.
Could your family cut its spending by 9.5 percent in hard times? In this recession, many families are doing exactly that. Their state government, which is now spending a larger portion of their earnings than at any time in our history, could profit from their example.
Secondly, the discomfort of frugality could be eased dramatically if accompanied by a comprehensive review of every state agency and program now on the books. California State government spends roughly twice per person what Arizona spends, and yet Arizona delivers a vastly higher level of service in every category including academic performance, electricity generation, water delivery, and highway and housing construction.
The difficulty in conducting such a review – and acting upon it – is that every program has a highly motivated constituency that jealously and expertly guards its budget. Faced with the long overdue need to close obsolete military bases, the federal government confronted the same paralysis caused by interest group pressure. Ultimately, Congress broke the gridlock when it took the task of reviewing bases out of the political arena and gave it to an independent panel of management experts that returned a comprehensive recommendation for a single up-or-down vote.
This mechanism prevented the political logrolling, mutual back-scratching and parochial grandstanding that had long blocked the consolidation and closure of obsolete bases. The same thing desperately needs to be done with California’s bureaucracies.
Finally, with the state’s fiscal affairs back in order, a constitutional spending limit must be restored. California had such a provision from 1979 to 1990, commonly called the Gann Spending Limit, restraining the growth of state expenditures to the combined growth of population and inflation. State spending still more than doubled during this period, but only as fast as the economy could sustain it. In 1990, the limit was blown into the stratosphere by Proposition 111.
If the Gann Limit had been restored at the outset of the Davis Administration, California’s current budget would still be 21 percent larger than it was four years ago. But instead of a $35 billion deficit, California would enjoy a $5 billion surplus this year – and $30 billion cumulatively over the last four.
These three simple acts would solve California’s current budget crisis and prevent future recurrences. Will they be enacted?
Probably not. And that’s the only reason why California’s budget problem is intractable. It is not answers but action that is missing.

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by Pointerman
The problem with the bond is that it only covers our current deficit. Next year they will create another budget deficit and it will continue to spiral. Tom McClintock is about the most fiscally responsible politician I have ever heard. Check out his website with his take on these props. I tend to agree with his fiscal concepts 100% of the time.
http://tommcclintock.com/issues/learnmore.cfm
I happen to agree with you. Only problem is that McClintock is someone that doesn't garner a great deal (say 20% of voters) of support. He is the most knowledgable and truly responsible one in Sactown though. He doesn't seem to need to pander to his base quite like the giveaway, freebie, pick pocket democrats do. Or even a lot of other Republicans for that matter.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Tom McKlintock is good on fiscal policy and I like him. However, he is a bit too socially conservitive for much of CA and he has lousy political instincts and skills (he dosen't work and play well with others) thus making him inneffectual as a statsman.

[Pointerman]

I hear you, but when it comes to voting for propositions my policy is that "if it costs us more money, I am voting no" and all of the current props will cost more money.

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by Pointerman
I hear you, but when it comes to voting for propositions my policy is that "if it costs us more money, I am voting no" and all of the current props will cost more money.
mine too in most cases. I was giving ahnuld the benefit of the doubt and a pass this time...

[Ducatista]

Originally posted by Dr. Eagle
mine too in most cases. I was giving ahnuld the benefit of the doubt and a pass this time...
I agree, usually if it costs money I vote no, but I think I will back Arnold this time, to see what he can do in the future to right the ship.

[MrsJetDriver]

I misplaced my voting book that came in the mail. Do you know how I can find out where I am supposed to vote? Or can I vote anywhere?

[Essex502]

Originally posted by MrsJetDriver
I misplaced my voting book that came in the mail. Do you know how I can find out where I am supposed to vote? Or can I vote anywhere?
The L.A. County Registrar of Voters Website (http://regrec.co.la.ca.us/locator/)

[Essex502]

Originally posted by titties and beer
WHAT EVER YOU PEEPS DO ,:D DON'T MAKE THE MEXICANS MAD;) so they want to leave cali,they need cali :D
We're voting tonight on Prop 99 - To send all illegal aliens we catch to St. George, Utah! You need more Utards!

[LASERRAY]

Here's How I Voted:
Prop 55 : No! Another bond for re-building our schools? What happened to All the other school bonds that we voted on? It seems like we vote on the same thing every election! All the money goes to LAUSD anyway, and we all know about the financial irresponsibility of that District! And what about the Lottery funds? Talk about mis-appropriation of funds! we can't afford this.
Prop 56 : No No No! You would have to be a fool to vote yes on this one. Don't we have too many laws in this state already? Why would we make it easier for the legislature to make more?!!! And I sure as hell know that we don't need anymore taxes! We are already being taxed to death. Why give them a blank check and more power? We can't afford this one either.
Prop 57 & 58: I voted Yes on these only because we need to give Arnold the chance to fix our budget. I do think that is he is taking a proactive approach to the problem, and I'd like to support him in his effort to do so. But I don't like the idea of floating ANOTHER bond.:cool:

[beer hunter]

Well, in a couple hours we'll see how this thing plays out, but I hope to God that Prop 56 doesn't pass :mad: I'm really not in favor of any of these bonds but I held my nose and voted for Prop 57 and 58. I hope Arnold can make this work :)

[dr. margarita]

As of about 9pm it looks like 56 is going to be trounced. Everything else looks like it'll go the way most of you voted. No on 55 and 56, yes to 57 and 58.

[LASERRAY]

Originally posted by dr. margarita
As of about 9pm it looks like 56 is going to be trounced. Everything else looks like it'll go the way most of you voted. No on 55 and 56, yes to 57 and 58. Barring any hanging chads of course.;)

[Dr. Eagle]

Wow if the trend continues, 56 will go down to defeat with about a 2/3 majority. Put that in your spending pipeline, Democrats! Maybe the dipshits will start to listen....
No, that's right, I forgot... Democrats always know better than the people what is needed...:rolleyes:

[dr. margarita]

Hey, I really dug those electronic voting units, no chads and you don't have to rely on bogus predictions. The news reported that some of the precincts couldn't get them to work but our worked real slick.
Even though I make major bank when school bonds pass, I've have to agree with Laserray on his assessment of Prop 55. During the past several elections, California voters have passed major dollar school bonds. So much so that that the design and construction industry simply could and cannot keep up with the demand. The end result during the past several years is shotting work by all involved, wasted taxpayer dollars on this shotty work and sadly no teachers to put in new, high dollar classroom space. Here's an accurate example, Prior to prop 47, which was the last major bond measure, the cost to build basic new elementary schools was about $170 per square foot. Toward the end of those bond proceeds, over the span of less than one year, that same elementary school now costs $220 per square foot!!!! Why, because the public bid procurement is a breeding ground for major profiteering (no disrespect to any contractors out there...it's just a plan and simple fact!) Our kids are still no better off because these bonds do not affect the most important thing...dollars to teachers and staff which has a much greater impact on our kids.
What's the answer... local bond measures. They are harder to pass and are a true measure of a local communities' commitment to there kids. Once a local bond measure passes (much easier due to prop 38 a couple of years ago changing the passage to a simple majority in lieu of 2/3rds) a bond oversight committee is elected and typically do a great job holding public officials to task with respect to spending. Support them as you feel appropriate. Statewide bonds are sometimes unfairly distributed (i.e. LAUSD) based on whoever spends the most on influential lobbyists.

[LASERRAY]

Originally posted by dr. margarita
. The end result during the past several years is shotting work by all involved, wasted taxpayer dollars on this shotty work and sadly no teachers to put in new, high dollar classroom space. Here's an accurate example, Prior to prop 47, which was the last major bond measure, the cost to build basic new elementary schools was about $170 per square foot. Toward the end of those bond proceeds, over the span of less than one year, that same elementary school now costs $220 per square foot!!!! Why, because the public bid procurement is a breeding ground for major profiteering (no disrespect to any contractors out there...it's just a plan and simple fact!) Our kids are still no better off because these bonds do not affect the most important thing...dollars to teachers and staff which has a much greater impact on our kids.
EXACTALLY! I am an HVAC Technician for a School District, I am around the construction when a new school goes-up or a school is renovated, and what you say is oh, so true! Good post.

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by LASERRAY
EXACTALLY! I am an HVAC Technician for a School District, I am around the construction when a new school goes-up or a school is renovated, and what you say is oh, so true! Good post.
Laser, I agree with you agreeing...
Government procurement is an oxymoron. It ends up costing so much, and for some reason, the planners... (spenders) seem to direct the money to all the wrong cubbyholes. So money spent goes where it is not needed, often as not. Go figure.

[LASERRAY]

Originally posted by Dr. Eagle
Laser, I agree with you agreeing...
Government procurement is an oxymoron. It ends up costing so much, and for some reason, the planners... (spenders) seem to direct the money to all the wrong cubbyholes. So money spent goes where it is not needed, often as not. Go figure. And yes, is all goes back to no common sense, or better yet is a diversionary ploy to make us look one way while the funding goes anotherway.:cool: Like into special interests, and their own pockets.:eek:

[ROZ]

Originally posted by dr. margarita
because the public bid procurement is a breeding ground for major profiteering (no disrespect to any contractors out there...it's just a plan and simple fact!)
I agree with you there as with the rest of your post... We bid several districts around the county DIRT CHEAP and see the fleecing some of contractors provide first hand... A lot of times we call to make sure they know product cut sheet measurements to make sure things (like a/v cabinets) are done to spec and sometimes get the response of, " don't worry, if they don't fit the district will pay to have them refaced." I'm thinkin' F'n bastards!

[MagicMtnDan]

Next step:
1. Vote out Barbara Boxer - I looked her up in the dictionary and couldn't find her until I found the word "liberal" - her picture was right next to it.
2. Vote out Dianne Feinstein - liberal and fugly to boot

[beer hunter]

Originally posted by MagicMtnDan
Next step:
1. Vote out Barbara Boxer - I looked her up in the dictionary and couldn't find her until I found the word "liberal" - her picture was right next to it.
2. Vote out Dianne Feinstein - liberal and fugly to boot
That's funny Dan because I found her (Boxer) in the dictionary right away under socialist :D