State Propositions
Proposition 19 - NO: Marijuana. Aside from the moral implications, legalizing Marijuana would have an incredible negative impact on our economy, and hurt businesses to the point that the mass exodus of businesses from California would increase. Because we do not have the technology to determine through a test if a person smoked or ingested Marijuana the same day, should this proposition pass, employers would not be able to do anything about workers using Marijuana unless a workplace accident occurs because technically they cannot prove Marijuana use inside of a 30 day time period. The effect this will have on the cost of Worker's Compensation will be devastating. One must also consider a hypothetical example: Two businesses, one is strict on Marijuana usage, and the other is lax on employee use of the drug. Which business is likely to be more successful? You guessed it: The one that does not allow Marijuana usage. States are not a whole lot different. Legalization of Marijuana would place an already failing State in jeopardy. We have a big enough problem with rampant idiocy through Sacramento's liberal progressive agenda. We don't need the number of stoners in this State to increase too.
Proposition 20 - YES: Election District Lines. Simple question helps one consider the answer here. Would you rather have the politicians and their allies be the ones drawing the district lines so that they can maintain their circle of political power? Or should committees by citizens be the ones drawing the lines? A "yes" vote takes the power of drawing the lines of the districts out of the hands of the political structure.
Proposition 21 - NO: Tax Increase. California already has one of the highest gamut of vehicle licensing fees in the nation. Now, Sacramento wants more money, so they are pushing for an $18 a year licensing fee increase. They claim the money is for funding state parks, but the problem in Sacramento is not that they don't have enough revenue. The problem is that spending is too high. If they need money for parks, then they need to eliminate or alter the funding for programs that are either not necessary, obsolete, a duplicate, or over-funded.
Proposition 22 - NO: State Spending. I originally was going to vote "yes" on Proposition 22. I understand that our State spends too much, and mishandles our tax dollars. Sacramento treats local funds as a back-up slush fund. The State politicians do this through a series of loopholes in the law that basically enables them to steal billions in taxpayer funds dedicated by the voters to local government and transportation services. Proponents of Proposition 22 says that a "yes" vote on Proposition 22 will stop State raids of local government funds once and for all. However, what it actually does if places more power and control into the hands of redevelopment agencies, enabling the States to extort cities monetarily, while ensuring land use occurs as the State sees fit, rather than the local government. The intention of Proposition 22 is right, but the method is wrong, and the unintended consequences could be devastating.
Proposition 23 - YES: Environment, Save Jobs. Cap and Trade in California reared its ugly head through AB 32, or the "Global Warming Solutions Act." Proposition suspends AB 32 until unemployment falls below 5.5%, basically saying to the environmentalists that they may be able to "save the planet," but not while we are in an economic downturn. If Proposition 23 loses, energy taxes will increase, and millions of jobs will be lost. If there is to be a recovery from the recession, passing Proposition 23 is a key component in making that recovery possible.
Proposition 24 - NO: Business Taxes. Proposition 24 if it passes would eliminate three business tax breaks. Business is already fleeing from California, and our economy is tanking as a result. If the business atmosphere worsens, the exodus of businesses from California will increase. A strong economy is a growing economy, and a growing economy results from a growing private sector. Eliminating three tax breaks for businesses will place businesses in California in a pickle, forcing many out of business, and many others out of the State. We can't afford to be punishing businesses by eliminating three of their tax breaks.
Proposition 25 - NO: State Spending. Proposition 25 would allow the State Legislature to pass their budget by a simple majority vote, rather than the current 2/3rds requirement. A simple majority gives more power to a single party. A 2/3rds requirement ensures that members of both parties are good with the budget. Proposition 25 would also allow tax increases with a simple majority vote. Dangerous, unethical, and a power grab.
Proposition 26 - YES: Taxes. With the passage of Proposition 26, voters must give permission before any new taxes can be imposed, including hidden taxes such as the ones labeled as "fee increases."
Proposition 27 - NO: Elections. A "yes" vote on Proposition 27 would repeal Proposition 11, and return redistricting to the California State Legislature. To do this would be allowing the fox to guard the hen house. Therefore, we need to vote "no" on Proposition 27.
Riverside County Initiatives
Proposition K - NO: Prop. K's passage would increase bonding capacity for the Riverside County Transportation Commission. However, Riverside County's problem is a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Why would we give a spend-a-holic an increase in their credit limit?
Proposition L - NO: This is a union sponsored proposition that would seek to restrict the county's ability to adjust retirement benefits for public safety employees. The perks are unsustainable, and the county must be able to adjust these programs as their budgets see fit.
Proposition M - YES: Passage of Proposition M locks in benefits for existing safety employees while preserving the county's authority to adjust retirement plans for new employees.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment