California Special Election

[meadandale]

[quote=pri_dk]
Prop. 13 has done a tremendous amount of damage to the state’s fiscal situation and
[/quote]

This is a bunch of crap. The assessed value of real estate in CA doubled between 2000 and 2007, yet the state still managed to outspend the doubling in property tax revenue.

Our state does not have a tax problem, it has a spending problem.

[4plexowner]

that’s right folks, an ex-landlord (and maybe future landlord) is recommending changes to Prop 13 that will hurt landlords

fair is fair

and yes, I know that changes to Prop 13 and winged monkeys flying out of my butt have about the same odds of occurring

~

I was NOT suggesting that we change Prop 13 at this point, just that there are changes that could be made

IMO most cities, counties and states are flat broke and busted (face it folks, the system is broken!) – we’ve already had two cities go bankrupt (iirc) and CA will probably be the first state to declare bankruptcy [if you have $$$ in municipal or state bonds be careful!]

raising taxes and fees is not the answer to these fiscal woes but that is what will be attempted first

at some point Americans and their supposed leaders will have to live within their means (which means massive cuts to spending) but that day will be postponed as long as possible

[4plexowner]

that’s right folks, an ex-landlord (and maybe future landlord) is recommending changes to Prop 13 that will hurt landlords

fair is fair

and yes, I know that changes to Prop 13 and winged monkeys flying out of my butt have about the same odds of occurring

~

I was NOT suggesting that we change Prop 13 at this point, just that there are changes that could be made

IMO most cities, counties and states are flat broke and busted (face it folks, the system is broken!) – we’ve already had two cities go bankrupt (iirc) and CA will probably be the first state to declare bankruptcy [if you have $$$ in municipal or state bonds be careful!]

raising taxes and fees is not the answer to these fiscal woes but that is what will be attempted first

at some point Americans and their supposed leaders will have to live within their means (which means massive cuts to spending) but that day will be postponed as long as possible

[4plexowner]

that’s right folks, an ex-landlord (and maybe future landlord) is recommending changes to Prop 13 that will hurt landlords

fair is fair

and yes, I know that changes to Prop 13 and winged monkeys flying out of my butt have about the same odds of occurring

~

I was NOT suggesting that we change Prop 13 at this point, just that there are changes that could be made

IMO most cities, counties and states are flat broke and busted (face it folks, the system is broken!) – we’ve already had two cities go bankrupt (iirc) and CA will probably be the first state to declare bankruptcy [if you have $$$ in municipal or state bonds be careful!]

raising taxes and fees is not the answer to these fiscal woes but that is what will be attempted first

at some point Americans and their supposed leaders will have to live within their means (which means massive cuts to spending) but that day will be postponed as long as possible

[4plexowner]

that’s right folks, an ex-landlord (and maybe future landlord) is recommending changes to Prop 13 that will hurt landlords

fair is fair

and yes, I know that changes to Prop 13 and winged monkeys flying out of my butt have about the same odds of occurring

~

I was NOT suggesting that we change Prop 13 at this point, just that there are changes that could be made

IMO most cities, counties and states are flat broke and busted (face it folks, the system is broken!) – we’ve already had two cities go bankrupt (iirc) and CA will probably be the first state to declare bankruptcy [if you have $$$ in municipal or state bonds be careful!]

raising taxes and fees is not the answer to these fiscal woes but that is what will be attempted first

at some point Americans and their supposed leaders will have to live within their means (which means massive cuts to spending) but that day will be postponed as long as possible

[4plexowner]

that’s right folks, an ex-landlord (and maybe future landlord) is recommending changes to Prop 13 that will hurt landlords

fair is fair

and yes, I know that changes to Prop 13 and winged monkeys flying out of my butt have about the same odds of occurring

~

I was NOT suggesting that we change Prop 13 at this point, just that there are changes that could be made

IMO most cities, counties and states are flat broke and busted (face it folks, the system is broken!) – we’ve already had two cities go bankrupt (iirc) and CA will probably be the first state to declare bankruptcy [if you have $$$ in municipal or state bonds be careful!]

raising taxes and fees is not the answer to these fiscal woes but that is what will be attempted first

at some point Americans and their supposed leaders will have to live within their means (which means massive cuts to spending) but that day will be postponed as long as possible

[MicroGravity]

The Proposition method of governing in CA stinks. Very few people care enough to read the propositions carefully, and even fewer understand them. Never mind the long term consequences.
The spineless legislature refuses to make any hard decisions, and then various factions gin up a proposition. By the time it’s time to vote on the thing, it is often impossible to decipher what a Yes or No actually implies.
When (not if) the results are negative, the politician’s simply shrug their shoulders since it wasn’t their bill!

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. A. Tyler

–MicroGravity

[MicroGravity]

The Proposition method of governing in CA stinks. Very few people care enough to read the propositions carefully, and even fewer understand them. Never mind the long term consequences.
The spineless legislature refuses to make any hard decisions, and then various factions gin up a proposition. By the time it’s time to vote on the thing, it is often impossible to decipher what a Yes or No actually implies.
When (not if) the results are negative, the politician’s simply shrug their shoulders since it wasn’t their bill!

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. A. Tyler

–MicroGravity

[MicroGravity]

The Proposition method of governing in CA stinks. Very few people care enough to read the propositions carefully, and even fewer understand them. Never mind the long term consequences.
The spineless legislature refuses to make any hard decisions, and then various factions gin up a proposition. By the time it’s time to vote on the thing, it is often impossible to decipher what a Yes or No actually implies.
When (not if) the results are negative, the politician’s simply shrug their shoulders since it wasn’t their bill!

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. A. Tyler

–MicroGravity

[MicroGravity]

The Proposition method of governing in CA stinks. Very few people care enough to read the propositions carefully, and even fewer understand them. Never mind the long term consequences.
The spineless legislature refuses to make any hard decisions, and then various factions gin up a proposition. By the time it’s time to vote on the thing, it is often impossible to decipher what a Yes or No actually implies.
When (not if) the results are negative, the politician’s simply shrug their shoulders since it wasn’t their bill!

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. A. Tyler

–MicroGravity

[MicroGravity]

The Proposition method of governing in CA stinks. Very few people care enough to read the propositions carefully, and even fewer understand them. Never mind the long term consequences.
The spineless legislature refuses to make any hard decisions, and then various factions gin up a proposition. By the time it’s time to vote on the thing, it is often impossible to decipher what a Yes or No actually implies.
When (not if) the results are negative, the politician’s simply shrug their shoulders since it wasn’t their bill!

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. A. Tyler

–MicroGravity

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=MicroGravity]The Proposition method of governing in CA stinks. Very few people care enough to read the propositions carefully, and even fewer understand them. Never mind the long term consequences.
The spineless legislature refuses to make any hard decisions, and then various factions gin up a proposition. By the time it’s time to vote on the thing, it is often impossible to decipher what a Yes or No actually implies.
When (not if) the results are negative, the politician’s simply shrug their shoulders since it wasn’t their bill![/quote]
I agree with your first point, that the Proposition method stinks. Minimally, a lot more issues should require 60:40 majorities to go into law. Simple majority issues allow too many chances for one group to outspend/outcampaign their competitors one election, then lose out 2, 4, or 6 years down the line.

I don’t think it’s necessarily a spineless legislature, although I think they’re sometimes happy to hide behind the will of the voters. Due to the way the constitution is structured, some issues do require voter approval. However, due to the limited number of signatures required, a lot of bad props sneak onto the ballot if a big enough special interest wants to push them.

I would like to remind all the “No on everything” posters that Prop 1F’s only purpose is to limit legislature pay raises. Even if you vote no on the rest, yes on 1F sends more of a message than a straight No vote.

Personally I think CA has both a tax revenue problem AND a spending problem. I don’t have the expertise to have answers, but I’m pretty sure 1A-1E aren’t very good answers.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=MicroGravity]The Proposition method of governing in CA stinks. Very few people care enough to read the propositions carefully, and even fewer understand them. Never mind the long term consequences.
The spineless legislature refuses to make any hard decisions, and then various factions gin up a proposition. By the time it’s time to vote on the thing, it is often impossible to decipher what a Yes or No actually implies.
When (not if) the results are negative, the politician’s simply shrug their shoulders since it wasn’t their bill![/quote]
I agree with your first point, that the Proposition method stinks. Minimally, a lot more issues should require 60:40 majorities to go into law. Simple majority issues allow too many chances for one group to outspend/outcampaign their competitors one election, then lose out 2, 4, or 6 years down the line.

I don’t think it’s necessarily a spineless legislature, although I think they’re sometimes happy to hide behind the will of the voters. Due to the way the constitution is structured, some issues do require voter approval. However, due to the limited number of signatures required, a lot of bad props sneak onto the ballot if a big enough special interest wants to push them.

I would like to remind all the “No on everything” posters that Prop 1F’s only purpose is to limit legislature pay raises. Even if you vote no on the rest, yes on 1F sends more of a message than a straight No vote.

Personally I think CA has both a tax revenue problem AND a spending problem. I don’t have the expertise to have answers, but I’m pretty sure 1A-1E aren’t very good answers.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=MicroGravity]The Proposition method of governing in CA stinks. Very few people care enough to read the propositions carefully, and even fewer understand them. Never mind the long term consequences.
The spineless legislature refuses to make any hard decisions, and then various factions gin up a proposition. By the time it’s time to vote on the thing, it is often impossible to decipher what a Yes or No actually implies.
When (not if) the results are negative, the politician’s simply shrug their shoulders since it wasn’t their bill![/quote]
I agree with your first point, that the Proposition method stinks. Minimally, a lot more issues should require 60:40 majorities to go into law. Simple majority issues allow too many chances for one group to outspend/outcampaign their competitors one election, then lose out 2, 4, or 6 years down the line.

I don’t think it’s necessarily a spineless legislature, although I think they’re sometimes happy to hide behind the will of the voters. Due to the way the constitution is structured, some issues do require voter approval. However, due to the limited number of signatures required, a lot of bad props sneak onto the ballot if a big enough special interest wants to push them.

I would like to remind all the “No on everything” posters that Prop 1F’s only purpose is to limit legislature pay raises. Even if you vote no on the rest, yes on 1F sends more of a message than a straight No vote.

Personally I think CA has both a tax revenue problem AND a spending problem. I don’t have the expertise to have answers, but I’m pretty sure 1A-1E aren’t very good answers.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=MicroGravity]The Proposition method of governing in CA stinks. Very few people care enough to read the propositions carefully, and even fewer understand them. Never mind the long term consequences.
The spineless legislature refuses to make any hard decisions, and then various factions gin up a proposition. By the time it’s time to vote on the thing, it is often impossible to decipher what a Yes or No actually implies.
When (not if) the results are negative, the politician’s simply shrug their shoulders since it wasn’t their bill![/quote]
I agree with your first point, that the Proposition method stinks. Minimally, a lot more issues should require 60:40 majorities to go into law. Simple majority issues allow too many chances for one group to outspend/outcampaign their competitors one election, then lose out 2, 4, or 6 years down the line.

I don’t think it’s necessarily a spineless legislature, although I think they’re sometimes happy to hide behind the will of the voters. Due to the way the constitution is structured, some issues do require voter approval. However, due to the limited number of signatures required, a lot of bad props sneak onto the ballot if a big enough special interest wants to push them.

I would like to remind all the “No on everything” posters that Prop 1F’s only purpose is to limit legislature pay raises. Even if you vote no on the rest, yes on 1F sends more of a message than a straight No vote.

Personally I think CA has both a tax revenue problem AND a spending problem. I don’t have the expertise to have answers, but I’m pretty sure 1A-1E aren’t very good answers.

[Author]

Posts