California Special Election

[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.

[4plexowner]

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

If I understand correctly, our founding fathers did not create a democracy, they created a republic where the only people who could vote were property owners

I believe democracy is workable IF the vote is limited to stake-holders – once non-stake-holders are allowed to vote, Mr. Tyler’s quote above becomes true

Not sure how to define ‘stake-holder’ in today’s society – much easier to define who is NOT a stake-holder but I don’t want to get the bleeding-heart liberals spun up

[4plexowner]

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

If I understand correctly, our founding fathers did not create a democracy, they created a republic where the only people who could vote were property owners

I believe democracy is workable IF the vote is limited to stake-holders – once non-stake-holders are allowed to vote, Mr. Tyler’s quote above becomes true

Not sure how to define ‘stake-holder’ in today’s society – much easier to define who is NOT a stake-holder but I don’t want to get the bleeding-heart liberals spun up

[4plexowner]

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

If I understand correctly, our founding fathers did not create a democracy, they created a republic where the only people who could vote were property owners

I believe democracy is workable IF the vote is limited to stake-holders – once non-stake-holders are allowed to vote, Mr. Tyler’s quote above becomes true

Not sure how to define ‘stake-holder’ in today’s society – much easier to define who is NOT a stake-holder but I don’t want to get the bleeding-heart liberals spun up

[4plexowner]

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

If I understand correctly, our founding fathers did not create a democracy, they created a republic where the only people who could vote were property owners

I believe democracy is workable IF the vote is limited to stake-holders – once non-stake-holders are allowed to vote, Mr. Tyler’s quote above becomes true

Not sure how to define ‘stake-holder’ in today’s society – much easier to define who is NOT a stake-holder but I don’t want to get the bleeding-heart liberals spun up

[4plexowner]

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

If I understand correctly, our founding fathers did not create a democracy, they created a republic where the only people who could vote were property owners

I believe democracy is workable IF the vote is limited to stake-holders – once non-stake-holders are allowed to vote, Mr. Tyler’s quote above becomes true

Not sure how to define ‘stake-holder’ in today’s society – much easier to define who is NOT a stake-holder but I don’t want to get the bleeding-heart liberals spun up

[luchabee]

[quote=4plexowner]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

If I understand correctly, our founding fathers did not create a democracy, they created a republic where the only people who could vote were property owners

I believe democracy is workable IF the vote is limited to stake-holders – once non-stake-holders are allowed to vote, Mr. Tyler’s quote above becomes true

Not sure how to define ‘stake-holder’ in today’s society – much easier to define who is NOT a stake-holder but I don’t want to get the bleeding-heart liberals spun up[/quote]

Yes, I heard a recent stat that 40% of US citizens don’t pay a single cent in taxes, yet they can vote themselves new, costly government programs.

At a state level, I think the prime example was the approval of the high-speed rail system up to S.F., costing us billions. When this was approved, I knew for sure that we were all doomed.

I can’t wait for the next proposisition mandating that all children get their own pony.

[luchabee]

[quote=4plexowner]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

If I understand correctly, our founding fathers did not create a democracy, they created a republic where the only people who could vote were property owners

I believe democracy is workable IF the vote is limited to stake-holders – once non-stake-holders are allowed to vote, Mr. Tyler’s quote above becomes true

Not sure how to define ‘stake-holder’ in today’s society – much easier to define who is NOT a stake-holder but I don’t want to get the bleeding-heart liberals spun up[/quote]

Yes, I heard a recent stat that 40% of US citizens don’t pay a single cent in taxes, yet they can vote themselves new, costly government programs.

At a state level, I think the prime example was the approval of the high-speed rail system up to S.F., costing us billions. When this was approved, I knew for sure that we were all doomed.

I can’t wait for the next proposisition mandating that all children get their own pony.

[luchabee]

[quote=4plexowner]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

If I understand correctly, our founding fathers did not create a democracy, they created a republic where the only people who could vote were property owners

I believe democracy is workable IF the vote is limited to stake-holders – once non-stake-holders are allowed to vote, Mr. Tyler’s quote above becomes true

Not sure how to define ‘stake-holder’ in today’s society – much easier to define who is NOT a stake-holder but I don’t want to get the bleeding-heart liberals spun up[/quote]

Yes, I heard a recent stat that 40% of US citizens don’t pay a single cent in taxes, yet they can vote themselves new, costly government programs.

At a state level, I think the prime example was the approval of the high-speed rail system up to S.F., costing us billions. When this was approved, I knew for sure that we were all doomed.

I can’t wait for the next proposisition mandating that all children get their own pony.

[luchabee]

[quote=4plexowner]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

If I understand correctly, our founding fathers did not create a democracy, they created a republic where the only people who could vote were property owners

I believe democracy is workable IF the vote is limited to stake-holders – once non-stake-holders are allowed to vote, Mr. Tyler’s quote above becomes true

Not sure how to define ‘stake-holder’ in today’s society – much easier to define who is NOT a stake-holder but I don’t want to get the bleeding-heart liberals spun up[/quote]

Yes, I heard a recent stat that 40% of US citizens don’t pay a single cent in taxes, yet they can vote themselves new, costly government programs.

At a state level, I think the prime example was the approval of the high-speed rail system up to S.F., costing us billions. When this was approved, I knew for sure that we were all doomed.

I can’t wait for the next proposisition mandating that all children get their own pony.

[luchabee]

[quote=4plexowner]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

If I understand correctly, our founding fathers did not create a democracy, they created a republic where the only people who could vote were property owners

I believe democracy is workable IF the vote is limited to stake-holders – once non-stake-holders are allowed to vote, Mr. Tyler’s quote above becomes true

Not sure how to define ‘stake-holder’ in today’s society – much easier to define who is NOT a stake-holder but I don’t want to get the bleeding-heart liberals spun up[/quote]

Yes, I heard a recent stat that 40% of US citizens don’t pay a single cent in taxes, yet they can vote themselves new, costly government programs.

At a state level, I think the prime example was the approval of the high-speed rail system up to S.F., costing us billions. When this was approved, I knew for sure that we were all doomed.

I can’t wait for the next proposisition mandating that all children get their own pony.

[Anonymous]

[quote=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.
[/quote]

Like I said, even hint at re-evaluating the logic behind Prop 13, and they pounce. And they are always so angry…

Got a source for that statistic?

Here’s lots of data on the State budget:

http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/lao_menu_economics.aspx

Total state budget for 2000/01:
$88 billion

Total for 2007/08:
$102 billion

Not exactly “double”.

Property taxes go to the counties anyway…

But I’m willing to concede the benefit of the doubt: The state has a spending problem. So what do we cut?

Typically, when I ask this I just get answers like “cut off the welfare mothers”, “deadbeats”, and “Sacramento fat cats.” Not really useful.

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf

Seems like the only way to make substantial cuts is to go after the big ticket items: schools (already in trouble) or grandma’s MediCal. Oh well, at least her property takes won’t go up.

[Anonymous]

[quote=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.
[/quote]

Like I said, even hint at re-evaluating the logic behind Prop 13, and they pounce. And they are always so angry…

Got a source for that statistic?

Here’s lots of data on the State budget:

http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/lao_menu_economics.aspx

Total state budget for 2000/01:
$88 billion

Total for 2007/08:
$102 billion

Not exactly “double”.

Property taxes go to the counties anyway…

But I’m willing to concede the benefit of the doubt: The state has a spending problem. So what do we cut?

Typically, when I ask this I just get answers like “cut off the welfare mothers”, “deadbeats”, and “Sacramento fat cats.” Not really useful.

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf

Seems like the only way to make substantial cuts is to go after the big ticket items: schools (already in trouble) or grandma’s MediCal. Oh well, at least her property takes won’t go up.

[Anonymous]

[quote=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.
[/quote]

Like I said, even hint at re-evaluating the logic behind Prop 13, and they pounce. And they are always so angry…

Got a source for that statistic?

Here’s lots of data on the State budget:

http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/lao_menu_economics.aspx

Total state budget for 2000/01:
$88 billion

Total for 2007/08:
$102 billion

Not exactly “double”.

Property taxes go to the counties anyway…

But I’m willing to concede the benefit of the doubt: The state has a spending problem. So what do we cut?

Typically, when I ask this I just get answers like “cut off the welfare mothers”, “deadbeats”, and “Sacramento fat cats.” Not really useful.

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf

Seems like the only way to make substantial cuts is to go after the big ticket items: schools (already in trouble) or grandma’s MediCal. Oh well, at least her property takes won’t go up.

[Anonymous]

[quote=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.
[/quote]

Like I said, even hint at re-evaluating the logic behind Prop 13, and they pounce. And they are always so angry…

Got a source for that statistic?

Here’s lots of data on the State budget:

http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/lao_menu_economics.aspx

Total state budget for 2000/01:
$88 billion

Total for 2007/08:
$102 billion

Not exactly “double”.

Property taxes go to the counties anyway…

But I’m willing to concede the benefit of the doubt: The state has a spending problem. So what do we cut?

Typically, when I ask this I just get answers like “cut off the welfare mothers”, “deadbeats”, and “Sacramento fat cats.” Not really useful.

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf

Seems like the only way to make substantial cuts is to go after the big ticket items: schools (already in trouble) or grandma’s MediCal. Oh well, at least her property takes won’t go up.

[Author]

Posts