Keeping this short, a buddy of mine (RTL) recently emailed his voter’s guide for the upcoming California Statewide Special Election. And in a somewhat rare event, we agree on almost every measure to vote "NO ", with the exception of 1F where I’m not sure RTL explains himself well enough. I’ve added my comments to 1F in brackets [] below RTL’s explanation. So, without further ado, we give you the elocutionist’s 2009 Voter’s Guide. (Should that be voters’ guide? Kidding.)
…begin quoted text…
I was going to wait until we got closer to the Special Election, but many of the localities are using mail in ballots so I had to send this early.
You’ve received RTL’s Special Election Voter Guide!
I’ve read every bill the state is proposing so you don’t have to. It is absolute legalese garbage, which is what happens when you send a bunch of lawyers to Sacramento.
The key to 1A is knowing that car registration doubled and sales taxes increased this year, and these taxes will stay in effect for 2 more years. Don’t even think for a second that a spending limit is worth paying higher taxes for 2 years. Californian’s passed spending limits in 1979 and 1990 to no avail.
RTL says NO on 1A
1B is $9.3 Billion funding for Kindergarten through junior college, from the increased taxes that were just passed. Currently, we spend almost $72 billion on k-12. In 2006 it was around $8400 per student, which for a class of 30 is $250,000 per classroom. Assuming the teacher is lucky and makes $50,000 of that, where is the other $200K going? They don’t need more money they need to get rid of the middlemen whetting their beak off the taxpayers.
RTL says NO on 1B
1C "Modernizes" the lottery so that it can make $5 billion dollars more. The lottery is a joke, it was created in 1984 to help pay for education. I saw one book in my 13 years that said, "paid for by California lottery." It is really just a tax on the stupid. I think someone wants a sweetheart deal from the director of the lottery. The bill is filled with all sorts of talk of removing requirements for bids from suppliers and contractors,
"This bill would delete the requirement that the director award
contracts to the responsible supplier submitting the lowest proposal." awesome!
RTL says NO on 1C
1D takes all the sin tax money you spend on fine cigars and cigarettes that were going to teach kids not to smoke and county health programs and allows the state to redistribute the funds to programs that they can’t afford to pay for.
"(d) The California Children and Families Trust Fund shall be used
to provide direct health care services, human services, including
services for at-risk families who are involved with the child welfare
system administered by the county welfare department, and direct
early education services, including preschool and child care."
Can you guess where this is going?
RTL says NO on 1D
1E diverts money from a mental health prop that passed in 2004 [prop 63 ]. (Why we keep passing these propositions that cost us more money I’ll never know.) It was passed to pay for those people, not to jack their funds to cover the general fund.
RTL says NO on 1E
1F says that legislators cannot receive raises when there is a deficit. There has been a deficit for years, so there has to be something to it. Plus all of them voted for this initiative to be on the ballot. I don’t trust it. Plus it says if there is a negative balance in the Special Fund For Economic Uncertainties , what the hell is that? How about if there is a deficit in the General Fund?
[Editor’s Note : 1F says no state officer’s annual salary shall increase if the Director of Finance certifies, based on estimates, that the "rainy day fund" will have a negative balance greater than or equal to roughly one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000). Medical, dental, insurance, and other similar benefits would still be eligible for an increase. A YES vote on 1F is a way to voice your frustration, which the legislators know and why they all voted to have the initiative on the ballot — it would have been bad press to vote against it, making the naysayer look greedy and unsympathetic to the situation.]
"This measure would prohibit the commission from adopting in a
fiscal year a resolution that would increase the salary of Members of
the Legislature or other state officers if the Director of Finance
determines that there will be a negative balance in the Special Fund
for Economic Uncertainties at the end of that fiscal year."
RTL says NO on 1F
Hope that helps, leave me a comment if you have any questions.
Have a great day!
References
California Special Election Policy Report
Per pupil spending
Total California School Spending
—
Sent from my crappy computer on my desk
…end quoted text…
###
California Special Election, May 19, 2009 — Voter’s Guide From RTL was first posted to justinll.com on April 24, 2009.