How I'm Voting on Feb. 5
Posted by: Jubal | 01/30/2008 12:35 PM
In case any readers are wondering, this is how I am voting in the February 5 primary (assuming I can excavate my absentee ballot from my desk):
Proposition 91: NO
Proposition 92: NO
Community colleges are a great institution, but we don't more ballot box budgeting. I'd like to repeal Prop. 98, which locks in 40% of the general fund for public schools -- not enact a Prop. 98 for community colleges.
Proposition. 93: NO
I've come to the conclusion that term limits need reform, but this ain't it. It's too self-serving by half.
Propositions 94-97: NO
I know Tom McClintock and the California Republican Party assure me these will generates millions and millions in additional revenues, but pouring even more filthy lucre down the wasteful maw of state government isn't a way to gain my vote. This isn't the free market at work. These propositions are special deals to make four fabulously wealthy casino tribes even more fabulously wealthy.
President: Believe it or not, I'm still undecided. I had finally settled on Fred Thompson, and then he dropped out.
If I lived in Santa Ana...I'd be voting No on Measure D, a sham term limits initiative which ought to embarrass the council members who voted to put it on the ballot. Santa Ana already has council term limits. What they need to do is apply it to the mayor, not give Claudia Alvarez four more years on the City Council.
Proposition 91: NO
Proposition 92: NO
Community colleges are a great institution, but we don't more ballot box budgeting. I'd like to repeal Prop. 98, which locks in 40% of the general fund for public schools -- not enact a Prop. 98 for community colleges.
Proposition. 93: NO
I've come to the conclusion that term limits need reform, but this ain't it. It's too self-serving by half.
Propositions 94-97: NO
I know Tom McClintock and the California Republican Party assure me these will generates millions and millions in additional revenues, but pouring even more filthy lucre down the wasteful maw of state government isn't a way to gain my vote. This isn't the free market at work. These propositions are special deals to make four fabulously wealthy casino tribes even more fabulously wealthy.
President: Believe it or not, I'm still undecided. I had finally settled on Fred Thompson, and then he dropped out.
If I lived in Santa Ana...I'd be voting No on Measure D, a sham term limits initiative which ought to embarrass the council members who voted to put it on the ballot. Santa Ana already has council term limits. What they need to do is apply it to the mayor, not give Claudia Alvarez four more years on the City Council.
Mr. Ayer registered as a Republican to be electable in an interim election with no incumbents. He did...
Goon on , Jubal!
A brilliant application of "Carl's Law." -- Vote against any ballot initiative that you can think of really good reason to vote for.
From my libertarian friend Carl: "Every ballot initiative is the result somebody wanting to use government to make things more to their liking, but couldn't convince the Legislature. Unless you can determine explicitly why a measure is a good idea, VOTE NO."
And, indeed you have.
Carl is a genius. I habitually vote no on everything. And this time is no different. McClintock and Ackerman should be ashamed of themselves for the casino garbage. They should be working to reduce government not raise funds for it.
Like Carl, I voted for Ron Paul.
Geez Jubal were you peeking at my ballot?
You and I actually had the same notions. On Prop 92 and 93, that is a no brainer. On the gaming propositions, as much as I respect Tom McClintock and his conservative views (I voted for him the first time around for governor instead of the democrat we ended up with), I think he is wrong on this one. Now I am not necessarily a huge supporter of legalizing gambling in this state, but I do believe that in principal, if we are really talking about raising revenues, then legalizing gambling would be much more lucrative than these propositions. But I agree with you, what is the point of handing additional revenue to a democratically controlled legislature, and a democratic governor (which Arnold is) just to put down the sink hole?
And Fred Thompson was my guy. I have always liked him. down to earth, low key, and tells it like he sees it. Unfortunately those character traits failed to "excite" the electorate. There are too many empty suit politicians out there these days that just don't have any convictions. Thompson is different, and stood a chance. I am now leaning toward Ron Paul.
As far as Santa Ana is concerned. It is the arm pit of the county, and until the voters of that city get their heads out of the sand, and start realizing what the Pulido machine is doing to them, they will reap what they sow. As much as everyone hates Art Pedroza, he is right in his issues with his city.
Okay Jubal (Matt):
This is just strange. What crazy alignment of planets has us agreeing on all of the ballot measures?
Mr. Prevatt--When something seems strange, it usually is. Maybe a second look at those props is in order.
Jubal-- I am with you on 91 and 93. While I have never been a big fan of term limits(thats what elections are for), its hard to feel sorry for Perata and Nunez. The Living Large Boys have turned out to be the poster children for the opposition and I'd be very surprised if it suceeds. Perhaps not as much of a concern to you but for some, the Living Large Boys financing the political hatchet jobs on Umberg would make a 93 defeat even more satisfying.
On 92, it doesn't ad a 98 for community colleges(which are currently included as the poor stepchild in 98) but corrects deficiencies in 98 for a system that helps train the California workforce. And it ensures local control of community colleges, something Sacramento bureaucrats are habitually trying to erode.
I agree with the Governor that the gaming measure deserve passage. It's not a question of feeding the beast--no way is there going to be $14 billion in cuts. The question is do you want to cover much of this with fees or some fees and some gambling revenue. As for me, I would prefer voluntary gambling revenue and a reduced amount of fee increases combined with budget cuts over a higher amount of involuntary fees and budget cuts. I know the Romney Wing of the Republican Party isn't adverse to raising fees given his rather robust record of fee increases in Feeachusetts. But I suspect most would rather have Pachanga Payola cover as much of the deficit as possible.
I voted NO on everything, too. Glad to see others voted for Ron Paul as well. I'm sick of the "lesser of 2 evils" bit.
Wow - seems nearly unanimous. I'm voting NO on everything too. AAARRRNNNOLD has had far too long to fix it like he said he would, by thinking outside the box. Now he's in the box, signed sealed and delivered as a tool of the democrats. Maybe too many nights of sleeping on the couch.
We don't need to fix our economy with Indian gambling rights. If we are going to do that then just legalize gambling in CA for anyone. But then our state would turn into Las Vegas II. And along with that we know corruption comes.
So follow Nancy Reagan's advice to these money addicts in Sacramento and "Just say NO". And the ill-conceived term-"limits"- ha ha. No on that one too.
And, I'm voting for Romney. He's the last standing conservative. I'd like him more if he had McCain's views on terrorism, however I'll take him over McCain any day. And, we really can't think of a Hillary/Obama ticket.....or an Obama/Hillary ticket which is what it's looking like to me.