I just want a reasonable explanation. I mean, I understand how...I just want to know why. I think folks like Jon Fleischman and others who advocated against Proposition 1F did a great job rallying support behind their cause, but I still want to understand why. 

Was it because they are ideologically opposed to the idea of punishing politicians during a budget deficit? 

Was it because they are fundamentally against five out of the six ballot measurements, so it's just easier to say NO to all of them? 

Or was it really because it was put on the ballot by Senator Maldonado? 

Let me digress. Let's first look at the language in Prop 1F:

- Prevents elected Members of the Legislature or statewide constitutional office, including the Governor, from receiving pay raises in years when the state is running a deficit.

- Directs the Director of Finance to determine whether a given year is a deficit year.

- Prevents the Citizens Compensation Commission from increasing elected officials' salaries in years when the State Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties is in the negative by an amount equal or greater than one percent of the General Fund.

So what exactly is so controversial about this language? Try putting yourselves in the shoes of an everyday voter. The language sounds pretty simple: "when the state is in economic trouble...no pay raises for politicians!"  I'm having major trouble figuring out how that can be construed as unacceptable to the Republican Party I belong to. 

I sympathyze with the fact that this is a reward for Senator Maldonado for voting for a tax increase but guess what?? The voters don't know anything about that, and even if they did...they don't care!!! A common sense law is a common sense law...no matter who writes it. 

With all the campaigning that was done in this county against all the Propositions, it is no surprise that Prop 1F received less support in Orange County than in other parts of the state...but how much less? Not much. Proposition 1F passed with flying colors in Orange County, with over 63% of the vote (I was one of them).  The last initiative to receive such a strong level of support from Orange County was Proposition 75, aka Paycheck Protection Act, in the 2005 Special Election.

So can someone please explain why the OCGOP decided not to support Proposition 1F? The overwhelming majority of Orange County voters obviously like the idea. Are we stubborn and hard-headed enough to allow the fact that we disagree with the Republican who put the initiative on the ballot be the force that stops us from supporting legislation that the public recognizes to be in their best interest? 

At one point we'll have to realize that in California, the Democrats control the microphone. When they go out there and point to the GOP's opposition of Prop 1F as further proof that our party is corrupt and that we don't care about the "little people", how are we supposed to respond?

It's about time we stop shooting ourselves on the foot and start taking advantage of situations in which we can prove to the public that we are the party of common sense. This latest debacle with the opposition to an initiative that we knew the voters were going to approve is not an example of sending a good message.  There is no fundamental ideal in the Republican Party that says that politicians should get pay increases even when the government can't afford it.  Just listen to it...how silly does that sound??

I have several non-political friends who are registered Republicans who are very confused about our party's position on 1F.  I'm having trouble myself and I'm an open minded individual. If someone can present me with an argument that makes sense I'm more than willing to change my mind. Until then, I'll just keep my head down and wonder why in God's name we continue to make things harder for ourselves...over and over again.